23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Marcus_1
Marcus_1's picture
The floor is not your friend

I know that Iain has covered this in great depth in his podcasts, but I want to add my two pennyworths to the argument as to why the floor really isn't your friend.

Just before I explain how I have come to this decision, let me tell you a bit about me.  Yes, I am a martial artist having studied Karate for well over 20 years, I have also dabbled with Aikido and Judo in my time.  However, on top of this, I am an ex-prison officer dealing with some of the most violent, aggressive thugs (juveniles) in this country. During that time I was trained as a use of force instructor so taught others the control and restraint stuff.  I am now a serving police officer.  So you could say, I have had my fair share of violent confrontation and know the laws around this area pretty well.

Now, I don't want to be seen to be having a go at BJJ or other grappling arts as I am not.   However, any system that purely trains for the floor fight is flawed massively, you are essentially reliant on 2 things from the great members of the public:

1. You go to the ground and manage to get the assailant into a hold whereby they can't escape; great, now you just need someone to kindly call the police to come and sort it out

2. You go to the ground, there are loads of people about, you better hope none of these people are your assailants mates as they won't be best pleased.

On top of this, if you are going to take a fight to the ground, you have got to be concerning yourself with the welfare of that person as well (I know this sounds bizarre, right).  Seriously, if you take someone to the ground, pin them there and won't let them get up/they can't get up, then you are in a world of problems if that person starts to go limp....positional asphyxia (placing a person into a position that they cannot easily escape from that interferes with the mechanics of their diaphragm/breathing) is a huge risk in these situations.  

In control and restrain situations, you take a person to the floor to control that person better, you have (in a custodial setting) a minimum of 3 officers looking after different limbs, ALL looking after the welfare of that person.  In a "fight" or self-protection environment; you won't have this luxury, generally you are on your own.  If the person you are trying to restrain on the floor starts to have breathing difficulties, what do you do?  You don't let him up right?  In case the person is faking it and goes again, so you hold them there and they pass out....OUCH world of pain legally right there.

I always, always kept people upright if I could, if I couldn't then I got them upright as soon as possible to minimise risks of death to them (I don't want to be the one in front of a jury/inquest thank you very you much).  When I trained prison officers, I always try to get them to deal with things upright and not take something to the floor unless the appropriate staff are present.  In a self-protection scenario on "the street", you don't have this luxury.

If by chance you end up on the floor then I wholeheartedly recommend getting up again as soon as possible.  Criminals don't care if you end up worse off than they initially thought, if they can get what they want from you and make good their escape then they will.

Criminals don't fight fair, they don't start if they don't expect to win and in general, criminals tend to hang out with other like-minded criminals.  

Sorry, just wanted to put my bits and pieces across

Oh, and some really well built/muscular people can't punch for toffee...the amount of broken hands I saw in the prisons because they had all the muscle but just didn't know how to form a fist correctly was insane!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for sharing your experiences and the post. Lots of valid points and good info in there.

“Positional Asphyxia” (difficulty breathing purely because of the position / weight on the chest) is often overlooked when martial artists think about control and restraint. The fact three or more people are needed to effectively control someone is another common oversight. Lots of martial artists believing they can indefinitely hold someone in place, on their own, with a lock or hold (which ignores all kind of tactical concerns too). Pressure testing will absolve people of this myth, as will listening to the experience of the professionals who use C&R are part of their employment.   

Marcus_1 wrote:
Now, I don't want to be seen to be having a go at BJJ or other grappling arts as I am not.   However, any system that purely trains for the floor fight is flawed massively …

If a BJJ person is training for consensual fighting, fitness or sport then working ground fighting exclusively is a perfect fit. If we shift to self-protection, then the same methodology can’t be moved across and remain effective. However, if the BJJ practitioner was to add vital self-protection skills into their training (nature of crime, law, de-escalation, escape skills, pre-emption, basic striking, etc) and ensure their BJJ skillset was contextualised and practiced with regards to self-protection based outcomes (to break free, to remain upright, to regain feet, etc) then they can be functional in both their chosen kind of fighting and self-protection … AND these kinds of considerations are common to all martial artists.

