8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
Escaping the Mount (videos)

Hi All,

Here are a couple of superb videos from the Gracie Academy on escaping the mount. The first video explains the core method escaping from a strangle. The second video shows how to prevent punches and then escape. The videos are very clear and the explanations are excellent.

One thing I would note is that statistically (here in the UK) the most likely way for anyone to be killed is to be stabbed. Once we get past that, there are some differences between men and women. After stabbing, women are statistically most likely to be strangled to death. After stabbing, men are statistically most likely to be kicked and punched to death. These two variations would therefore reflect the male / female difference … although everyone should practise both.

The second thing I noted was the use of “solo preparations” in the instruction. As a karateka, I liked this teaching method as it reflected the “kata – drill – application” process central to the art I’m most familiar with. Put a number of these “solo preparations” end to end and you effectively have a ground fighting kata. This kata – just like normal kata – could be used as a supplementary form of solo practise and a transmittable encapsulation of syllabus.

Anyhow, these are very good instructional videos and well worth as watch.

All the best,

Iain

Mount Escape 1 (Strangle)

Mount Escape 2 (Punches)

Jon Sloan
Jon Sloan's picture

Interesting. It's good that they mention that "fights start standing up" but I'm not so keen on the throwaway line in the first video though "later on we're going to show you how to effectively get the fight to the ground and get control of your opponent in the process". It does suggest that they tactically seek to take the fight to the ground, which isn't in my opinion a sound tactic.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Thanks for sharing, Iain.  These are essential, foundational skills.  Although I have been practicing mount escapes for a long time, I still came away with valuable information on how to shore up weaknesses in my own technique.    

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Jon Sloan wrote:
I'm not so keen on the throwaway line in the first video though "later on we're going to show you how to effectively get the fight to the ground and get control of your opponent in the process". It does suggest that they tactically seek to take the fight to the ground, which isn't in my opinion a sound tactic.

Absolutely. I agree it’s an unsound tactic outside the confines on one-on-one consensual fights. Sound enough within that context of course. While in the clips they were definitely talking about a self-protection context, I was unclear if later on they were going to move on to discuss things in a fighting context where taking them down would be OK?

In the video below, they give the impression that the self-protection stuff comes first before moving onto fighting later. So perhaps that is what they were referring to?

All the best,

Iain

“How street ready are you? With so much debate and confusion surrounding the issue of street vs. sport jiu-jitsu, Ryron and Rener sit down for a very candid talk in which they explain the fundamental differences between the two. In a few very simple demonstrations, they make it very clear that "street jiu-jitsu" isn't defined by a set number of techniques, but rather the universal principles of distance management without which one stands little chance of defeating, let alone surviving, the aggressive onslaught of a larger opponent in a real fight. By no means, is this video meant to demean or discredit any jiu-jitsu instructors. Instead, it is meant to serve as a reminder to students and instructors everywhere as to how jiu-jitsu became the most respected martial art on the planet.”

PASmith
PASmith's picture

IMHO the Gracies make some great points about self defence and know exactly what they are on about but then bizarrely proscribe a largely grappling based approach (which is understandable as they teach a grappling based martial art) at odds with the advice. The vast majority of RBSD exponents favour a strike based approach for self defence (for reasons most of us are familiar with...access, use off a fence, speed, ease of escape, immediacy, use against multiples etc etc).

I wonder if they are somewhat hamstrung by being gracie jiu jitsu? Because to my mind their system, if self defence is the aim, should really have some pre-emptive striking included.

Sure GJJ is fantastic for one on one fights and self defence situations that go to a clinch and/or the ground but it seems to me they are missing out on a crucial "step" when trying to end and encounter if they don't advocate pre-emption as a priority.

There's a video of Rickson Gracie fighting Hugo Duarte on the beach in Rio. Rickson slaps Duarte right off the bat to "start" the fight (probably more machismo in action than anything else). They then square up, Rickson shoots on Duarte (IIRC) and then the fight proceeds much like standard BJJ (groundfighting). However I can't help feeling that if Rickson put a bit more welly on the slap, like Mr Consterdine or Mr Abernethy might do, he could have ended the fight right there and not needed to grapple at all.

rframe
rframe's picture

Hi all, I'm new to the forum but have been a fan of Iains for a couple years.  I practice Shotokan karate and (like many others) was excited to experience Iain's common-sense realistic explanations for kata movements.  This new perspective brought me new enthusiasm and frankly a newfound trust in the legitimacy of many of the techniques in karate.  Had it not been for Iain's work I honestly dont know that I'd still be active in karate, but as it is I'm enjoying it, training at a club, and competing at a local recreational level.

