How good is systema groundfighting compared to Jujutsu or Brazilian jujutsu?

[Jackal]

"How good is systema groundfighting compared to Jujutsu or Brazilian jujutsu?"

Well...umm... it works.
Why bother going further with a comparison?

 

[Ken Pfrenger]

I had the chance to view the Wrestling Fundamentals dvd featuring Ryabko.....I was pretty impressed with the material and the systema practitioners who demo on the dvd. Lots of live groundwork that looked very good.

Both these guys were well versed on the ground before their systema experience I think but you could see the Russian style coming through......Russians have a solid history with grappling anyway....take a look at the Grapplers Toolbox from ROSS/RMAX...great stuff there.

 

[seal]

The ground can be your friend. This is nothing new. The situation dictates tactics. This is also nothing new. But if I can find a way to get the fight back to standing, where the chances of survival are better, then I shall. I'd rather not wrestle on concrete, thank you, if it's avoidable. If, for whatever reason, I can't get back to my feet, then I fight on the ground.

 

[mattpowell]

How much ground training do you need if your finger is pulling the other guys eye out...won't he get off you or open himself up?

I had a student ask me that once, and it's a good point. Too often we constantly talk about ground fighting as locks and chokes, and not the dirty fighting aspect. I see videos all the time of 'striker vs. grappler' where the grappler wins...but the other guy is not fighting dirty. As such, you can't say who would win in the 'street' where there are no rules but those rules you impose on yourself.

You can't be a well rounded fighter without some basis of groundwork and clinch work. Having good principles, like positional dominance drilled into you is important....learning basic escapes, locks, and chokes is also very important.

But, at the end of the day, you still have the dirty fighting aspects of ground fighting that I do not feel are taught much...like grabbing the groin, skin fold grabs, throat grabs, eye gouges. These seem elemental, but if you never train in them, it's not second nature.

Psychologically, if you train to do arm bars all day, you'll start looking for arm bars on the ground instead of putting your finger through his eye.

It's the age old difference between sport style fighting and survival style fighting. The principles of sport style fighting can only assist 'street' fighting...it's a matter of tailoring your tactics to your situation.

I don't think you can go wrong with training in whatever is around you ground wise....BJJ, judo, sambo (my fav), etc. Just remember what's needed and where and you should be ok. Get your base down, and then take the base where you want....

Just my thoughts....!

 

[RachelK]

But, at the end of the day, you still have the dirty fighting aspects of ground fighting that I do not feel are taught much...like grabbing the groin, skin fold grabs, throat grabs, eye gouges. These seem elemental, but if you never train in them, it's not second nature.

I couldn't agree more. But eye gouges are a bit hard to practice...we only have two and to sacrifice the gift of sight for the sake of learning self-defense is putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. Of course I am being a bit facetious here, I realize Matt is not suggesting that we actually gouge each other's eyes. But as to the other dirty fighting aspects, Systema does include these, such as targeting the groin, pinching and grabbing the skin, chokes, also hair-pulling, ear-twisting, finger manipulation, and even occassionally biting. OK, perhaps the latter is just my tactic, not a regular part of Systema practice. I am certaily no mouthpiece for Systema, this is just one student's perspective. Ground work can be dangerous even in a practice setting. If my partner is a huge, aggressive guy who just wants to "win" by pinning me to the ground, sometimes I do feel actual danger during our interaction. And if he's going to use his strength and mass, then I'm going to use whatever sneaky tricks are available to me so I can free myself, even if they might be perceived as "dishonorable." I have noticed that some people respond exactly as you described: they are surprised by any move that is forbidden by the UFC. But people catch on fast. Once I take a guy's pinky finger and bend it backwards to free myself, I generally cannot do so again...he'll keep his fingers neatly tucked for the rest of the class. So I totally agree, filthy tricks are well worth practicing. On the other hand, I also enjoy light, playful practice on the ground. It is a good way to learn to move and evade on the ground without the psychological implications of "going for broke." I think it's good to practice both lightly and intensely, slow as well as fast. I love fighting on the ground, I always discover something new when we practice groundwork.
I also think it's better to practice without mats or protective gear. Some people point out that mats and protective gear allow students to practice more aggressive tactics without fear of injury, and I think that's OK for sport but for self-defense, why lessen the fear of injury which is an important motivation in the drive for self-preservation? That doesn't mean that you must sustain injuries to learn effectively; learning precision and control through slow movement and gradual progression to more intense practice will help prevent injuries. But of course, learning in this way does require some cooperation. And I have met more than a few people who want to "go for broke" and the distressing part about working with such people is that they cross the line from student to violent felon. I often hear people say "Well, a criminal isn't going to be so nice to you, so let me attack you like a 'real' criminal so we can be 'realistic.'" The problem is that a "real" criminal does not deserve nor expect any consideration of his well-being, but a fellow student does. And those who seek such "realism" in training might end up with very "real" injuries or even worse. So while I totally agree that dirty tricks must be practiced, I also think that they must be practiced with a certain degree of caution lest the proverbial cart is placed before the horse and a student seeking to learn about self-defense instead finds himself fighting for his life in the name of "realism."
Once again, just my $0.02, I want to make it clear that I am not making any pronouncements about Systema, it's just a perspective of one student who happens to practice Systema.
All the best,
Rachel