We all need to ensure the vital self-protection elements, that are not included in martial arts practise, are added in and trained effectively. We all need to add in skills that the core art may not possess. We all need to contextualise our existing skillset and ensure the appropriate methods are applied in the appropriate way.

Different systems will have different considerations, but none are immune from it.

We are talking about the ground in this thread, so it’s going to be BJJ that is the main martial art under discussion. It’s also fair to say that are a number of prominent BJJ practitioners who do think deliberately taking a self-protection situation to the ground is a valid option; and have argued that case publicly. However, I think the more objective BJJ practitioners will take the time to effectively assess the genuine needs and nature of self-protection and contextualise and train appropriately. That’s also true of any other system. There are plenty of karateka who think martial arts / fighting can be directly applied to self-protection and that no other additional skills or knowledge are needed.

My point is that it’s a wider issue than just BJJ, and that BJJ – like most other systems – can be a solid foundation for self-protection if the things discussed above considered, and we ensure the solution fits the problem, as opposed to trying to apply “the solution to a different problem” inappropriately.

Thanks once gain for a great post!

All the best,

Iain  

Marcus_1
Marcus_1's picture

Iain, thank you for the reply.  I know it seems I am getting at BJJ but I'm really not.  I just don't think that teaching people that taking a fight to the ground is a sure-fire winner in all situations. 

When I instructed C&R, I spent about 2 hours solely on break-away techniques, using thumb locks to release a grip (doesn't work on everyone) as well as other techniques to gain distance and get away/get help.  It was always better to get away and return with correct staffing to deal with the issue (saved getting a beating).  In a self-protection environment, breakaway techniques are a must, you can create the distance to run and get help.  I just don't see them being taught in martial arts classes at all where I live which is a real shame.

If breakaway techniques don't work, then you need to do something else...in general, overwhelm the opposition with strikes in order to get away.

PASmith
PASmith's picture

I think BJJ can offer a solution not so much for the self defence situation we desire but more for the self defence situation we are given. In other words we may be looking to end the fight decisively and quickly (as we should if it goes physical of course) but due to ineffective strikes, size/strength differences, bad luck, chaos, surprise, etc, end up clinched, grabbed and on the floor, etc. What we'd "like to happen" and what's "likely to happen" can often be very different things and BJJ kind of acknowledges that and operates in that zone. I'd also like to say there's a difference between controlling someone on the ground in order to restrain, arrest them or prevent them escaping (police, corrections, medical personnel) and controlling someone on the ground in order to beat them in a fight or survive a self defence situation. A BJJ person looking to defend themselves isn't looking to apply hancuffs or have the person adopt a specific position for example. They want to manage the distance, manage the damage, get a dominant position, drop some strikes, stand up and run off and BJJ offers a very good road map (this position is better than this position, etc) to help navigate that side of self defence.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Marcus,

Marcus_1 wrote:
I know it seems I am getting at BJJ but I'm really not.

I don’t think it read that way … but that tends to be the assumption whenever it’s pointed out that the ground is not a good option. I therefore wanted to drop in some thoughts on the utility of BJJ for readers. It was not meant as a direct reply to anything stated in your post; more some additional thoughts around the general theme.

Marcus_1 wrote:
I just don't think that teaching people that taking a fight to the ground is a sure-fire winner in all situations.

I agree with you 100%. That’s people taking a one-on-one fighting methodology and applying it to an entirely different problem and expecting the same results. It’s like driving a car into the sea and expecting it to work as a boat.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
In other words we may be looking to end the fight decisively and quickly (as we should if it goes physical of course) but due to ineffective strikes, size/strength differences, bad luck, chaos, surprise, etc, end up clinched, grabbed and on the floor, etc. What we'd "like to happen" and what's "likely to happen" can often be very different things …

I totally agree.

PASmith wrote:
… and BJJ kind of acknowledges that and operates in that zone.

Not always. There are BJJ folks who also fall foul of the issues in the first paragraph. What they’d like to happen is that the is that self-defence will unfold exactly like it does when they fight each other. They have the same blind spots as many other arts do. The striker may ignore / explain away the grappling side of self-protection … and BJJ people often ignore / explain away multiples, escape skills, etc.

They are without a doubt the premier ground fighters in the martial arts world, but it needs to be contextualised to be of real relevance and value to self-protection. Not all BJJ folks make a good job of that contextualisation – some flat out deny the need – and hence I’d question if BJJ does indeed acknowledge and operate in that zone. Some do; Some don't.

