advantage over grapplers

[hEmPY]

lol *

[Uke]

So I don't know about grappling because you say so? And the facts that have been plainly laid out by me are inaccurate because of what? Where are your facts???? YOU HAVE NO FACTS! ONLY OPINIONS! Only BJJ/MMA sheep think that anyone who criticizes BJJ/MMA hasn't practiced it. More than that, there are plenty of other current BJJ practitioners at this site who wholeheartedly agree with what I've been saying. Don't blame me because you lack the ability to read those posts. They're still here. What are you waiting for?

You're not even worth typing a new reply. The old one above ^ sums you up perfectly.

[SamuraiGuy]

Uke!

You quoted me out of context.... don't do that.

When I wrote that it was in a completely different thread and a different situation.

Dont quote me out of context, the way you quoted me makes it seem like I, or the person I described, would recommend closing the distance, and choking someone out with a knife. Don't you misquote me. Oh, and who said I'm a grappler? I would think Tanto01's use of Gracie examples would be far more effective than some person on a internet forum.

If I said I was a Karateka and that I advocate spinning around in circles as self defense, does that make all Karateka think that way. No it doesnt, I am not representative of "grapplers", and there mentality, and I dont appreciate being quoted out of context!

[Shard]

To all the idiots who think ground fighting on the street isn't as good as an old fashioned knock out, time to wake up and smell the whatever you smell when you wake up.
Groudn fighting isn't just about escaping a mount or guard.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AtMonVbdY...%20arm%20break

[kanik]

wow seems like i brought a very contraversial thread into the world.... anywho some things have been real helpful guys... and others just kinna bitchy and aNNOYING. anyway how would you go about not letting a grappler grab you? do you think you should use kicks, or maybe more fast punches in groups? or what? thoughts would be appreciated, thanx.



Kanik

[EmptyneSs]

wow seems like i brought a very contraversial thread into the world.... anywho some things have been real helpful guys... and others just kinna bitchy and aNNOYING. anyway how would you go about not letting a grappler grab you? do you think you should use kicks, or maybe more fast punches in groups? or what? thoughts would be appreciated, thanx.



Kanik

training in grappling is your best option

[SnakePlissken]

anyway how would you go about not letting a grappler grab you? do you think you should use kicks, or maybe more fast punches in groups? or what? thoughts would be appreciated, thanx.

Obviously you don't want to grapple with a grappler and ideally you don't want to go to the ground.

Keeping distance is a good idea, obviously they can't grapple you unless you are close enough, so creating distance should be your first move.

Then kicking is usually a good idea, aim low, hit the knees and the feet to weaken him, then bridge and go to trapping range to finish. Kali and Jun Fan have fantastic trapping techniques that will allow you to stop an opponent from attacking you.

Also, stand-up grappling such as standing Dumog and or Silat is good. But, in a perfect world, interception should be your aim.

Hit them first, hit them second, hit them some more, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit them till they drop or you hear sirens, know the exits and run.

[Tant01]

They ARE suitable sometimes. And "sometimes" is all you'll get out of any technique, because there is no patent, 100% solution to any fight. Mind you, I've always said that the ground is the last place you want to end up in a fight, but you do end up there from time to time. And the fact that these things worked in the situations in which I used them means they were totally appropriate! They worked, and they worked exactly as intended. You're not honestly going to join the "You didn't win that fight correctly" club are you? Another thing to consider: I was indeed using these things on people who were mostly untrained, but that is the majority of people in the world, and the majority of situations you face are not life and death. You seem to have this picture of a streetfight being two kung fu masters who've each trained for decades facing off in the town square. That's not reality, Uke. You don't run into people "your own skill level" all that often, because people who train as much as I have generally prefer avoiding fights same as me. What you run into are thugs who get some liquid courage in them and decide that hitting is more appropriate than talking. You may like to believe otherwise, but those are the fights you're most likely to encounter. And that's not just coming from a bouncer - but a guy who's been on both sides of that line since he was a kid.

