advantage over grapplers

[J-Luck]

Well, Tant01 did an excellent job of replying to J-Luck, except that J-Luck is cool with me and I wouldn't call him a moron. But J-Luck, you have overlooked a lot of what I've written. First, you assume that you'll be able to get to grappling range before you get hit by a weapon(knife,brick,brass knuckles,).

Second, Tant01 is completely correct when he said that 2 or 3 seconds is more than enough time to kill you twice. And I've got news for you, it takes longer to choke out a man than 2 or 3 seconds. I don't know who's been spreading that myth, but that's exactly what it is: A myth. We've all seen the best ground grapplers choke out guys and its always taken more than 10 seconds, maybe more. If you're able to eventually tap out, that same energy could be spent stabbing the choker to death. There is no choke position that you cannot be stabbed from. And while chokes are a part of today's liberal and politically correct techniques, chokes aren't emphasized in reality based urban survival training as it takes too much time to work. A neck should be wrenched and broken before it should be choked. In real survival combat, there are few chokes, submissions or holds. They require you to devote too much time and attention to just one man when your situation is kill or be killed. Survival combat emphasizes weapons so that your first blow can be your last blow. And a weapon is the ultimate anti grappling equalizer.

But then again many here have expressed their dislike for the reality of survival combat and label it as overkill and unnecessary. Tell that to a woman who has been raped and has gotten AIDS because of it, or to a man who is hanging from a rope because of the color of his skin before the weight of his body snaps his neck.

I agree that the best defense is a good offense, J-Luck. I agree 100%. But shooting in to throw, take-down or wrestle an opponent is NOT a good offense. You shoot in on a man who has a weapon but hasn't yet made it visible and you're going to die if he knows what he's doing. We can all sit around and pretend that you and other grapplers wouldn't shoot in or rush to a clinch, but that's untrue as your grappling skills are not effective until you get into close quarter range, meaning YOU CAN'T GRAPPLE UNLESS YOU'RE CLOSE ENOUGH TO GRAB. That also means that you're now close enough to be struck, stabbed or thrown. And don't fall into that rut where you begin acting like I stated that ground grappling is useless. Stick to what was written like you always have.

Also, stop lumping judo throws and sweeps into this debate, as this debate is all about GROUND GRAPPLING and its application in survival combat. The throws and sweeps you've been talking about are NOT newaza, so they have no place in this debate.

And even though we see things differently J-Luck, I appreciate the fact that we can always agree to disagree with respect. You always post with integrity, and that's why we're cool. Keep it up.

First off... 2-3 to kill someone... yea if you put the knife in their throat with all your weight... not denying it's very possible. But probably not going to happen.

Choke out in 3 seconds... not a myth... Have you choked someone who didn't know how to grapple? Sure two trained grapplers... it might take longer, they'll fight it, struggle, gain little gaps in the choke till you finally set it in. But when I grapple with anyone who doesn't know defenses and how to get away, they go out really quick. That's if they don't tap within a second. And even if it took 10 seconds... I'll still be willing to bet that they are grabbing my hands trying to break the choke rather than stabbing me.

(btw... I responded to Tant also).

Look, it's always a danger with a knife present... but I'll be dynamic with throws and takedowns(shooting isn't always that great on the street... you can't use your knee making it less effective). Quick throw will take a couple of seconds, and most of that time will be me throwing him off balance and him being in the air. Hardly a great situation to use your knife. I'm also fine with striking, having my own knife, or disarm techniques. I'm just saying for the sake of the debate that grappling certainly has it's place, especially if you're dumb enough, or your morals prohibit you carrying a knife.

I also want to see the rate of assualts with a deadly weapon as opposed to empty handed assualts in the nation. Lets see just how prevalent weapons are in a realistic situation. Not saying it doesn't happen(i've been in the situation), just wondering how often as opposed to hand to hand.

[J-Luck]

I prefer the word survivor. Much more empowering and can help people break out of the mentality that contributed to them being stabbed/raped/beaten/whatever in the first place.

Being a victim is a state of mind.

Lol... I think of making "him" the survivor. I left with small cuts, he didn't leave, at least as far as I could see at the time. He was on the ground moaning in pain, and that's how everyone should be left who attacks unprovoked.

[J-Luck]

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 Mike.

[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.

So about stabbing someone while in an armbar and it not stopping the fight... well first off... Only plan on being in an armbar for less than a second... maybe half of one. Let me give an example: Guy1 starts a fight with guy2 unprovoke. Guy1, is untrained, but is 200 pounds, 6' tall. Guy2 is 6', but only 180 pounds. Guy2 is also a wrestler(4 years high school, four years college), and a bjj practitioner(purple belt). So Guy1 has a distinct weight advantage. Guy1 throws a punch at Guy2, while Guy2 ducks the punch, shoots in, and picks Guy1 up for a double leg slam(even with the weight advantage... Guy1 is untrained and it is highly unlikely that just off natural skill he will stop the shot. Guy1 is slammed to the ground, cracking his skull onto the ground, and though he is lucky enough not to be knocked out or have any broken bones... he is in a whole world of pain and disoriented. Guy2 then gets... we'll say knee on belly position. Thrusts the knee into his stomach. Guy1 though still disoriented an in pain pushes the knee off(well, tries two). This is a direct armbar setup. Guy2 slides his hand throught he opening created by pushing the knee, pulls Guy1 up, steps over Guy1, and takes off into the armbar. Guy2 gets up, and prepares for second attack, goes into a different position, runs... STABS Guy1... use your imagination. Either way, for whichever way the fight goes, Guy1 is at a huge disatvantage, and that's if he's tough enough to keep going. Adrenaline could play a part, but breaking the elbow is a pretty big deal.