PASmith wrote:
I'd also like to say there's a difference between controlling someone on the ground in order to restrain … and controlling someone on the ground in order to beat them in a fight or survive a self defence situation.

True. But there is also a difference between “controlling someone on the ground in order to beat them in a fight” and what should be done to “survive a self defence situation.”

That difference is key and it’s lost on most martial artists. The goals are different, and so the optimum methodology is different.

PASmith wrote:
BJJ offers a very good road map (this position is better than this position, etc) to help navigate that side of self defence.

Definitely. The skills are unquestionably there and developed to the highest degree. Again, contextualisation remains vital though.

The goal determines the strategy, the strategy determines the tactics, and the tactics determine the selection of techniques and how they are applied.

Change the goal and the strategy changes, as do the tactics, as does the selection of techniques and how they are applied.

Because the goal of “winning a consensual fight” is not the same as “avoid harm from criminal activity” they necessitate different strategies, tactics and technique selection.

We can’t take the strategy, tactics and technique selection designed for one specific goal, and then apply them unchanged to a different goal, and expect a good result.

The techniques of BJJ are highly effective on the ground BUT we need to choose the right ones and apply them in the right way for the specific goal. Apply one-on-one fighting strategies in self-protection and it can be disastrous (even fatal; and we have several instances of that happening). Apply well-developed technique, in the right strategical and tactical way, in accord the goals of self-protection and you’re likely to get a good result. BJJ can be helpful or harmful depending on how well it is contextualised (as is always the case for all systems).

All the best,

Iain  

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

You make a lot of excellent points.  I think there's definitely a split in the BJJ community, but it's fair to say that many gyms do teach ground submissions as the ultimate tool for self-defense.  It can be a serious problem.  (I don't whether this will change or get worse as the art continues to evolve.)  I agree with the discussion of the risks and the importance of contextualizing the skill set. 

Great thread, enjoyed the read.

colby
colby's picture

The issue I've always had is that they are right in that a lot of conflicts end up on the ground. My question had always been how do you get back on your feet? That doesn't seem to be something that is covered in most gyms. Personally, I think that's a skill that should be trained more.

Tau
Tau's picture

colby wrote:
My question had always been how do you get back on your feet? That doesn't seem to be something that is covered in most gyms. Personally, I think that's a skill that should be trained more.

Completely agree. This is a skill that I start training at white belt level. In my view some sort of method of getting back to the feet is essential if you're going to call what you do "pragmatic." My white belts learn the combative stand-up (as we call it) and it evolves from there.

Marcus_1
Marcus_1's picture

colby wrote:

The issue I've always had is that they are right in that a lot of conflicts end up on the ground. My question had always been how do you get back on your feet? That doesn't seem to be something that is covered in most gyms. Personally, I think that's a skill that should be trained more.

This is it, you can try and "hold" someone on the floor; but that gives the issues of: 1) it eventually becomes a question of who has the greater "will to get up" or who has the better stamina

2) it opens up the issues of positional asphyxia (as mentioned in the original post)

3) you are going to be on the ground until either

i) someone comes to help

ii) one of you miraculously give up (the criminal won't do this)

I just don't see how an art that, in the mainstream encourages someone to take the fight to the ground and it ends there is helpful.  I agree that all martial arts should have grappling skills included as, in a "street fight"/self-protection environment, the "fight" won't always be a stand up punch-a-thon; in fact the majority won't as your average criminal (in my experience) will just wade in with either several swinging punches that means you end up close to the assailant, they go for a grab of some kind which again brings you close to the assailant and unable to punch until you've made space or they just go for a bundle to the ground to enable them to wade in with kicks (they know what they are doing and are hoping to take you by surprise so whilst you are busy thinking what the hell just happened, they are on their feet wading in with kicks and stamps).

Also, in the current climate, a criminal is likely to be armed or in a "pack", I have seen too many groups of young (teenagers) lads (and laddesses) gang up on one or two people in order to get their kicks (quite literally).  This isn't footage that appears on TV, this is real-life footage from CCTV that I have seen in my day job of investigating stuff like this.  