Now, that doesn't mean that every fight you ever face will be that way. As I said, I've been in five knife encounters and several firearm encounters, too. Know what? I didn't grapple in them. Know why? Because the tools I used were more appropriate to the situation. And therein lies the core of this debate. You're trying to paint a picture of grapplers as people who will close with a knife wielding assailant or cross a parking lot to clinch with a guy who's shooting at them. It's one range of many, and one tool in the toolbox. It's very, very useful when used appropriately, and worthless when used inappropriately. You are saying grappling serves no practical purpose. I am saying that while limited, it does. You're saying, "Why train grappling? It can't help you in a fight." I'm saying, "Yes it can. It has helped me in fights, and what's more, it has given me options I would not have had in situations that called for more restraint, and it's flat out saved my skin several times." Think of it like this. A carpenter has a hammer, a saw and a screwdriver. Each tool has a different use. When he needs a saw, a hammer simply will not suffice. Likewise with fighting. When you need to be able to grapple, striking will not suffice. Sometimes, you need to swallow your pride and admit that you need more than what you have - bite the bullet and go train so that you aren't completely lacking in one area.

In other words, while you're being quick to dismiss the whole concept, I am saying that a complete fighter uses what's useful - and there are times (whether you like it, admit it, or even acknowledge it) that grappling is very useful. There are times when killing an opponent is terribly inappropriate. In fact, I'd wager that statistically, that constitutes the vast majority of the time. There are times when controlling someone is more important than knocking them out; times when the worst case scenario just isn't what you're dealing with. So while you're willing to dismiss some 200 plus encounters I've faced in my life (only a minority of which ever called for grappling, by the way) because of the environment and your own assumptions, I will maintain that if you fail to learn and understand grappling, you are a totally incomplete fighter. Same as you would be if you neglected striking, edged weapons, impact weapons, improvised weapons, mass attack, or firearms. See, you seem to be saying that people need to train only for the life and death side of fighting, and you need to be training the most lethal stuff you can, all the time. But that's like a nation only using nuclear warfare to solve its problems. What's more, it's flat irresponsible and immoral to assume that any conflict you ever run into is going to require lethal force. If you assume you're going to have to cut a guy open, shoot him, or react in a similar way, then you are premeditating the murder of everyone who ever crosses you. And I think that's a little bit too extreme. After all, I have been in quite a few scrapes in this country and others. Some have been the very most lethal variety. Others (the majority) have been people with more balls than brains. And whether you like it or not, whether you'll ever see it for what it is or not - grappling has had a very real application in several of those encounters, and I'm not one to dispute results. I won, it worked, and that to me is far more important than whether or not you think it "ought to have worked."

Great post AGAIN Mr.B...

Just wanted to share a little story that I'm reminded of with you guys. A friend of mine used to train with some of the folks you know Mike. The JKD guys.
Hal was the first JKD instructor to actually start training in Gracie Jiu-jitsu. It was Hal that introduced Vunak to the clan after he had been using the techniques on his fellow JKD guys in the "closed door" and after hours sparring and scenario type stuff. You know, where you try anything and everything. Hal said that for the first 6 months or so he kept it secret while he worked it to his advantage.

Anyway, history is also interesting to me academically. Being from the Judo school myself it was interesting from a Kodokan perspective to see the "old" old school newaza being played this way.

And FUN! LOL

[Uke]

They ARE suitable sometimes. And "sometimes" is all you'll get out of any technique, because there is no patent, 100% solution to any fight. Mind you, I've always said that the ground is the last place you want to end up in a fight, but you do end up there from time to time. And the fact that these things worked in the situations in which I used them means they were totally appropriate! They worked, and they worked exactly as intended. You're not honestly going to join the "You didn't win that fight correctly" club are you? Another thing to consider: I was indeed using these things on people who were mostly untrained, but that is the majority of people in the world, and the majority of situations you face are not life and death. You seem to have this picture of a streetfight being two kung fu masters who've each trained for decades facing off in the town square. That's not reality, Uke. You don't run into people "your own skill level" all that often, because people who train as much as I have generally prefer avoiding fights same as me. What you run into are thugs who get some liquid courage in them and decide that hitting is more appropriate than talking. You may like to believe otherwise, but those are the fights you're most likely to encounter. And that's not just coming from a bouncer - but a guy who's been on both sides of that line since he was a kid.