Now, am I saying I would do this or that this has happened or that it would even go down like this specific situation? Not necessarily. But it's just an example to show you how it could end.

[Tant01]

Too many monkey trapped artists... Mike knows what I'm talking about, the word "grappling" implies the knife (or a gun) as well as the FUN sportive GAME that dominates the forum boards. Grappling over a knife or a gun doesn't necessarily imply newaza or GROUND grappling. Any struggle for position or superiority in a situation (even STANDING UP) could be thought of as "grappling"...

[Garland]

Too many monkey trapped artists... Mike knows what I'm talking about, the word "grappling" implies the knife (or a gun) as well as the FUN sportive GAME that dominates the forum boards. Grappling over a knife or a gun doesn't necessarily imply newaza or GROUND grappling. Any struggle for position or superiority in a situation (even STANDING UP) could be thought of as "grappling"...

have you guys started argeuing over semantics?

[Uke]

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!

I knew it was a matter of time before folks here decided to begin making assumptions about me and my own training. But its ok because I'm well aware of the fact that once someone has nothing of merit left to say about the discussion at hand, they will resort to making it up as they go along.

J-Luck, I've always felt that you were a young guy with plenty of enthusiasm, but when you begin saying who is more qualified than who, you're making a big assumption. Don't be lulled into believing that because some guys throw out names of groups that they have trained that they are more qualified than anyone. There are many elite military members that come to my system specifically for the purpose of staying alive. But you don't see us waving the "I train SEALS and Air Force Rangers" flag because we don't need to. If you do what you do well, that will be enough without be pretentious.

I've listed the primary system that I'm trained in. All anyone had to do was research it. However, I only listed it as a response to many who asked what I trained, not as a crutch to lean on to make my points seem like they carried more weight in a debate. It seems that many of you think that I post in an attempt to "convince" instead of to inform. I could care less if ANY OF YOU agree with what I write. If you agree then fine, but if you don't then don't use any thing that I wrote.

As for Mike, many of your points again were not points in contention. Points like:

1) I spent alot of time on that last post

2) Mike wrote "You seemed to agree that people should learn to grapple, but then you went on to say "but not so that they can grapple." What does that mean, exactly?" <-- Actually this is another example of semantics. In my previous posts, I made it abundantly clear in bold letters that the issue being discussed was newaza or GROUND GRAPPLING. So by simply referring to the issue as "grappling" some people here has successfully confused the issue to seem better informed.

3) Mike wrote "Do you think guys like Vunak and Rickson don't pack weapons or train to use them? " <--- I think that my statement about assuming that you're opponent is armed answered this a long time ago. We don't change the way we address aggression in my system because we recognize a guy's face from a magazine. If taken to the guard or the mount, it would be like I said: A race to see who's going to die first. I know these things because our knife techniques are also practiced in newaza just for the specific reasons given in this argument.

4) Mike wrote "As for the moral and ethical considerations, I could not disagree with you more! I think your approach is totally irresponsible if you think that every fight must either be a complete disengagement or deadly force. You seem to be saying that if you can't run away, you have to assume the guy is armed and be ready to kill. I think that's Hollywood nonsense, personally." <--- How is being prepared to do what's necessary nonsense? I didn't say "start killing as soon as the guy frowns at you wrong". If you are not prepared to kill, then you are not prepared to survive. That's not advocating going out and murdering people. That's stating that there will be times in altercations where it will be necessary. You can tell people to take it easy until they're badly wounded if you like. That's not how I was trained.

5) Mike wrote "In my opinion, far too many people rely on the old cliche that "there's no time to think under pressure. You have to react, or you're dead." It's a cool cliche, and it may make you feel like some kind of killer robot or lethally trained killing machine, but the simple fact is that thinking fighters are always (yes, an unqualified ALWAYS) harder to beat than "reactive fighters" given similar technical skill and other attributes. It's the attribute that made Ali "The Greatest" and it's why I can blow open a door to a room full of terrorists and hostages and only shoot the terrorists." <---- Great example. But what you failed to mention is that a tactical shoot is not close quarters, which allows for more time to make judgement calls. As far as Ali goes, Ali never fought for his life. He fought for sport and money. I too think that you must be a thinking man, which is why I wrote it a few posts before yours. Scroll up, brother.

6) Mike wrote "And when you train to give yourself an actual thought process under pressure, you don't have to think about killing everyone you meet. You can choose to injure to the appropriate degree. And that is a much more responsible and moral way to live. Anything less is a cop out, or it is ignorance of a better method. Remember, there is a big difference between being ready to do what needs to be done, and simply assuming that the extreme is needed every time. HUGE difference." <--- I agree, which is why I wrote "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."

Being that most of the points that you've responded with were addressed before you responded, you do see how this is more a case of not acknowledging what was written before and less of there being new points to debate, right? And I know these things because our knife techniques are also practiced in newaza just for the specific reasons given in this argument.