Seriously, staying on your feet is far better, yes going to the floor could be unavoidable, but if you do go to ground, you need to be able to get up again (without killing/doing serious injury) the other person - unless of course they have a knife or other weapon in which case you might be ok in being reliant on a defence of self-defence under common law

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Tau wrote:
Completely agree. This is a skill that I start training at white belt level. In my view some sort of method of getting back to the feet is essential if you're going to call what you do "pragmatic." My white belts learn the combative stand-up (as we call it) and it evolves from there.

This is done in some BJJ places, they even call the "BJJ stand up" or something of that sort.

The thing is that so many BJJ places are primarily based in competition, that even their "combatives" program assumes you should just go to the ground, and makes very little if any *strategic* distincition between fighting and self defese. The combatives program has some good material, pretty much traditional Jujutsu... again though, it still assumes that everything is a one on one fight with considerable leisure time.

Submission grappling is more fun for most people than training basic positional grappling in order to get up, strike, disengage, escape what have you...so it is just done less. Not a problem, other than the fact that they are advertising it as valid self defense. It goes back to to Iain's whole "martial map" notion, one has to know what they are training for. Ask 90% of people in martial arts and they will say their training covers all three categories (marital arts, fighting, self defense), or simply claim there is no difference.

Tau
Tau's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:
Completely agree. This is a skill that I start training at white belt level. In my view some sort of method of getting back to the feet is essential if you're going to call what you do "pragmatic." My white belts learn the combative stand-up (as we call it) and it evolves from there.

This is done in some BJJ places, they even call the "BJJ stand up" or something of that sort.

The thing is that so many BJJ places are primarily based in competition, that even their "combatives" program assumes you should just go to the ground, and makes very little if any *strategic* distincition between fighting and self defese. The combatives program has some good material, pretty much traditional Jujutsu... again though, it still assumes that everything is a one on one fight with considerable leisure time.

I hold the controversial view that BJJ is one of the worst martial arts for pragmatism. In fairness this isn't true all clubs but certainly most. My reasoning being that it teaches a ruleset (no fingerlocks, no eye attacks, no groin strikes etc,) it's one-on-one, there are no weapons and it's done in an ideal environment with ideal clothing.

It would be remiss of me to not consider the alternative view. That being that it's a very arduous sport that favours a determined and strategic mindset. It's the most physically demanding activity I've done. I do miss regular training in it although I don't miss the injuries. Furthermore that everything is pressure tested gives it a significant edge over many arts.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I actually agree with you, the total confusion of self defense vs. consensual fighting is really terrible in some BJJ schools, it's almost comparable to big commerical TKD schools of the 80s and 90s...schools that focus exclusviely on competition and say it is self-defense oriented, etc.

I don't think this the art though, it's just martial arts marketing vs. reality. Someone with good training in any form of grappling and some basic kickboxing is quite formiddable, but that is not guarantee that a training program featuring these two will be good, much less geared toward self-defense concepts. As you say, the big plus in their corner is consistent pressure testing, and that is very significant.

Tau
Tau's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:

I actually agree with you, the total confusion of self defense vs. consensual fighting is really terrible in some BJJ schools, it's almost comparable to big commerical TKD schools of the 80s and 90s...schools that focus exclusviely on competition and say it is self-defense oriented, etc.

In my experience that's still the case with 99% of TKD schools

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
I hold the controversial view that BJJ is one of the worst martial arts for pragmatism.

I think the issues we see in BJJ are certainly not unique to BJJ. Most martial artists believe fighting (“street fighting”) to be one of the and the same as self-protection. Practitioners of all systems extrapolate their given form of one-on-one consensual flighting to being tactically identical to physical self-protection; and they completely ignore the vitally important non-physical elements i.e. personal security, escape, de-escalation, law, nature of crime, etc.

I therefore don’t think we can point to BJJ as being demonstrably worse than other systems, because they all have the same HUGE blind spot. As has been said,

Zach Zinn wrote:
the total confusion of self defense vs. consensual fighting is really terrible in some BJJ schools, it's almost comparable to big commercial TKD schools of the 80s and 90s...schools that focus exclusively on competition and say it is self-defense oriented, etc.

