19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
BJJ discussion on context

Not watched all of this yet, but is seems very interesting. It echoes many of the discussions we have around context determining optimum methods, and how the solutions to one kind of violence can’t be automatically transposed to another.

All the best,

Iain

FACT: Over 80% of jiu-jitsu techniques are useless when strikes are added to the fight. In this detailed slice from the Gracie Academy Street Defense Mastery Seminar, Rener demonstrates some critical components of the Punch Block Series to illustrate the huge differences between "street fight distances" and "sport grappling distances."

genkaimade
genkaimade's picture

I think most (on both sides of the equation) would be surprised by how much there is common between BJJ and (our kind of) karate's approach. In both cases it boils down to 1) control distance (assuming you can) 2) secure best possible position relative to the "opponent", so that 3) you can finish in the most effective way possible.

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

One "problem" or "issue" I have with this is that he is still assuming the self-defense fight is on the ground. As we realize, you don't ever want to go to the ground for a variety of reasons in a self-defense situation. Indeed, we may end up there for different reasons, but we are fighting our way back up on our feet. I agree, that he does a great job of differentiating the sports grappling context from self-defense context, but even then, the assumption that we are fighting from our backs on the ground in a street confrontation is problematic. That is not to say we don't need techniques for fighting on our backs if, God forbid, we find ourselves there, but we should not assume the street fight will naturally start or be on the ground, on our backs. 

Best,

David 

mike23
mike23's picture

I think if there were multiple opponents, they would advocate something completely different than what they are showing. My guess without searching their available videos would be something like other systems, that is, kick, squirm, make space and get up as quick as possible. I get a sense from this video that the encounter is/was one against one as in mutual combat or one against one where you were attacked and the person was still pressing to fight you while you were downed.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie many years ago.  He talked about the environment that GJJ/BJJ sprung from, he said that in Brazil the fights would be a one on one contest and people would gather around and watch and make sure that no one else got involved. IMO, it sounded that these were NOT self-defense situations but consenting to fights.  Rickson went on to say that if he got into a fight in America that he would use his striking and get away as fast as possible due to other people getting involved etc. if it went to the ground (he also mentioned obtaining a gun).

I have seen the Gracies "self-defense" system and the techniques look like they could have been taken right out of any number of karate systems.  I have a good friend who studies BJJ under another lineage (not deriving from the Gracie family in anyway, but the name escapes me) and they also used to have a self-defense portion that was more emphasized and he also said that it was very similiar to what is taught in many karate schools.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

dhogsette wrote:
One "problem" or "issue" I have with this is that he is still assuming the self-defense fight is on the ground. As we realize, you don't ever want to go to the ground for a variety of reasons in a self-defense situation. Indeed, we may end up there for different reasons, but we are fighting our way back up on our feet. I agree, that he does a great job of differentiating the sports grappling context from self-defense context, but even then, the assumption that we are fighting from our backs on the ground in a street confrontation is problematic. That is not to say we don't need techniques for fighting on our backs if, God forbid, we find ourselves there, but we should not assume the street fight will naturally start or be on the ground, on our backs.

mike23 wrote:
I think if there were multiple opponents, they would advocate something completely different than what they are showing. My guess without searching their available videos would be something like other systems, that is, kick, squirm, make space and get up as quick as possible. I get a sense from this video that the encounter is/was one against one as in mutual combat or one against one where you were attacked and the person was still pressing to fight you while you were downed.

I’d agree with the concern that the floor should never be a choice or a preference. I’d also say we should get up no matter what, even if third parties are not immediately involved, because they can become involved very quickly with devastating results.

This clip graphically shows that. There was also a case in my locality where a total stranger got involved and kicked and killed a person on the floor.

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

To be fair, it is difficult to convey everything in a video and when I was at the Chuck Norris event where Renner Gracie was also teaching, Renner Gracie said that ground-fighting skills could be thought of by those present (mainly "strikers") as an “insurance policy” i.e. you hope you never need it, but it’s great to have when you do. That’s pretty much how I see it. Great to learn for one-on-one fights, a huge amount of fun, beneficially physically and mentally. However, for self-protection it’s not a first choice and would be the backstop if absolutely all else had failed. All it takes is to do live drills with multiple attackers and the inescapable conclusion that the floor is a bad place to be is reached in moments.