It was also asked what kind of training do I have in grappling. Newaza and every other aspect of grappling are practiced and trained for practicality in my system. But as I pointed out, the teachings are based on learning to get back to your feet, not to linger on the ground. As I said, don't take my word for it.

[J-Luck]

I knew it was a matter of time before folks here decided to begin making assumptions about me and my own training. But its ok because I'm well aware of the fact that once someone has nothing of merit left to say about the discussion at hand, they will resort to making it up as they go along.

J-Luck, I've always felt that you were a young guy with plenty of enthusiasm, but when you begin saying who is more qualified than who, you're making a big assumption. Don't be lulled into believing that because some guys throw out names of groups that they have trained that they are more qualified than anyone. There are many elite military members that come to my system specifically for the purpose of staying alive. But you don't see us waving the "I train SEALS and Air Force Rangers" flag because we don't need to. If you do what you do well, that will be enough without be pretentious.

I've listed the primary system that I'm trained in. All anyone had to do was research it. However, I only listed it as a response to many who asked what I trained, not as a crutch to lean on to make my points seem like they carried more weight in a debate. It seems that many of you think that I post in an attempt to "convince" instead of to inform. I could care less if ANY OF YOU agree with what I write. If you agree then fine, but if you don't then don't use any thing that I wrote.

As for Mike, many of your points again were not points in contention. Points like:

1) I spent alot of time on that last post

2) Mike wrote "You seemed to agree that people should learn to grapple, but then you went on to say "but not so that they can grapple." What does that mean, exactly?" <-- Actually this is another example of semantics. In my previous posts, I made it abundantly clear in bold letters that the issue being discussed was newaza or GROUND GRAPPLING. So by simply referring to the issue as "grappling" some people here has successfully confused the issue to seem better informed.

3) Mike wrote "Do you think guys like Vunak and Rickson don't pack weapons or train to use them? " <--- I think that my statement about assuming that you're opponent is armed answered this a long time ago. We don't change the way we address aggression in my system because we recognize a guy's face from a magazine. If taken to the guard or the mount, it would be like I said: A race to see who's going to die first. I know these things because our knife techniques are also practiced in newaza just for the specific reasons given in this argument.

4) Mike wrote "As for the moral and ethical considerations, I could not disagree with you more! I think your approach is totally irresponsible if you think that every fight must either be a complete disengagement or deadly force. You seem to be saying that if you can't run away, you have to assume the guy is armed and be ready to kill. I think that's Hollywood nonsense, personally." <--- How is being prepared to do what's necessary nonsense? I didn't say "start killing as soon as the guy frowns at you wrong". If you are not prepared to kill, then you are not prepared to survive. That's not advocating going out and murdering people. That's stating that there will be times in altercations where it will be necessary. You can tell people to take it easy until they're badly wounded if you like. That's not how I was trained.

5) Mike wrote "In my opinion, far too many people rely on the old cliche that "there's no time to think under pressure. You have to react, or you're dead." It's a cool cliche, and it may make you feel like some kind of killer robot or lethally trained killing machine, but the simple fact is that thinking fighters are always (yes, an unqualified ALWAYS) harder to beat than "reactive fighters" given similar technical skill and other attributes. It's the attribute that made Ali "The Greatest" and it's why I can blow open a door to a room full of terrorists and hostages and only shoot the terrorists." <---- Great example. But what you failed to mention is that a tactical shoot is not close quarters, which allows for more time to make judgement calls. As far as Ali goes, Ali never fought for his life. He fought for sport and money. I too think that you must be a thinking man, which is why I wrote it a few posts before yours. Scroll up, brother.

6) Mike wrote "And when you train to give yourself an actual thought process under pressure, you don't have to think about killing everyone you meet. You can choose to injure to the appropriate degree. And that is a much more responsible and moral way to live. Anything less is a cop out, or it is ignorance of a better method. Remember, there is a big difference between being ready to do what needs to be done, and simply assuming that the extreme is needed every time. HUGE difference." <--- I agree, which is why I wrote "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."

Being that most of the points that you've responded with were addressed before you responded, you do see how this is more a case of not acknowledging what was written before and less of there being new points to debate, right? And I know these things because our knife techniques are also practiced in newaza just for the specific reasons given in this argument.

It was also asked what kind of training do I have in grappling. Newaza and every other aspect of grappling are practiced and trained for practicality in my system. But as I pointed out, the teachings are based on learning to get back to your feet, not to linger on the ground. As I said, don't take my word for it.

Wait... I didn't actually see the post where you said how long you have been training, I do remember seeing what you trained in though... I probably just missed it along the way.

But, he still is the trainer of the whole army in combatives. Even if he's less qualified,(you still didn't say he was) he knows what he's doing. And him feeling it's ok to start people off in guard position with those weapons, and seeing great results... sounds like he's on to something.

His name is Matt Larsen I think??? The site should say it.

http://www.moderncombatives.org/pages/1/index.htm

He talks briefly about the stun gun training, but not deeply into it.