Tau wrote:
In my experience that's still the case with 99% of TKD schools

It’s a problem in TKD, karate, kick-boxing, MMA, Japanese jujutsu, and on and on. Even alleged “reality-based systems” fall foul of the same trap i.e. there are a significant number of Krav Maga people who apply military combatives to civilian self-protection unchanged; and who also completely ignore, or give lip-service, to the vital “soft skills”.

In all approaches, there are those who get it, and those who don’t. It’s fair to say that most don’t get it. However, I’m not seeing anything in BJJ that makes it noticeably worse than any other system.

All the best,

Iain

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

A few general comments:

Here in the US, I'd say that the vast majority of martial arts schools have serious flaws in the way they teach self-protection.  It comes in different degrees and forms, but it's all over the place.  I agree that BJJ seems to be about the same as the others.  For what's it worth, I'd say that people in the US would have a better time learning self-protection at a firearms school than at a martial arts school . . . even if they had no interest in guns.  Reputable firearms instructors (emphasis on reputable) tend to care a lot more about the legalities and practicalities of self-protection (because they have no choice).  But that's a discussion for another time . . .

BJJ is evolving fast.  Schools can have very different approaches to self-protection.  For example, in BJJ schools where wrestling or submission wrestling is part of the curriculum, students tend to be much harder to take down, much more aggressive, and much better at controlling the enemy. 

Some of you have mentioned the importance of getting back up from the ground.  Pretty much all BJJ schools will teach a combative or technical stand-up.  But again, schools that integrate wrestling or MMA skills into the curriculum will have students that are much better at this. 

Some of you have mentioned the problem of a ground fight stretching on for a long period of time.  Keep in mind that the BJJ arsenal does include chokeholds and neck cranks that can finish a fight very quickly.  Yes, there are serious legal issues to be aware of when using those techniques, but the same holds for karate bunkai that incorporates chokeholds or neck cranks.  So the goal is not to hang out on the ground for a long time, but for the average student to finish the fight on the ground and get away.

Lastly, I'll mention that even though you see a lot of problems with BJJ white belts and blue belts, most advanced practitioners (purple belt) and above are well-rounded martial artists.  I say most, understanding that there are some exceptions. 

All things considered, I'd agree that the floor is not your friend.  I do think BJJ overemphasizes groundfighting and that the risk of mutliple enemies is worth taking seriously.  However, I also think that karate and BJJ tend to complement each other (80% karate/20% BJJ).  There are a lot of BJJ guys who do take these issues seriously and who want to incorporate effective striking into their skill set.  A lot of times I'll hear BJJ guys say, "Yeah, I'd like to learn striking, but boxing and Muay Thai are my only options, and I don't want to take shots to the head."  Pragmatic karate would be perfect for a lot of them, but they aren't aware of it. 

I'll end by pointing out that the self-protection skills taught in pragmatic karate circles (especially those connected with this forum) are light years ahead of the vast majority of schools.  That's why I spend so much time on this forum, even though I don't train regularly in karate any more.  I hope that the pragmatic karate movement will push other arts to look at their own weaknesses and to evolve into something better. 

Tau
Tau's picture

deltabluesman wrote:
I'd say that people in the US would have a better time learning self-protection at a firearms school than at a martial arts school . . . even if they had no interest in guns.  Reputable firearms instructors (emphasis on reputable) tend to care a lot more about the legalities and practicalities of self-protection (because they have no choice).  But that's a discussion for another time . . .

That's very interesting and makes a lot of sense. I had a student who was a police office for the Ministry of Defence so he was firearms trained. Fascinating to talk to. Not so much about firearms but about their training.

deltabluesman wrote:
Some of you have mentioned the importance of getting back up from the ground.  Pretty much all BJJ schools will teach a combative or technical stand-up.  But again, schools that integrate wrestling or MMA skills into the curriculum will have students that are much better at this.

I'm wondering if maybe I've had bad experiences because this isn't mine. My BJJ school I attended did it once in a while as part of the warm-up. Conversely in the class I teach it's done nearly every class. Admittedly as part of the warm-up as I think it's a great core exercise.

deltabluesman wrote:
Lastly, I'll mention that even though you see a lot of problems with BJJ white belts and blue belts, most advanced practitioners (purple belt) and above are well-rounded martial artists.  I say most, understanding that there are some exceptions.