Kevin73 wrote:
I remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie many years ago.  He talked about the environment that GJJ/BJJ sprung from, he said that in Brazil the fights would be a one on one contest and people would gather around and watch and make sure that no one else got involved) …

Wim Demeere did a good piece on the “people don’t join in in Brazil” myth, based around the footage above which clearly shows they do:

http://www.wimsblog.com/2015/03/ground-fighting-against-a-knife-attack/

“Let’s kill the Brazilian myth. There’s a myth that has been kept alive ever since Gracie Ju Jitsu became popular. Whenever you mention the dangers of ground fighting in a self-defense context, somebody brings up that in Brazil, people will not intervene when two people fight on the ground. Yeah… We just saw how that worked out…

“Some people will read this article and think I’m bashing BJJ or other grappling systems; I’m not. These are excellent styles in certain environments and contexts. But in others, they are not such a great idea. Knowing when and where to use them is critical. As you can see in the video, you might not get a second chance when you mess up.

“In a sporting contest, secondary opponents and knives are not an issue. You can fight on the ground for rounds on end and do your thing there, that’s perfectly fine. On the street, you should assume that a second attacker and weapons can always come in at any time, especially when you least expect it. Going to the ground leaves you vulnerable to both these issues.

“Does that mean that every time a fight goes to the ground in the street, there will be a knife or another attacker? No, not at all. But it is a realistic possibility, one you ignore at your own peril. In contrast, in the ring or the cage, you will never encounter them so you don’t need to take them into account in your training. You can flat out pretend they don’t exist and become a UFC champion. However, if you train for self-defense, these factors are two of the most important ones to take into consideration: they influence your training on all possible levels.”

I think Wimm hits the nail on the head. And in the original video I think Renner Gracie is making a similar point: Change the context and what works also changes. To me, I think this failure to differentiate between contexts is the biggest problem in current martial arts training. Once we can do that, we become as effective as possible in any given context and can benefit, not just from the security martial arts can provide, but from the fun, enjoyment and challenge they can also give us.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

Iain,

Thanks for that.  I had not seen the article by Wimm.  I based those considerations on what Rickson had said.  It might have been true for his experience because like I pointed out, most of their "fights" were challenge style matches where both were consenting to it.  Change that context to an assault and it probably does change the "not getting involved" aspect.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kevin73 wrote:
It might have been true for his experience because like I pointed out, most of their "fights" were challenge style matches where both were consenting to it.  Change that context to an assault and it probably does change the "not getting involved" aspect.

That’s a good point. When people consent to the fight, then others are far less likely to get involved. However, there is a huge gulf between consensual fights and non-consensual criminal violence. For the criminal the use of weapons, surprise and accomplices are sensible and effective choices.

All the best,

Iain

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Great thread.  I enjoyed the video.  It's funny how even a small change to the rules can have a major impact on the way people fight.  I learned this lesson the hard way once when an opponent "broke the rules" during a friendly grappling session.  In most grappling competitions, small joint manipulation is illegal (or at least disfavored).  I think this is mainly because it's easy to injure someone with a finger lock, and there's not a whole lot of time to tap before the damage is done.  At least, that's my understanding.

Anyway, my opponent was having a hard time getting out of side control.  His temper flared up and he immediately clamped down on my hand hard with a nasty finger lock.  And of course, getting caught by surprise with a fingerlock is about as much fun as slamming your hand in a car door.  But in this case, not only did it hurt like hell, it also caught me completely off-guard.  Because it was an "illegal" technique, it never crossed my mind to expect it in that situation.    

I was pretty angry and embarassed about it at the time, if only because my opponent knew it was illegal and did it anyway.  But looking back, I think it was a good lesson.  If you spend too much time in one context, you can forget that not everyone plays by the same "rules."  You're vulnerable and you don't even know it.    