[grappler-jordan]

For those too close minded to see the weaknesses that make each of our arts incomplete, I hold pity. There is no one complete art, I am a BJJ and Aiki-Jiu-Jitsu practitioner who also trains Muay-Thai and modern self-defense to help make myself as well rounded as possible. To close your mind and say "I don't need that, no one could ever shoot in and take me down." or vice versa "I will take anyone to the ground and control them before they can hurt me." is the destroy the essence of Martial Arts.

I feel sorry for those of you who can't find a reason to cross train in other arts to help complete your self-defense skills, as murphy would have it, the situation you DO NOT train for is usually how you will end up having to defend yourself. I hope that never has to happen to any of you, but that is reality...

[grappler-jordan]

5) Mike wrote "In my opinion, far too many people rely on the old cliche that "there's no time to think under pressure. You have to react, or you're dead." It's a cool cliche, and it may make you feel like some kind of killer robot or lethally trained killing machine, but the simple fact is that thinking fighters are always (yes, an unqualified ALWAYS) harder to beat than "reactive fighters" given similar technical skill and other attributes. It's the attribute that made Ali "The Greatest" and it's why I can blow open a door to a room full of terrorists and hostages and only shoot the terrorists." <---- Great example. But what you failed to mention is that a tactical shoot is not close quarters, which allows for more time to make judgement calls. As far as Ali goes, Ali never fought for his life. He fought for sport and money. I too think that you must be a thinking man, which is why I wrote it a few posts before yours. Scroll up, brother.

I am sorry but I must respond to this as well, simply because of the massive thinking errors I think are apparent in the response.

Your statement that "A tactical shoot is not close quarters." is as about as far from reality as I think you could possibly get. In any and all SF communities around the world that type of tactical shooting is refered to as CQC or CQB. (With no intent to sound sarcastic here but I feel the need to break this down to an elementary level, so humor me and keep reading) This obviously stands for Close Quarters Combat. The title alone implies the nature of the engagement. Like Mike stated with obvious expertise on the subject, if you stand in the middle of a 10x10 the farthest anything is from the muzzle of your weapon is no more then 4 feet. That's fact not fiction.

Do you know why SF units train so hard for those type encounters? SF units train CQC so hard and so diligently for several specific reasons. You have to be able to think, you cannot simply react in this type of situation, if you do it could cost innocent people, your teammates, even your own life. The coordination and techniques required for an effective CQC engagement must be second nature, must be so fluent that they can think with absolute clarity while dealing with the chaos that is a CQC engagement. Yes, chaos, because that's what it is, several people inside a 10x10 space with furniture, wanting to kill each other, with possible innocent hostages in the same space. Now add the deafening sound of flashbangs, gunfire and plenty of smoke and you have a classic CF. Everything happens EXTREMELY fast and if an operator can't think before he "reacts" people die.

I am no SF operator, never have been, never will be. I have however trained with many of them for CQC and I have a grasp on reality. I usually am not the type to Quote someone and point out errors but I think you need to seriously reassess the way you have classified this type of encounter. There is far less time for judgement calls then with hand to hand combat. If this is your true theory and foundation for your training on this topic, I must say I think it is seriously flawed. I intend no disrespect to you or your system, there are several points you have made that were very well spoken seemed you had the experience to back them. This however, is not one of them....

Jordan

[Tant01]

Good on you...

[Uke]

You are wrong. Completely, 1000%, no questions asked, dead-wrong. Look around your house. Imagine trying to flood into a room with four guys. Take a 10 foot by ten foot room and do that with it, and suddenly, the farthest anything is from the muzzle of your gun is about two or three feet. I've trained in situations where I had to punch the guy away from me with the muzzle of my gun to get space to shoot him. It is very much "close quarters." And things happen so much faster than empty hand (roughly 3000 feet per secnd with an eighth inch finger movement) that it makes up for whatever distance you might have thought was there. You're obviously not seeing or training this aspect of the fight the same way I am if you think it doesn't happen extremely close and extremely fast.

Actually, I'm not wrong at all. I've mentioned before that many of my family members are NYPD. NYPD is the standard that other departments nationwide are held to. Police from all over the nation come to NY to receive the training here. Actually, police form all over the world come to NY to learn proper tactics and skills. More than that, a relative of mine was instrumental in creating the FunHouse, a tactical training program housed at Rodman's Neck in NY. He's taught it to police worldwide and the FBI was so impressed by his program that when he was appointed to the joint terrorist task force, the FBI had him set up their program and teach it. His tactical shooting program has been taught to a large portion of law enforcement in this country, from LAPD to NYPD, as well as to the Germans. And he disagrees with your assessments as well. In the real world, you do not have time to think as casually as you make it seem. Many hostages die from from police fire during raids. And those situations aren't even extreme close quarters. The time that you have to react is so small and minute that it does require a reaction, but a trained one. Anyone who says different isn't dealing in reality. Keep in mind that I was responding to your last comment that had to do with you kicking in a door and shooting only terrorists and no hostages. If you're kicking in a door, your tactical shoot is not going to be in CQ range. CQ range means that I can put my hands on you, 2-3 feet away. He definitely agrees that CQ gun tactics exist like the one you gave about hitting with the muzzle, but that doesn't apply when busting down a door, which is the example you gave. There are long distance tactical shoots by snipers, and close quarter shoots where a weapon is deployed fast and up close. But if you go back and read your example that I was responding to, it all falls into place.