Mike, I agree that learning to grapple will enhance your ability to grapple. No one disputes that. The point that was made stated that going to the ground as anything other than a last resort is a fool's move.

I don't know how everyone here was taught or trained, but I was brought up to believe that a man of the martial arts is a better thinker, and because of that he is subsequently a better fighter. A thinking man would not go to the ground to grapple, even if he was as good as Rickson Gracie. Why? Simply because it increases his chances of dying because it automatically limits his tools. You need EVERY advantage in a fight for survival. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Combat is like chess in that it involves strategy. If you can capture a pawn in chess with your queen that doesn't mean that you should just because you can, because that may leave your queen in position to be captured. That example was meant to illustrate that just because a move can work, and I am sure that every move has worked somewhere at sometime, doesn't mean that using that method is prudent. I am sure that an armbar will work and has worked on the street before. But an armbar does not stop the fight in a man. If you armbar a man who has an edged weapon, you'll break his arm while he stabs your organs. Let's see who lives to brag about using which technique after that bout. I am sure that you can triangle choke a guy on the street. But if he's armed, or even has his girl there during the fight, one high heel stomp to your eye and I can GUARANTEE that you'll have one last engagement with the ground. Six feet under.

And there is no way to win correctly, Mike. There are only intelligent methods of combat taught so that you have better chances of winning. One such method is is fighting an opponent like he's always armed. I've read plenty of posts where people here talk about what they'd do if a weapon was brandished. This isn't Hollywood. Most people who brandish the weapon first are doing so for intimidation, not for the weapon's true purpose. Those people are muggers and robbers. If you get into a situation with a guy who is pissed and won't take no for an answer, you'd be a fool to think that he'd pull out his ace at the beginning. He isn't trying to mug you. He's trying to hurt you. And he isn't going to produce the ace up his sleeve until he thinks he has to. No one who trained for reality in any system is going to pretend that every armed attacker is going to produce a weapon to give you the option of which range or set of techniques to use. That's wishful thinking and teaching that is gross neglect.

And my idea of a street fight isn't two kung fu masters squaring off in a town square. My idea of a street fight also isn't fighting drunk people to then go ahead and say those techniques works either. My idea of reality isn't attempting techniques while in the company of my friends or coworkers that I wouldn't try if I were alone. That's not reality. Reality is confrontation, and in the street the reality of confrontation is weapons. So my idea of a street fight is being confronted by an armed man who is intent on imposing his will on me and my family. I will assume that the man is armed whether he produces a weapon or not as that will only make me more prepared because I've already accepted the worst case scenario. That is reality. Reality would be to fight the man as if he could produce a weapon at any time before I can gain and maintain control. Reality would not be assuming that because you have not seen the weapon it does not exist. Reality is not assuming that people who will confront you aren't as well trained. That's more "moral fiber" bullsh!t and less reality. There are men who have done time for armed robbery, assault and assault with a deadly weapon and they are highly trained. Contrary to what you may believe, training doesn't make better citizens. Training makes more capable combatants. If you think that criminals, skinheads and gang members aren't training to fight better then you've been getting your information from the wrong place.

And by the way, I never stated that people shouldn't train in ground grappling. That would make little sense as its in my own training. The difference is that our ground grappling skills are honed to bring us back to our feet. We don't train to encourage or promote ground grappling bouts by languishing on the ground. And yes I meant LANGUISH. We've already established that ground bouts can easliy last in excess of 20 minutes against the best ground grapplers. We train to get back to our feet the fastest way possible. So if your point was to cast ground grappling in a valuable light, then we both agree as long as its used to bring you back to your feet where all of your tools are available.

See, you seem to be saying that people need to train only for the life and death side of fighting, and you need to be training the most lethal stuff you can, all the time. But that's like a nation only using nuclear warfare to solve its problems. What's more, it's flat irresponsible and immoral to assume that any conflict you ever run into is going to require lethal force. If you assume you're going to have to cut a guy open, shoot him, or react in a similar way, then you are premeditating the murder of everyone who ever crosses you. And I think that's a little bit too extreme. After all, I have been in quite a few scrapes in this country and others. Some have been the very most lethal variety. Others (the majority) have been people with more balls than brains. And whether you like it or not, whether you'll ever see it for what it is or not - grappling has had a very real application in several of those encounters, and I'm not one to dispute results. I won, it worked, and that to me is far more important than whether or not you think it "ought to have worked."