Not to say that finger-locks are something you should be worrying about in a self-protection scenario; I just wanted to make the point that even a small change in context can have a huge impact on what works and what doesn't work.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

deltabluesman wrote:
Not to say that finger-locks are something you should be worrying about in a self-protection scenario; I just wanted to make the point that even a small change in context can have a huge impact on what works and what doesn't work.

Definitely! When we start with the specific problem and hence understand the nature of the violence and our objective within in it, we can determine what the most effective course of action is. Sadly, martial arts types have a bad habit of taking their pre-existing “solution” and trying to redefine violence to fit.

deltabluesman wrote:
But looking back, I think it was a good lesson.  If you spend too much time in one context, you can forget that not everyone plays by the same "rules."  You're vulnerable and you don't even know it.

Great point! This is part of the problem when discussing this stuff. People “know” their methods work, because they work all the time in the single context which they only ever train for. If you then tell those people their methods are not ideal in an alternate context, they will deny that because their stuff “works all the time”. If they actually tried working in an alternate context, then it becomes clear very fast just how pivotal context is.

“Does this work?” is a meaningless question without the qualifier of “works for what?”

All the best,

Iain

Mulberry4000
Mulberry4000's picture

Groan, some good idea but the guy is  still on the ground, pull the guy towards his neck, Any one with sense would not go to the ground and  fight with them, just back offand kick and if managed to get pulled in to the person on the floor's neck line. The attack just bites his throat, or ear, fight over. finger in ear etc Or have a knife. Or his mate/wife/girlfriend stick it into him while he is on the floor.  I got into a fight once,  Threw guy with O Goshi ( mayor hip) while marveling at my handiwork his mate kicked me in the head. I have fought bjj guys  in judo class and they are good, veryn flashy and are pumped up, but terrible on the standing up game

nielmag
nielmag's picture

Here is a video I came across.  The article lauds "blue" for knowing BJJ, and somewhat dismisses the 3rd party.  But "blue" should be thankful 3rd party doesnt have a gun,knife,club, etc.

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/vault/street/cyclist-uses-jiu-jitsu-skills-2-1-street-fight-nyc/

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I agree. The statement accompanying the video is revelling:

“It’s hard to say who was initially at fault here, but Blue’s knowledge of jiu-jitsu enabled him take control of the ensuing fight, despite it being a two vs. one situation.”

Blue never looked in control of THE SITUATION at all. He was certainly in control of the first person, but has no control whatsoever over the second person. That’s the limitation of ground fighting. He was saved by the ineffective strikes of a much smaller female. A stronger, more-able or armed third-party would have seen this end very differently. As we see here:

You NEVER deliberately take it to the ground because – as both clips show – you are entirely at the mercy of third-parties. You should also never maintain a ground fight when you can get up and get out of there. Blue treated a self-protection situation treated as a fight, and he got lucky.

Keep your feet, keep distance, never focus solely on just one person, and use strikes to facilitate running away. This guy does it well:

All the best,

Iain

nielmag
nielmag's picture

Amazing how cyclical things are.  This video that talks about how BJJ has become focused on sport, not unlike Karate, and has gotten away from its original roots in "self defense."  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keRaWLVOuPQ

Mulberry4000
Mulberry4000's picture
Mulberry4000
Mulberry4000's picture

ian i have seen women in manchester take their  high heels of  in this kind of situation and use them to attack the guy on the floor while her boy friend is on top of the guy. If that was another man he would of been finished 

Mulberry4000
Mulberry4000's picture

https://kuroobi.vhx.tv/karate-vs-kuro-obi-dream-10-13/videos/media-dream

This is with bjj and other arts 

 

Royce Graciie Bjj competitions not help in self defence intresting what he says about karate and other self defence systems. He is against competitons because it cannot be used on the street.

 Rene Gracie he says it works on the street and praises karate

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

In the second interview the host (Steven Crowder) makes the well-worn argument that “nothing” works against multiple opponents. This is a common statement these days and it completely misrepresents self-defence objectives. It needs to stop.

Around 40% of all violent crime here in the UK involves more than one assailant (it’s also that 40% that results in the most severe injuries). So, assuming no one is saying, “nothing works, so just lie down and die”, we can’t ignore such a huge part of self-defence. “Nothing” is therefore not an acceptable answer! We need a “go-to something”.