As for Paul and Rickson, you're the one that brought them up and said that if they took you to the ground, they'd be dead. I merely pointed out that you might be just a little bit full of shit on that point. I'm not assuming anything about your training. I'm pointing out that you said "I don't care who you are." You completely failed to acknowledge that there are people out there who are both better armed and more capable of employing thise weapons on the ground than you. You're simply not acknowledging your own weakness and training failures.

Yes, I brought them up, and I did say that if they brought me into their guard that it would be a race to see who dies first. Whether or not you believe that I'm full of shit is inconsequential. I don't care who you are, putting yourself in an immobile position and pulling me with you while I'm armed is going to end badly for you. I don't care if you're Rickson Gracie or Paul Vunak. There are people better than me, and I've trained with many of them. And over the years they've taught and shown me that what I'm saying is a fact. And they've been renowned for SD/UC for alot longer than either of those men.

I know that you "responded" to most points before I posted them. I reiterated them because your answers were hollow and flawed. You may think you've covered all the bases on this topic, but you haven't. You're syaing "Yeah, I said that already" but you're contradicting yourself every other post. On one hand, you cry "semantics" when someone points out that your commuication is unclear. Next, you virtually agree with your critics, and then you turn around and say "There's no point in doing that." You're talking in circles. Let me help you clarify:

Do you or do you not see any practical use in learning ground grappling?
Of course I do, and I've advocated its use since beginning the topic about BJJ's effectiveness last year. Its still here. I've always said its value lies in that it enables you to return to your feet and escape holds and chokes.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are people out there who might be every bit as good as you in every other range, and if they have an advantage on the ground, they have an advantage in the fight?
Of course I acknowledge that. But in my training we address the fact that someone may be a better fighter. It doesn't make us invincible, and I'm not pretending that it does no matter how much you imply that I have.

Do you or do you not admit that you don't get to control everythign that happens in a fight, and there may be some folks out there who can take you to the ground and keep you there against your will?
I admit that you cannot control everything in a fight 100% of the time. And there are people who can take me down to the ground. The Machados rented space from us years ago and they are excellent at ground work. Better IMO than the Gracies. They can take most people down. However, the scenario never played out where I wasn't able to deploy once it became obvious that I wasn't going to escape. Not once. And we're not speaking from the standpoint where he already sees my weapon and knows that's my objective either. That's not realistic.

Do you or do you not admit that it might be a good idea to be prepared and capable for that eventuality - especially if there were ever a time when circumstances dictated you had to go someplace unarmed? (In an airport, maybe? There are lots of times and places when you're without a knife or gun, I'm sure.)
Name one of those times that I'm unarmed? Airports do not deter people from being armed. Recently on the news regular civilians went to airport security and let them know that they were able to sneak contraband passed airport security measures. They did this to let them know that if they could do it, then someone who means harm could potentially do it. But back to your point, there is never a time where I would ever use newaza as offense. The only way anyone interested in survival would go to newaza is if they are taken there by force. And then, they could use newaza skills to get back up to their feet. If in the event they cannot get back to their feet and the situation seems like harm is imminent, they had better be armed. A weapon is the ultimate equalizer, and that's why the reality of SD/UC is weapons.

But more to the point, it seems like you're trying to imply that I haven't always advocated learning newaza to reverse chokes and submissions and escape the guard and mount positions to get back to your feet. You ask those questions as if I haven't always stated those things. I'd like you to show me a time where I deviated from that stance.

And finally, do you not see the absolute stupidity and hypocrisy in preaching to all of these readers that they have to be prepared to do what is neccesary ina streetfight, while at the same time saying "There's no point in training that aspect of a streetfight?"
Do you not realize that this last question has more to do with your inability to read what's written and less to do with what I may have been incorrect about? I've always stated, from the very beginning that newaza has its purpose. What you've clearly been befuddled by is the distinction that I've made in how newaza is to be used outside of sporting events. You're attempting to make this debate about whether or not ground fighting is useless or not, when that has never been my stance or my debate. I've always been clear about what I'm saying, but you've been consistent with accusing me of stating that newaza is useless and/or has no place in self defence.

I'll make some points really simple for you.

Newaza is used in SD to escape chokes and submissions and escape guard/mount positions and other pins to get back to your feet.

There is no time to think in close quarters unless your in the ring. You react based on your training and your awareness. Anything else is mock reality.

Voluntarily performing flying armbars and rolling leglocks in fights that potentially could produce weapons and other attackers is stupid. It could work your one opponent, but you've unwittingly put yourself in a position where either weapons or additional attackers could easily take advantage of you. There is little to no awareness on the ground, and zero mobility.

Trying to choke me from the guard or the mount before I can stab you to death is yet another exercise in stupidity. If I can tap out, I can bleed you.

Newaza and its use in SD was the point in contention. By interchangeably using the terms "grappling" and "ground grappling", you've successfully taken focus away from the debate by forcing me to clarify that we were discussing ground grappling.