Again not experience. In my experience those that are well rounded are because they cross train. I see BJJ as being the Wing Chun of the ground; incredibly deep, but narrow. I hasten to add that this isn't a criticism per se as if there were nine days in the week I'd love to regularly train in both BJJ and Wing Chun.

Your point about being on this forum despite not doing Karate any more is also interesting. Karate isn't my primary art but the way of Karate that we all promote is a big influence on what I do.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I will throw this out there..so to speak ha!: I did Judo for a year and a half, the stuff actually taught as "self defense" in Judo was downright terrible, it clearly just wasn't their wheelhouse. On the other hand, the skills you learned from it were mechanically better for self-defense in terms of physical technique than BJJ, even though they were done in completely different context. There are exceptions, turtling for instance.

I think the issue with BJJ is that despite the fact that their stuff is all pressure tested, most of the time the context is well..nearly suicidal in terms of self-defense, or at least very dangerous, whereas its perfectly appropriate for consensual fighting, probably even preferable to other approaches. It is possibly the most effective way to win a one on one consensual fight with no time limit - this is one place where they are actually "the most effective" I think.

To go back to the TKD analogy..what makes TKD such bad self defense -purely in terms of mechanical technique- (as its often taught) is the reliance specifically on high kicks, which are dangerous to do period..we don't need to cover why, as I'm sure everyone here would largely be in agreement that high kicks are a very poor idea in terms of self defense.

The BJJ comparison would the gaurd. If you learn BJJ competitively you learn that the guard is useful for all kinds of stuff, given the rules of BJJ competition it's understandable why this is. However, relying on the gaurd as anything but a failsafe which is better than being mounted is a bad idea in self defense, and is likely to get the back of your head dropped on a curb, get you kicked in the head etc. That's without needing to discuss specifically multiple opponents, weapons and everything elses that changes the context to a self-defense situation.

So there are two levels of evaluation involved here - one is that a given martial is not taught as self defense and is contextualized incorrectly...that's most of them. On the level of purely physical technique though, there are some things that are more dangerous to the user than others, and in self defense terms reliance on the guard as anything but an "oh shit" position to get out of quickly is the main thing that puts it into dangerous territory, In my opinion. This is one of the main facets of the whole "everything goes to the ground so lets just go there first" thing. Not only are you on the ground, you are effectively immoblized until you are able to take further action. We should all train for the possiblity of finding ourselves there, but we should -not- train to seek it out. I know some BJJ schools teach kicking someone off from the guard and standing etc...I think it may even be in the "combatives" curriculum, but no idea how commonly it is drilled. It's much more common to work sweeps etc. geared towards competition it seems. In other words, in BJJ the gaurd is almost treated as strategic decision..not just a tactical one, and that is diametrically opposed to the notion of self defense, which requires a strategy focused on mobility, situational and environmental awareness, etc.

BJJ gets extra ribbing I think because since the Gracies popularized it in the late 90's, the bravado coming from some BJJ schools is unmistakable, this side by side with the above issues sometimes make it a larger target than it would be otherwise, which isn't neccessarily fair. However,  as an example, the BJJ school in my town simply bills itself as teaching "the most effective marital art ever".

As to neck cranks and chokes, the sorts of neck cranks and chokes taught in BJJ (outside the combative program) are IMO not primary self defense techniques at all, regardless of how effective they may be when deployed in BJJ training or competition. In a self defense context they occupy the same space as something like a wrist lock, good to know and gain experience of, but very secondary, and not ideal to the strategic framework of a defense-based program. 

In other words, I don't think that self-defense is a technique-neutral proposition at all. Train a given technique or tactic enough, build your program around, and it functionally becomes a strategy. That's without even addressing all the non-physical stuff we know is so important.

Tau
Tau's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:
I think the issue with BJJ is that despite the fact that their stuff is all pressure tested, most of the time the context is well..nearly suicidal in terms of self-defense, or at least very dangerous, whereas its perfectly appropriate for consensual fighting, probably even preferable to other approaches. It is possibly the most effective way to win a one on one consensual fight with no time limit - this is one place where they are actually "the most effective" I think.

Agreed. 