I've never stated that you should kill everyone who confronts you. On another subject which I'm sure you've read, I agreed that its every ones moral obligation to retreat before using lethal force. However, to pretend that combat is less than it is for the sake of political correctness isn't intelligent. When attacked, you don't know the man's intentions therefore you must train for the worst case scenarios. Period. It seems like you're pretending that there is some period of time that exists that you get to assess the situation to make that determination. In a confrontation, the shit hits the fan in an instant. There is no stalling by using verbal diffuses once someone's made up their mind to hurt you or worse. There is no posturing or brandishing of weapons like in the movies. You have to make split second decisions based on how you perceived the threat. Very rarely do you have to use lethal force. The instances where lethal force is necessary are when the attacker is armed and has demonstrated intent to injure even after being warned, and when there are multiple attackers and they have demonstrated intent to injure even after being warned. And by warning I mean a demonstration of force. There's nothing extreme about dealing with a imminent threat. Especially when he's armed or has friends with him or both. What if you had your family with you? You'd be playing for keeps then, wouldn't you? Well, I value my life as much as I do my family's. So I wouldn't be any less vicious in the fight for my own life.

In training for reality combat, you ARE premeditating murder to a certain degree. You are training yourself to effectively eliminate a threat while defending against any harm directed towards you and your loved ones. If you train to choke someone out, you don't know if that person has a heart condition or a respiratory condition. You don't tap out in a real fight, so if you choke a guy long enough, you could kill him. And that's what you trained to do: choke him out. Same with a knife or a gun. Its all in the placement of the strikes/shot. As I said earlier, lets not pretend that combat is some sport here. If saying that survival is too extreme, then so be it. This isn't the MMA/BJJ forum. Survival isn't in a cage match. Survival isn't fighting while 10 of your buddies have your back. Survival isn't the threat of drunk guys who have beer muscles but can barely walk.

Survival is being prepared to the best of your ability to deal with the unknown and getting home alive. If you're not prepared to kill ANY MAN OR WOMEN who means to do you or your family/friends harm, then don't call it reality, Mike. I've never stated that you have to kill every person who confronts you, but if you aren't prepared to, then you aren't trained for reality because there are alot of people out there who are prepared to kill you. Now that's real.

Reality makes the news while armbars and other ground grappling maneuvers only make the internet boards. Stab wounds and gunshots make news everyday. I don't ever think I've seen a triangle choke or rolling leglocks on the 6:00 news.

[Uke]

And P.S.
Let's borrow your own theory for a moment. Assume that everyone is better trained than you. They have all the tools you have, and they are bigger, meaner, stronger, tougher, and more pain tolerant. Answer me this:

Does it make sense to go into a fight with a guy like that and be less educated and less trained than you could be? What if he's a cross between Paul Vunak, Rickson Gracie, and that Mob killer the Ice Man? What if he's not only more willing to kill you than anyone you've ever faced, but he's equally well-versed in striking as you. What if he's so good on the ground that he can keep you there against your will and hurt you while he does it?

Do you really want me to believe that you'd just submit to your own demise because you were on the ground and couldn't get up? Why are you so willing to train as if your opponent will be so much better than you, but yet you're so unwilling to assume they will have some serious skill on the ground?

I don't care if you're Rickson or Vunak or whoever else you're going to name. You pull me to the ground while I'm armed and the only thing you need to know is that you're going to die. In a ground bout, the man who is armed is going to do some serious damage. You don't even have to have much skill to be deadly with a knife in that range. Any contact will count, and anyone with any ability would be sticking any thing they could until you stopped moving.

I know you respect Vunak and Gracie, but don't believe that bulletproof shield nonsense. You go to the guard or mount with a man who has a knife and you're seriously looking to die or get real close to it. You don't even have to agree with most of what I wrote to know that.