I'm also a student of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and I host a "Gracie Garage" which are informal clubs affiliated with the Gracie Academy.  I love seing the references to their videos because I think they are an amazing resource put out by incredible instructors.  In my opinion their material is a fantastic compliment to typical karate instruction.  I get excited about them both.  "Karate by Jesse" said it best when he described the typical karateka as looking like a "goldfish out of water" when they are thrown to the ground.  I think it's vital to have at least some basic grappling training to be a well-rounded martial artist.  However, most martial artists dont have the time or resources to be involved in formal training at multiple schools... this is why I personally really value the Gracie videos.

I just wanted to clarify a couple points that I read in previous comments in this thread since I have a bit of exposure:

1. Gracie Jiu Jitsu is at its core a self-defense system.  The Gracies brothers frequently try to remind people that jiu jitsu has become a sport and much of what is seen on the competitive circuits is ridiculous in a self-dense scenario (sound like an issue/argument karateka might be familiar with? hehe).  Master Helio Gracie, one of the founders (grandfather to the men in the video above) stated that a blue belt (first belt rank given in GJJ) should only be issued to someone who has the basic tools to defend themself in a typical street fight.  Their fundamentals program is called Gracie Combatives.  Regardless whether you attend Gracie Academy, a certified training center, or use their video-based resources, you will start with Gracie Combatives which is strictly self-defense based movements.  The mount videos Iain posted above are literally the first lessons from that series.

2. Yes, it is true that GJJ discourages striking and if a fight is imminent it teaches taking that to the ground in a controlled manner which minimizes exposure to strikes in the process.  I know this sets off alarms to many karateka and reality based self defense "experts".  The logic is two-fold.  First, if you are able to strike someone you are within striking distance.  How many times do we see a fighter setting up a great combination only to get knocked out.  Second, they are teaching to the lowest common denominator of physical strength, skill, and athleticism.  If a 100 pound woman tries to punch her way out of an assault from a 200 pound man, she's most likely going to make the attacker even more angry and not help herself at all.  GJJ has as foundational principles that all movements should be leverage based, use natural body movements, and is rooted in a survival mindset.  Unlike striking arts where the foundational principle is usually to strike fast and hard (which they agree may work great if you are big enough, strong enough, and have the skill to pull it off), GJJ is designed to put yourself in a safe and controlling position requiring minmal effort, regardless of being outclassed in weight and strength, so that your attacker grows weaker and discouraged, until you are in a position to apply a debilitating submission.

3. In the classic "multiple attacker" objection, their point is that a striking art may help you create space and distance so that you can run, so do that if possible, but they explicitly label any teacher who claims to teach a reliable multiple-attacker system a "liar".

While I know this rubs people wrong who hold a lot of common assumptions about self-defense, I'd encourage you to at least check it out... take what makes sense for you and discard what does not.  Gracie Jiu Jitsu has been at the core of US Military combatives programs for about 20 years now and new recruits learn core concepts from Gracie Combatives during basic training.  Here's the US Army Combatives Training Manual for those who do not believe me.  There are 3 chapters on ground fighting which are many of the same lessons you'll find in Gracie Combatives.  There are less than 10 pages on striking for comparrison.  Gracies are currently actively training groups of instructors in the military to combat the huge problem of sexual assault within the military, which by nature usually puts a smaller, weaker victim against a larger, stronger, and emotionally charged attacker.

Anyway, while I'm a practioner of both karate and Gracie jiu-jitsu, I do not claim any expertise in either... far from it.  Also, while I shared some of the core philospophy of GJJ, please note that I am not participating in, nor encouraging, any version of "X art is better than Y art".  I just wanted to share a few bits of information because these happen to be two arts I'm very enthusiastic about, as I think they are both fantastic and are GREAT compliment to each other.

rframe
rframe's picture

Iain, this is the video I messaged you about on Facebook where Helio told Chuck Norris to create jiu-jitsu kata, for solo practice, which he still does.