Okay. I'm aware you've answered these before. But the way I have read your answers, you're flip-flopping like John Kerry at a VFW meeting. So just go back and answer the above - the way you really believe. I won't argue the points or try to pick them apart, I promise. I'd just like to clarify where you stand, and make sure I'm reading your opinions correctly when you say things like "There's no point in training that." It seems wildly contradictory from where I sit, and I'd bet I'm not the only one.
Despite how you may view my responses Mike, they have been praised quite highly by forum members. And to be honest, the difference between what you are writing and what I am writing is that I am not speaking in terms of theory. Every argument that you have written has been for arguments sake. Everything that I'm writing is the foundation of simple SD concepts and methodologies. Fact vs fiction. Basically you are asking me theoretical questions in hopes that the logic behind my answers will be flawed. But what's worse is that my comments about learning newaza to get back to your feet have been so solid that you have had to pretend that I haven't always advocated learning it in order for you to have any argument at all.

You feel that me telling the forum to only use newaza in SD situations only to reverse chokes and submissions and to escape the guard/mount position to get back to your feet the quickest way possible was stupid. You feel that because I advocate those things but discourage ground bouts it makes me a hypocrite.

I feel that you advocating triangle chokes, armbars and other submissions on the ground during a real SD altercation was stupid. I think advocating shooting in to clinch during a SD altercation is stupid. I think that pretending that there is a difference in SD and sport newaza techniques is stupid. I think pretending that you can train one way and then perform another under duress is stupid. I think pretending that weapons and multiple attackers don't exist is stupid, and you are pretending that they don't exist if you advocate going to the ground during a real altercation. Keep in mind that I said "going" to the ground, not being taken to the ground. I also think its stupid to pretend that a street confrontation is anything but life threatening when you never know what's going to happen next.

But these are just opinions. We both have them. But the facts lie in what can be done in the safest and most intelligent way possible. Not in what might be done if the ideal situation arose. But you know what? After all this was said and done, you still haven't shown one advantage aside from the ones that I previously listed that ground grappling has in self defense. And THAT was the point of this entire debate.

[kanik]

For those too close minded to see the weaknesses that make each of our arts incomplete, I hold pity. There is no one complete art, I am a BJJ and Aiki-Jiu-Jitsu practitioner who also trains Muay-Thai and modern self-defense to help make myself as well rounded as possible. To close your mind and say "I don't need that, no one could ever shoot in and take me down." or vice versa "I will take anyone to the ground and control them before they can hurt me." is the destroy the essence of Martial Arts.

I feel sorry for those of you who can't find a reason to cross train in other arts to help complete your self-defense skills, as murphy would have it, the situation you DO NOT train for is usually how you will end up having to defend yourself. I hope that never has to happen to any of you, but that is reality...

Training outside the box is what i am all about, i will not let myself train with just one way... anywho yeh this thread has been interesting... thanks all!

[Uke]

Instead of having petty side arguments with forum members, let's just keep this about fact vs. fiction.

Fact: Any half way decent self defense system teaches their students to avoid going to the ground.

Fiction: Telling your students that its okay to go to the ground in an altercation despite weapons and multiple attackers.

Fact: If you bring a man trained in SD/UC tactics to the ground while he is armed, you are going to most likely die. The deciding factor there isn't about how well trained you are. Its about how intent the attacker is about killing you. The only thing that will save you if you bring a man who is trained to use weapons to the ground is if he is reluctant to go all the way. Either that or if he's already pulled his weapon for intimidation and now you know that he has it. But a real practitioner knows to never pull unless you are definitely going to use. It doesn't matter what fantasy matchups we create, if brought down, unless your opponent is significantly weaker, slower, less trained or clumsy, he'll be able to bleed you if he didn't prematurely pull his weapon. I suspect that this was being looked upon by you as if the assailant was waving a knife so that you already know you have to nullify it/him. Wouldn't that be convenient?

Fiction: Would be pretending that you'll know what's appropriate in the instant that an altercation jumps off, and thinking you'll be able to adjust with appropriate force as your attacker displays more aggression. Block. Strike. Sweep. Stomp. Keep it simple and once you have your man broken down, you can then pat him down and make a determination as to what you’re going to do. But you cannot make that assessment while physical aggression is being directed towards you because like you agreed previously, you’ll never know what the man’s intentions are until he follows through with them. Unlike you, I have no intentions of letting any one follow through with any aggression towards me.

Fact: You will never know what your opponent is carrying, or how many guys he may be with at the moment that an altercation happens. This is a maxim in SD. This is why any competent SD/UC system advocates assuming that any confrontation is or can be lethal.

Fiction: Thinking that because your opponent has not yet brandished a weapon that it’s safe to try sport maneuvers like shooting in, sacrifice takedowns, triangle chokes, arm bars and leg locks. Mike once wrote

Now fighting being what it is, it's always best to train to be the little guy and assume that "He" is always "They," and "they" are always armed.

With that said, how in the hell can you advocate going to the ground if "he" is "they" and "they" are always armed? Not only does that mean your opponent is perceived to be armed, but he's also perceived to be not alone!

Fact: Its been established more than a year ago on this forum by me that the use for newaza in self defense situations is to reverse chokes and submissions, and learning to escape the guard/mount positions to get back to your feet as fast as possible. Telling your students to use their newaza skills beyond the point of escaping the ground and escaping chokes and holds means that your teaching your students to remain in the most dangerous place that you can be in a real fight. Sure, they might beat an attacker while laying on their back, but their energy would be better spent getting to their feet where they can be capable of dealing with ALL the realities of urban combat, not just the mano y mano bullshit.