It’s totally true that any fighting solution is highly unlikely to work ... so let’s not fight them.  We should escape. That’s the best tactic for us to employ, and there are skills associated with that. It’s not enough to say, “run way” and then think you’ve covered it all. That would be like telling someone “to fight” and then thinking their martial arts training was now at an end.

To escape, we need to be on our feet so we can run. We also need to be on our feet so we can use strikes to create space and chaos as we move. Deliberately taking someone to the floor is therefore a very bad idea. It immediately takes away our ability to escape and leaves us in a very vulnerable position when it comes to third parties.

It’s not guaranteed we will be able to escape, but trying to escape is definitely the best option. Doing "nothing" because "nothing works" is your worst option! No one should encourage that directly or indirectly.

Treating all situations as one-on-one fights is your second worst option. There are tactical and legal issues around that; which no one should be encouraging either. What if you were wrong and there are accomplices around (criminals are sneaky like that)? What is someone fancies a “free shot”? There was a person in my part of the world killed by the kick of a third party when he was on the floor. The person who threw the kick was not connected to either man. It happens. As regards legalities, you don’t want to be in the dock saying, “I was going to run your honour, and I could have escaped, but when I realised there was just one guy I took him down choked him out … I didn’t know he had a medical condition and it’s sad he died, and it’s clear that his death was totally unnecessary because I could have escaped, but I hope the court will accept I would have ran if his mate had of been there.”

Choosing anything other than escape, or doing anything that makes escape harder, is guaranteed to take us further way from achieving safety i.e. it’s guaranteed to make it worse. Train to escape so you are as good at it as you can be. Don't train to stay there, or train with the dictate of "nothing works".

Anything that would make it harder to escape should be avoided. Anything that makes you more vulnerable to third parties should be avoided. If the worst happens then we need the skills to deal with that (so “get up” ground skills are needed) … but it’s a VERY bad idea to seek the floor. It’s an even WORSE idea to totally ignore escape skills because of the view that there is no good way to out-fight multiple enemies. To be clear, it is 100% true that there is no good way to out-fight multiple enemies, but that is misrepresenting the problem. We are not seeking to outfight them, we are seeking not to get harmed by them … so we don’t fight them, we try to escape them.

There is a glaring hole in the “nothing works” argument and it is frequently used to justify tactics that will make a bad situation worse i.e. “Nothing works against multiples, so we can all ignore that and treat everything as a one-on-one fight". Being on your feet facing multiples is bad. Very bad. Being on the floor facing multiples is much worse (especially if you deliberately put yourself there). Facing multiples when you have practised escaping, are conditioned to seek escape, and have a strong mindset is bad. Facing multiples when you have not practised escaping, have a training induced propensity to act like it is a one-on-one fight (i.e. both ignore multiples and the potential of multiples), and you have also been inadvertently encouraged to give up all hope (“nothing works”) when facing multiples is much worse.

The position of "nothing works" is ignoring the escape skills most likely to ensure safety. It's also a defeatist mindset. Done unintentionally, it is negligent. Done deliberately, it is immoral. Escape is the best option, and that’s not "nothing". People can get badly hurt if we give bad advice or ignore vital skills. Escape can and has worked for people I have taught. Some of them would not be here today if we’d ignored those skills. They could not have fought to a good conclusion, but they escaped to a good conclusion.

Don’t tell people, “Sorry, nothing works. Just take what’s coming and hope they have mercy”. Tell them to get the hell out of there, don’t encourage anything that makes it harder to escape, give them the skills needed to facilitate that escape, practise those skills, and encourage the mindset of seeking to forcefully prevail no matter what the odds.

We practise escaping almost every session. We practise escaping from groups and individuals. We practise protecting others while we escape too. This is the stuff that has the best chance of success. It’s not “fighting”, but it is self-defence. Too many people mix them up and treat them as one and the same.

Martial artists need to quit with the idea that “self-defence” = “street fight”. It’s linguistic camouflage used to present a fighting skill set as self-defence. Start with the problem and work from there. Don’t start with a “solution” and try to redefine the problem to retroactively fit.