From the same interview, Chuck's first experience with Jiu-Jitsu

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

rframe wrote:
I'm new to the forum

Welcome! Thanks for the kind words and a fantastic first post! There’s a lot in there that makes a lot of sense and it does help add context to the discussion. Thanks a lot.

There are a couple of things I’d like to comment on:

rframe wrote:
Yes, it is true that GJJ discourages striking and if a fight is imminent it teaches taking that to the ground in a controlled manner which minimizes exposure to strikes in the process. I know this sets off alarms to many karateka and reality based self defense "experts". The logic is two-fold. First, if you are able to strike someone you are within striking distance. How many times do we see a fighter setting up a great combination only to get knocked out. Second, they are teaching to the lowest common denominator of physical strength, skill, and athleticism. If a 100 pound woman tries to punch her way out of an assault from a 200 pound man, she's most likely going to make the attacker even more angry and not help herself at all. GJJ has as foundational principles that all movements should be leverage based, use natural body movements, and is rooted in a survival mindset. Unlike striking arts where the foundational principle is usually to strike fast and hard (which they agree may work great if you are big enough, strong enough, and have the skill to pull it off), GJJ is designed to put yourself in a safe and controlling position requiring minmal effort, regardless of being outclassed in weight and strength, so that your attacker grows weaker and discouraged, until you are in a position to apply a debilitating submission.

I see a few problems with this line of thinking. Firstly, based on UK crime statistics, the vast majority of one-one-one violence results in no treatable injuries to either party i.e. drunk males swinging largely ineffective punches at other drunk males. The type of violent crime where much more serious injuries occur is when multiple attackers are involved. Therefore, multiple enemies should be a significant consideration in all self-protection training.

While the above tactic is logical for one-on-one, if fails when more than one person is involved. The 100 pound woman could try to take the larger male to the ground, and while down there she could get beaten to a pulp by that person’s accomplices. Ask any victim of a gang rape if pulling one of the attackers to the ground would have helped them?

I would also say that it’s incorrect to say that grappling does not depend upon strength, size and skill; but striking does. Grappling needs skill; so does striking. Size and strength help the grappler, and they help the striker (which is why we have weight categories in combat sports).Greater skill can negate the advantage of size and strength for both grapplers AND strikers. One of the hardest hitters I train with is also one of the smallest guys I train with, but his skill is such that he can generate massive impact. My judo coach is also not a large guy, but he’d have no problem tying me in knots on the ground. Both striking and grappling require skill. The above seems to suggest striking is somehow “unskilled”?

The other thing that is being perhaps missed in the above is weapons. Give a person a practise knife during ground work and they instantly have a huge advantage. Taking a person with a knife to the floor is never smart. This video is a deliberate parody of that, but it draws out some serious points around how vulnerable the person with the grappling “advantage” is to being stabbed.

rframe wrote:
In the classic "multiple attacker" objection, their point is that a striking art may help you create space and distance so that you can run, so do that if possible, but they explicitly label any teacher who claims to teach a reliable multiple-attacker system a "liar".

I’d go one further and say that anyone who teaches anything as being 100% reliable is either mistaken, misleading, or has been mislead. There are just way too many variables and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which guarantees victory for everyone in every circumstance. However…

I have to say that the argument above is one I’ve heard a lot and it does set alarm bells off for me. It seems to be saying, “Yes, going to the ground against multiple enemies is likely to lead to disaster, and yes there are better options, but nothing is guaranteed so we might as well decide to lose and do something tactically unsound and very dangerous in order to remain true to the ethos of our style.”

While nothing is guaranteed, some things do stand a better chance of working than others. Avoiding engagement with a single person and using strikes to facilitate escape stands a much better chance of working that committing to grappling with one person so all others can attack freely. Has anyone ever seen a guy out-grapple multiple enemies on the floor?! I can’t even visualise how that would be possible? Using strikes, this guy makes a great job of it though:

He pre-empts, keeps moving and creates space. If anyone where to say a better (or even equal) option would have been for him to tackle the first one to the ground and work from there, I’d state that they were putting love of style over common sense (a trait common among traditionalists too). Can anyone out there show me a comparable video where a guy grappled one of a group to the floor and still managed to keep themselves safe as the others all attacked? And can anyone suggest a scenario were that would be a better option than striking as in the above clip?