Fiction: Pretending that statement hasn't been nailed to the wall here before this debate in order to seem like you have something to say.

Fact: If your goal is to be a sports competitor, you must train in the sportive aspects of your chosen activity, whether it is judo, MMA or BJJ. They all have different rules that you must adhere to in order to compete successfully. Fighting outside of the rules of any event would result in disqualification. So with this understanding, it’s clear that you'll fight like you've trained. Your habits are a part of you. Your training is what you fall back on. You will always perform like you've trained. Knowing this to be true means that if you devote and gear your training towards fighting on the ground, the minute you feel that you're losing while standing you'll try to go to the ground, put yourself in the worst position that you possibly could. Sure, in the ring its a viable option, but in the street where there are just too many variables working against you it's stupidity.

Fiction: Pretending that you can train for sports without learning and adopting all the bad habits that ALL competent self defense systems teach you not to do. Or pretending that adding some weapon drills will make you well rounded to the point that you're as proficient as the men who only do survival training. SD/UC masters have spent their lives perfecting and refining survival techniques, but Mike thinks that by just "adding" some non-sportive focus to MMA training you can be well rounded enough to bridge that gap. I guess we're back to pretending that there is a magic "on/off switch" for what's real and what's sport.

Fact: 90% of self defense situations do not go to the ground.

Fiction: 90% of all fights go to the ground, even though the most common style of combat that you'll see on the streets is boxing. If 90% of all fights went to the ground, the MA community would have seen the need for developing their newaza skills way before the Gracies created the UFC in the early 1990's.

Fact: Mike posted:

Combat is indeed different from ring sport, so if someone trains to compete then they will be missing a whole great big piece of "fighting" when it comes to things like weapons, multiple attackers, surprise attacks, cluttered environments, weight classes or the lack thereof and many other factors. Those things are not part ofthe sport, and therefore, people who train for the sport will generally be unprepared for the variables themselves. To that end, you're 100% correct.

Fiction: Most of what Mike's written passed that point! Ground fighting has NEVER been taught as a form of survival combat. From the point it was taught to Kano to the point where the Gracies made it popular to the world.

"The dissolution of the samurai class came about at the same time of the Fusen-ryu founding, and the banning of armed combat probably contributed heavily for its development and emphasis in unarmed combat techniques."

The keywords here are unarmed combat. And weren't you taught that the reality of street combat IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN WEAPONS? Fusen ryu's techniques became popular not because of their use in survival situations. They became popular because Tanabe Sensei defeated Kano and his entire school. Because of that Kano adopted the fusen ryu techniques, and then integrated them into sport judo. Kano didn't want any brutal techniques in his judo for fear that it would discourage others from wanting to practice it. I've always agreed the newaza has its place as a means to get back to your feet in SD/UC.

Fact: The techniques that you so adamantly advocate using in this debate are part of BJJ/MMA. You and I have already discussed why MMA techniques are so effective. Most, if not all successful MMA fighters have sponsors that allow for them to not only stay in top physical shape, but they also have unlimited time to train and practice these techniques. Certainly much more than a non-sponsored fighter. So when you begin using the top MMA/BJJ fighters as a shining example of how well ground fighting techniques work, you should also mention that these men do nothing but train and spar. They have the resources to be proficient at whatever they choose, because hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on their training and they can afford to get the best trainers and instructors.

Fiction: Pretending that regular people who have jobs and bills can master both sportive and survival proficiency on the limited time and money that they have. No top BJJ competitor got there by training in this or that along the way. They were dedicated to their study and focused on what it was that they wanted to be proficient at. The same is true for SD/UC practitioners and instructors. The idea that you should dabble in all things but master none is fool's endeavor. If your focus is survival, you stay on your feet and find way to get back to your feet if your taken down. MMA/BJJ takes a higher level of athleticism to be effective, and anyone who's honest with himself knows that.

Fact: Ground fighting and other sportive method's effectiveness is relative to size and weight. Meaning that a small guy(125-130) trying to use ground fighting maneuvers against a bigger guy(185-200) would be in serious trouble if the bigger guy had even rudimentary experience in ground grappling. When weight and size become a factor in your techniques, then it isn't suitable for SD/UC. If fighter "A" cannot defeat fighter "B" based only on size, then fighter "A" needs to train in something else.

Fiction: Pretending that it isn't irresponsible for not factoring that in.

Fact: Combat is and always has been sets of techniques that are simple to execute, work well with gross motor skills and doesn't require any above average athleticism to perform.

Fiction: Thinking that you don't have to be in above average shape to be proficient in BJJ. I remember when Carlson Gracie Jr made is debut in MMA, and he looked terrible. He was out of shape, and his performance was embarrassing. This man is a legend in Brazil and the trainer of hundreds of fighters and champions. It wasn't that his technique was terrible. It was that he clearly could not execute what he is proficient at because he was in poor shape. Now, if someone at the high skill level of Carlson Gracie Jr looks terrible because of his conditioning, what kind of chance does a regular guy who isn't in above average shape have?

Fact: Weapons and other people are the deciding factor in almost every real fight, especially when both people are trained.

Fiction: Telling people that learning to fight in ground bouts may be the deciding factor, when you've already stated that its most intelligent to assume your opponent is armed and has friends. And no matter who it is ground grappling, whether it was Rickson or Nogueira, they never submit or choke out anyone so fast that the opponent can't tap. And if you can tap, you can stab or shoot.