Zach Zinn wrote:
To go back to the TKD analogy..what makes TKD such bad self defense -purely in terms of mechanical technique- (as its often taught) is the reliance specifically on high kicks,

I did ITF TKD. Although there was high emphasis on kicks they didn't need to be high kicks. My issues with TKD from a pragmatic perspective are twofold:

1. It being derived from the Karate of Tokyo in the 1930s / 1940s so the truly pragmatic aspect of the kata was being practiced. This became the patterns

2. The reliance on unrealistic attacks

To defend BJJ a second, I concede that my view of BJJ is coloured and I may not have had a great experience. Similarly how many Karate practitioners' views are shaped by 3K Karate? I love some of the stuff that Rener and Ryron Gracie do. And Gracie Jiujitsu was originally intended to be pragmatic.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

In response to a few of the points that have been made . . .

Overall, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement about the flaws and drawbacks of BJJ and of groundfighting in general.  We could go back and forth on the details, but the general views are the same. 

There's no need to repeat it here, but in other posts on the forum I've outlined my views on the value of a simple training "game plan" that covers all the contexts you care about (self protection, MMA, point fighting, etc.).  I believe that a well-rounded self-protection game plan must include a groundfighting game (especially for women's self-protection), and in other threads we've talked about what that might look like.  I do believe that certain chokes on the ground (rear naked choke from back mount and the arm triangle from the guard) have a place in the self-protection toolkit.  It's true that they're not Plan A or Plan B, but we could talk about situations where they might come into play.  At the end of the day, the general point is the same:  groundfighting is almost always the last resort. 

As far as marketing goes:  it's a good point.  I do have to mention that I encounter the exact same thing when I cross-train in other styles, though.  For example, the local Krav Maga schools advertise themselves as teaching the most brutal and effective martial art ever designed.  When I first started training in Kenpo years ago, it was billed as an art that was scientifically designed for maximum effect in street fighting (not making this up).  I could provide other examples, but at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that this sort of overblown advertising is a problem.

I will say that in my own life, I spent time training at a 3K Karate school that gave me virtually nothing in terms of fighting skill (and that might have actually made me worse in terms of protecting myself).  When I cross-trained in groundfighting, I went from having zero skill set to having a skill set that was somewhat effective, some of the time.  When I then expanded further into full cross-training, I finally came closer to being a well-rounded martial artist. 

At the risk of derailing the thread, I do want to raise one more question . . . because I think it's important and it's lurking under the surface here.  As I mentioned above, it's my view that groundfighting is part of a complete self-protection skill set.  Unless they're lucky enough to train at a really good school, the most efficient and effective way for martial artists to learn grappling is to cross-train at a BJJ/MMA/submission wrestling/Judo school.  There's almost always going to be a large number of students + instructors in those schools who have different views on self-protection.  How do you approach training in such an environment?  Do you avoid it completely, on the grounds that the self-protection strategy being taught is suicidally ineffective?  Do you proactively bring up this discussion during class?  Do you keep it to yourself and just learn what you can? 

From a practical perspective, I think this question is something that will come up for anyone who wants to cross-train in another martial art.  I have my own answers, but I'd be curious to see how others approach that problem.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

-Definitely- we should not avoid that kind of cross training as it is absolutely vital to rounding out one's skills, which in turns deepens our Karate.

My own method was simply to approach Judo and Jujutsu (the two places I've done the most groundfighting) with "self defense eyes". Studying these sorts of arts from the viewpoint of applied Karate is invaluable in my opinion. I went in wanting to understand groundfighting for self defense, and was critical about what to keep and what to throw away.

Class wise I used the things I learned to develop a very simple groundfighting syllabus geared towards how I teach Karate. Notably though, it is not terribly different from what I've seen other Karate people do, with the possible exception of the fact that I dont many submissions or grappling geared towards it. More often we work getting kicked on the ground, pulling guard out of neccessity, trying to kick off, stand up, etc. I think you are are right thast there are a few ground submissions worth knowing, there are indeed (fairly unlikely but certainly possible) situations where one might need to know them.

A dedicated Karateka training in one of these arts is best done once someone understands the strategy of Karate sfficiently I think. I am not sure that lower ranked Karateka  (e.g a greenbelt) would benefit from a deep dive into an art with a completely different strategy, though individuals are all different. Fighting on the ground generally seems like something that should smply be included in a Karate syyllabus when possible, but cross training in an actual grapping art gets exponentially more valuable once one understands their own art.