The problem of multiple enemies demands escape. That’s what should be practised and taught. Not trying to outfight them, and not saying “nothing” works because the self-imposed restriction of a fighting solution proves to be ineffective.

As mentioned before, it is not enough to say, “run away” either. There is a whole skillset associated with escape (de-escalation, deception, pre-emption, tactical movement, distance creation, etc) it’s wrong to ignore all that because it is not fighting or martial arts.

This is why I stand by my view that martial arts instructors are often the worst self-defence instructors: “If all you have is a hammer; every problem looks like a nail”. Just because our “fighting hammer” is not a good solution to multiple enemies, does not mean we are left with “nothing”. The argument is akin to saying that just because you can’t paint a wall with a hammer, then nothing can paint a wall. Put the hammer down and pick up the paint brush. Put the fighting stuff to one side and pick up genuine escape skills and tactics.

Those purporting to teach self-defence need to quit with the “nothing works against multiples” argument. It’s effectively telling people they have no hope in 40% of all violent crime and there’s no way to improve their chances. They should also not simply say “run away”, think their work is done, and then get straight back to the fighting either. The best “something” is escape, and escape has skills associated with it. We need to encourage the practise of those skills and ensure that students are capable of enacting those skills robustly and with a strong mindset.

The statement “nothing works against multiple attackers” can be seen as being technically right from a fighting perspective (no good way to out-fight multiples), but it is dangerously wrong from a self-defence perspective (escaping can work and should be practised). We need to stop mixing up fighting and self-defence up. Dropping the term "street fight" would be a good start.

More on misrepresenting what self-defence requires: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast

More on multiple enemies: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/multiple-enemies-podcast

More on de-escalation / deception: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/verbal-de-escalation-podcast

All the best,

Iain

Mulberry4000
Mulberry4000's picture

hi i totally agree, with what you have said. Awareness is a the key, and how to see things  as a possible threat, I am always amazed and horriified when i see young women out  on their own on a dark night going down unlite streets, with head phones on and non plus about the situation and danger they can be in. I would rather run if i can, that is important if can run, this to me means escape. However i am 51  so i am not a good runner as i used to be, though i presume under a life threating situation my running legs can be found. I have been to MA clubs and they have said do this do that, it is very complicated, or just stand there and  punch them, instead of running away. I find that silly, and dangerous, over complicated moves, and just staying there is not a good idea, if one can run ie escape then do so but if one cannot, then one must do the next best thing,  which is  move out of harms way by removing yourself from the sitaution, ie backing up or going forward or moving at angle, using street furniture  to hinder the attacker. My favourate  is screaming  HELP. I have done this to great effect and it stopped me getting stabbed. Young men like to fight, like to ( well not all) like to stand up and be the man but you can also be a dead man or in prision for 20 years. I remember last year i was schocked at so many homeless people in manchester  and i stared at them too long, and i got aggressive stares back off them,  which in understandable,   i spoke to my kids and they gave them some money, and immidately they were very considerat and thankful and must of realised what i was thinking. I was in a park once taking photos of photographs and again some homless thought i was taking pictures of them. I was not and i explained to them in a respectful way i was taking picutres of flowers and i just walked on doing it. Again they calmed down and realised what i was doing. I spoke to them as  human beings with respect and dignity. Please not these two examples worked with the tactics i used but it could of gone the opposite way as  some people might  see this and fear and attack no matter what. 

Here is a video of Joe Rogan saying untrain fighters are usless, please ignore the title as it is wrong but he does love bjj. also the gracie fights selections have gone off this site  which are very important because when they were flimed the gracies got themselves in some bad postions in the fight as per view the video   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNAMMikiz7w   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPaSaRKaqhg

Iain one of the gracies said it was best to run for your life and bjj or any other MA is no good against Mulitple attackers, i think he is right best to get out of the way, if not fight out an entry point, then run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9-K6bkETQ&t=6s .  Here a person knocks out two guys and hits another, so it condridicts what gracie is saying but in general it is best to  run. Funny though he keeps repeating  the wins from 24 years ago in ufc. Bjj fighters are not winning now etc