So yes, I agree nothing is guaranteed … but I would stay striking and moving gives the best chance of success whereas taking one to the floor is almost certain to guarantee severe injury, rape or death. And it’s wrong, in my view, not to recommend the best tactic because it does not fit with the ethos of the style. It’s for that reason why the “nothing is guaranteed against multiples … so don’t choose the optimum option” argument does not carry much weight with me. It’s putting style over people’s safety.

rframe wrote:
Gracie Jiu Jitsu has been at the core of US Military combatives programs for about 20 years now and new recruits learn core concepts from Gracie Combatives during basic training. Here's the US Army Combatives Training Manual for those who do not believe me. There are 3 chapters on ground fighting which are many of the same lessons you'll find in Gracie Combatives. There are less than 10 pages on striking for comparison.

It’s interesting to note the change over time with regards to military training.  Captain W.E. Fairbairn developed a system of unarmed combat that was deemed so effective it became a part of the training for the Shanghai Municipal Police, the British Commandos, the American Marine corp., the British Special Operations Executive and the American Office of Strategic Services during World War Two. Captain Fairbairn is a practical fighting legend.  In his 1942 combat manual Captain Fairbairn wrote, “You will have noted that no holds or locks on the ground are demonstrated. The reason for this is: THIS IS WAR.” Captain Fairbairn goes on to explain that we should aim to regain our feet as quickly as possible, we are very vulnerable to attack whilst on the floor, that there is a vast difference between fighting on mats and on rocky ground or a road, and that the most important thing is to remain on your feet in the first instance if at all possible.

So did all those British and American WW2 soldiers have it wrong? That training manual had zero ground fighting locks and holds; but the modern one has a large amount. I would suggest that this is due, not to military need, but due to the changing face of warfare and martial arts. Modern warfare is less “face to face” than ever before. Ground grappling is more popular than ever before. So give something that develops combative attributes (fitness and aggression), is less likely to injure soldiers (than say something like boxing training could), is enjoyable for them, and is unlikely to be ever used battle is perfectly  fine.

It’s also too much of a coincidence that the first UFC was in 1993, and as you state, “Gracie Jiu Jitsu has been at the core of US Military combatives programs for about 20 years now”. There was no sudden change in the nature of warfare 20 years ago, but there was a huge change in the popularity of ground fighting 20 years ago :-) It’s only since the UFC / MMA boom that groundwork has found its way into military training. This should tell us that it is fashion over need that is driving this … and friends of mine in the military do have some reservations about that.

It also worth remembering that as far back as the ancient Greeks, Plato (himself an accomplished wrestler) said that Pankration (the MMA of his day) was now unsuitable for military training because combatants spent too much time on the ground.

To be 100% clear, BJJ is a superb art. The videos above are excellent; some of the best instructional videos I’ve ever seen. Having skill on the floor can be a huge help in self-protection. However, we need to put context defined objective first. Method should be made to fit the needs of various types of violence. We should not try to reinvent violence to try to fit the method (as we see in karate with lunge punches from 10 feet away being labelled as “self-defence”; and I would also suggest we see in modern MMA / GJJ / BJJ when it is posited that the ground is an desirable option).

rframe wrote:
please note that I am not participating in, nor encouraging, any version of "X art is better than Y art". I just wanted to share a few bits of information because these happen to be two arts I'm very enthusiastic about, as I think they are both fantastic and are GREAT compliment to each other.

I totally get that and would like to echo that sentiment. It’s not a matter of “art vs. art” but looking honestly and objectively at the problem and choosing the right solution based on the nature of the problem; not putting style over function. I also agree that BJJ and Karate can complement each other very well. But no single method or system or tactic and be used “as is” as a “one size fits all” solution to every single possible combative scenario. Context and objective must always be the overriding drivers.

All the best,

Iain