I definitely wasn't trying to discourage people from training in grappling, it's a great thing to do. I'd almost say that if anyone nikyu or abovecan do it, they probably should. Mainly I get annoyed by the rhetoric coming from some BJJ schools, and the blatant mischaracterization of "self defense" that you sometimes see.

Additionally, while indeed every art has engaged in this sort of marketing, BJJ is on it's own level brand wise. Think about all the "BJJ vs" videos from the 90's involving some unsuspecting Kenpo, Karate etc. guy who was gullible enough to go against the Gracies with no groundfighting knowledge.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Very well said.  I have the same approach when it comes to submissions.  There are a few worth developing, but by and large my emphasis is on controlling position.  I view the guard as a tool to use when (a) the fight has already ended up on the ground and (b) it's the best option available.  I'm an advocate of cross-training, but I admit that it can sometimes to be tough/demoralizing.  For example, if I were to take six months and just focus on triangle chokes and gi grappling, I'd probably be a lot better in terms of outgrappling other grapplers.  But because my goals are different, this is not on my list of priorities and I instead focus on what matters to me.  It slows down (or even stalls) my progress in other arts, but it gets me closer to where I want to be. 

When I go to a class, I'll do the same thing as you describe.  I will participate, listen to the instructor, and train all of the drills exactly as taught.  But I do try to approach the training with a very careful plan.  I know what I care about and I also know what I'm willing to throw away (or at the very least, not worry about).  Along the way, I have gotten better at some kinds of sport-specific grappling (guard passing, dealing with long battles in half guard, defending submissions), but it's more of an accidental byproduct that something I'm trying to develop. 

I also agree about the value of waiting to add in the groundfighting until later in the syllabus.  For example, you sometimes see schools that teach the armbar from mount to beginners as a self-defense move.  I personally disagree with this approach, because finishing an armbar from mount against live resistance can be tricky, and if you mess up (which a beginner is likely to do), you'll give up dominant position and find yourself in a scramble or worse.  (Plus, I'd go so far as to say that the armbar from mount can and should be dropped totally from the self-protection syllabus, especially for people who don't practice it weekly.)  If the armbar is taught to beginner or intermediate karate students, it will distract them from other skills that are more important (striking, defending strikes, soft skills, etc.) and possibly slow down their progress.  On the other hand, investing time in the armbar makes perfect sense for someone who wants to use it for sport/competitions. 

I've "grappled" for a long time with the problem of how to approach the ineffective parts of the arts I train in.  I ultimately came to the conclusion that even though I had serious disagreements with some of the ineffective self-defense techniques + strategies that were taught, the value of cross-training in the art outweighed the drawbacks, and so I came to see it as just a necessary evil.  I believe that so long as (a) you approach it with a critical mind, (b) you keep your own teaching and practices focused on what matters, and (c) you balance your training in a way that avoids bad habits, you can minimize the drawbacks and maximize the benefits.

My two cents on the subject.  Really good discussion + thread.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

One of the valuable things I learned from Kris Wilder early on is to clearly understand the difference between strategy and tactics in what I'm learning, it's been really vital to my development because #1 I have limited time and #2, well..I'm getting older and feeling it.

So, I feel like getting everything I can out of cross training means contextualizing what I learn to the strategy of my art - Goju Ryu, particulary with regards to self-defense framing.

So, when I learn a new thing from another art, I try to always bring it back to that context. Alongside this I always keep Iain's Martial Map in mind, because for instance there are plenty of things in grappling - such as armbars on the ground that you mention- that really occupy more of the "martial arts" and "fighting" circles than they do self-defense. the standup analogy is something like long range sparring. That doesn't mean that I don't learn them of course, only that focusing on such skills might help me develop strongly in those two categories, and not so much in the self-defense thing, which is the primary orientation of what I teach...though it certainly isn't my only interest.

I actually think cross training is vital to "advanced" practitioners, the process we are talking about - sifting through what you learn critically, going deeper into the strategy of your own art etc. is exactly where martial arts should go after shodan or thereabouts, in my experience. I feel like this was actively encouraged by my own teachers, and it has made a huge difference.