I've always advocated learning ground grappling to learn how to escape to your feet in the quickest way possible. But getting caught up in a ground grappling situation and trying to prolong it by going to the guard or mount is asking for some serious damage if the man is armed ... which you'll never know until you pat him down or he produces the weapon. So if you feel safe assuming that your opponent isn't armed, then that's just your way. I'll always assume that anyone who confronts me is armed. And that's my way.

But again like last time, your post is seems to be arguing the fact that there is value in learning to ground grapple. We've agreed on that fact pages ago. Yet here we are.

[SamuraiGuy]

Uke, how much grappling training do you have,

Wrestling, Judo, BJJ, etc?

Just wondering.

[EmptyneSs]

Uke, how much grappling training do you have,

Wrestling, Judo, BJJ, etc?

Just wondering.

he's watched a couple emin boztep dvds that he got tricked into buying off the internet and now he thinks he skilled enough in grappling to give advice on it.

[jubaji]

pUke is an ignorant little punk who thinks his theories and sense of drama have the ability to shape reality. Unfortunately, he is unlikely to learn to shut up until he grows up.

[Shard]

Theory. Theory. Theory.
Why is the guy on the ground always the one who will fight multiple opponents with knives? Why is the one who does stand up striking the one with the easiest life? All his opponents will be untrained, unarmed and alone?

Its always the same thing over and over again. If you pull the fight to the ground your opponent will have a knife and know how to use it better than a green berret. If you fight stand up, you opponent is at very best a klutz with the knife.
In Practice:
Stand up or Ground, if you choose to fight agaisnt an armed opponent, you will end up seriously FKed.

Ground vs. Knife= Screwed
Stand up vs. Knife= Screwed
If you seriously think stand-up gives you a better chance of winning,*BUZZER SOUND* wrong. Unless by stand-up, you mean run faster than an olympic sprinter away.

Ground vs. Blunt weapon= not so screwed
Stand up vs. Blunt weapon= Screwed
On the ground you don't have the space needed to make a blunt object effective because you take away most of the swing.

Ground vs. Gun = More or less screwed
Stand up vs Gun = More or less Screwed too.
Think you can win a gun? Don't say i didn't tell you so. Sure you can "try" to control the gun, "try" emphasis on the " ". By " " i mean big F - ing Hope.

Before you label me as a BJJ nut rider, let me first say that i am primarily a striker. I will attempt to keep the fight standing. If i get taken down i will try to get up. But thats why i learn how to grapple. Also should i find it advantageous, i will choose to stick to the ground. Especially against a biger guy who has no clue of what he's doing.

Also, if you're on the street and you've got a weapon and you want my wallet, freaking take it.

[J-Luck]

I don't care if you're Rickson or Vunak or whoever else you're going to name. You pull me to the ground while I'm armed and the only thing you need to know is that you're going to die. In a ground bout, the man who is armed is going to do some serious damage. You don't even have to have much skill to be deadly with a knife in that range. Any contact will count, and anyone with any ability would be sticking any thing they could until you stopped moving.

I know you respect Vunak and Gracie, but don't believe that bulletproof shield nonsense. You go to the guard or mount with a man who has a knife and you're seriously looking to die or get real close to it. You don't even have to agree with most of what I wrote to know that.

I've always advocated learning ground grappling to learn how to escape to your feet in the quickest way possible. But getting caught up in a ground grappling situation and trying to prolong it by going to the guard or mount is asking for some serious damage if the man is armed ... which you'll never know until you pat him down or he produces the weapon. So if you feel safe assuming that your opponent isn't armed, then that's just your way. I'll always assume that anyone who confronts me is armed. And that's my way.

But again like last time, your post is seems to be arguing the fact that there is value in learning to ground grapple. We've agreed on that fact pages ago. Yet here we are.

The head trainer of combatives of the Army trains people on the ground... he uses 100,000 volt stun guns, given to select people, and when everyone is rolling, no one is sure of where the gun is. If you get shocked, it symbolises being stabbed. He is far more qualified than you, and feels it is ok to start people off in their guards like this!