Fact: There is well over a century of practice, research and trial and error put into the refinement of modern self defense. This was essential for finding out what worked, what didn't and why one technique should be used over another. These techniques were tested on the streets by police as well as gang members and other criminals. They have been tested in prisons by C.O.'s as well as by inmates. There's no moral distinction between who can learn and use self defense. They have been used by security details, that protect celebrities and other political figures. Try ground grappling with a guy when you know that your client is the target.

Fiction: The way that some pretend that because they’ve done MMA in gyms or fought drunk guys who have more liquor in them than a desire to fight, they’ve somehow tested their own theories in reality settings. In the 15 years or so that MMA has existed, some people think that they've evolved instead of factoring in that they're watching sponsored professional athletes who are paid to do nothing but focus on fighting and training. What's the ratio for sponsored professional fighters to regular citizens who just need to know how to defend themselves?

Fact: I've discussed this and much, much more on many different posts and topics.

Fiction: Pretending that I haven't. This entire subject was summed up on Street Fighting effectiveness. But I guess we're going through the motions now to make it seem like you're introducing new content and tactics. The only new content that you've brought into the debate is tactical shooting. That's it. You've conceded to most of the points I've made on the "Streetfighting effectiveness" topic in post #62, but now your arguing over points that were never in contention.

People only do that when they have nothing else left to offer. This debate wasn't about a tactical shoot or whether ground fighting in SD is useless. You made it your business to focus on those points because you knew there was nothing passed those points that you could debate. That's why post #63 on Streetfighting effectiveness has been sitting there since July 14th without a response, and its now August.

That is unmitigated bullshit, and I have the scars to prove it. It was very real when I lived it. Nothing mock about it. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Maybe it's just a failure of your training methods. Or maybe a failure to accept that your way may not be the best way. I'm not sure. All I can tell you is that I have dealt with weapons on numerous occasions and had to make conscious decisions (meaning I thought about it, weighed some options, and chose what I thought to be the most appropriate in the moment) in real fights. What more can I say? My training has allowed me to do in real life what you say is impossible. That either means I am uniquely gifted as a fighter (which is definitely not the case, as I am barely mediocre), or it means there's more to high-stress training than you have explored.

As one poster said earlier, just because you have scars or have been stabbed doesn't mean that what you say makes sense. It means that what you thought you knew you obviously didn't. And when you wrote: "That either means I am uniquely gifted as a fighter (which is definitely not the case, as I am barely mediocre), or it means there's more to high-stress training than you have explored", what is more high stress that close quarter knife sparring? Also, we weren't speaking about training. We were speaking about confronting the unknown where you don't have the luxury of knowing how far the other man is prepared to go. It's also a situation where you're first move can likely be your last move, so you have to rely on your training for an appropriate response. As I wrote previously, SD/UC is primarily a counter-attacker's game. And just like counterpunching, counterattacks are responses, mostly trained into muscle memory so that you can respond without having to calculate during explosive, abrupt confrontations.

[Uke]

Mike Brewer

This entire issue came about because the MMA crowd likes to impose their ideas and methodologies on the SD/UC community. The root of this specific debate had to do with the benefits that newaza offers passed escaping locks, chokes and the ground in self defense situations. Your point was to show that newaza has more value than those points. I disagreed, because the techniques that you and I are discussing are the same, but the goals are very different. The energy spent trying to gain a superior position or acquire an armbar or triangle choke would be better spent trying to get back to your feet where your strikes are more effective, you're mobile, you have access to CQC skills and you are tremendously more aware and have notice of additional incoming danger.

Then your argument became "What if the grappler is much better than you and won't let you off the ground?". Well, I've seen the best grapplers, including the Gracies and Nogueira have men of much lesser grappling skill get out of their guards and side mounts. I've seen men like Shamrock and Severn stall a match nearly to its conclusion, which means I can hold you there until someone shows up to possibly help me.

And I've seen several lesser skilled grapplers like Herring and a non-grappler like Crocop avoid and defend against several Nogueira takedown attempts. Both eventually lost to Nogueira, but not before repeatedly nullifying his takedown attempts and leaving him lying on his back. And on the street, what are you supposed to do while lying on your back once a weapon is produced? Will you be able to get up faster than the man can stab you? Will you lay there on your back and kick at his legs, hoping that he won't be smart enough to begin slicing your legs up?

I've seen a brawler like Quinton Jackson pick up Sakuraba who had him armbarred and slam him repeatedly. If those same slams happened on the street instead of a mat, it would have been a done deal. Concrete is much different than a soft mat.

So my point is that even when you speak of the best grapplers, there are plenty of examples where men much less versed in grappling escape the guard, chokes, submissions and get back to their feet. They don't get back to their feet by assuming the guard position and scooting out. They don't get back to their feet by technical savvy. They fight their way out and get back to their feet, while the best grapplers mostly remain on their backs with their feet in the air looking to kick them as they approach.

And just FYI, BJJ as we know it today was modified by Helio Gracie because he was too weak to throw and to weak to strike in NHB matches. By going to newaza immediately, he not only did away with the need to look for a throw, but he nullified the power in strikes. But you don't need power to stab, slice or rip.