 

[mattpowell]

About the original subject matter....BJJ vs. the world.

I can only speak from a Sambo and Combat Sambo point of view, and from my limited experience with BJJ. I've rarely worked with a BJJ practitioner who sucks. It's a gruleing sport and system. But, at the end of the day, the old cliche stays true...it's what's best for the student.

My personal experience is the throwing and take down base of sambo is a little more developed because of the rules of sambo...on the ground, I think one would find a regular BJJ class versus slightly more helpful because of the chokes. But, in combat sambo, the chokes and other manipulations are taught...but how often does one find a combat sambo school in the neighborhood....whereas there is a BJJ school on every corner.

Most of the time, people talking 'street' tend to overlook the psychophysiological aspects of street fighting as opposed to gym/sport fighting in a ring. Recreating the 'street' is difficult in a training class, because we can fight in a parking lot all day long...but if you aren't full of adrenaline and scared shitless, then you really aren't training for the street. Which is one reason things go to the ground so often...stand up fighting is, IMHO, much more dificult than ground fighting, and attributes that aren't as accessible when standing up become more accessible on the ground. What I mean by this is weight and power are great on the ground; but they are neutralized by foot speed, hand speed, and accuracy when standing up.

Most fights are just people flailing their arms until someone dives in for the tackle to go to the ground, anyway...

I think you can give the majority of people an edge by addressing their psychology in training...

M

 

[RachelK]

Great post, Matt, that's a very good point about not being able to recreate a street fight in training. Being very brutal and hurting your partner a great deal just is not at all the same as the threat of death. I would only add for women in particular that there is also danger at home and in the office. I've been attacked on the street and at home and I only ever feared for my life at home, when the attack was a total surprise and I knew no-one could hear me scream. My guard was down, I was feeling secure as most people do in their own homes, so I was relaxed and unaware (actually, one time I was asleep). The most common place for women to be attacked is the area near their place of employment and the assailant is typically an acquaintance. Women typically don't get into bar or street fights and while the danger of random violence from strangers on the street is very real, statitistics demonstrate that the danger from acquaintances in familiar places, like the office parking lot, is actually far more common.
Just my $0.02, hope I haven't derailed the thread too much. Thanks again for your great post.
Best,
Rachel

 

[SilatSeeker]

The ground... "it's just another plane."

And an inferior one in most self-defense situations with obvious exceptions while dodging a spray of machine gun fire.

There is a reason that the "high ground" has historically been strategically superior.

1) Far more mobility while on your feet
2) Gravity works for you and against opponent on ground (add a swinging weapon into this equation and it's force multiplied)
3) Superior visability/combat orientation (you can easily turn head to get a 360º view while on feet. On ground you need to move neck in two planes (lift or drop and turn) to get same orientation.

And that's just for starters...

 

[RachelK]

The ground... "it's just another plane."
And an inferior one in most self-defense situations with obvious exceptions while dodging a spray of machine gun fire.
There is a reason that the "high ground" has historically been strategically superior.
1) Far more mobility while on your feet
2) Gravity works for you and against opponent on ground (add a swinging weapon into this equation and it's force multiplied)
3) Superior visability/combat orientation (you can easily turn head to get a 360 view while on feet. On ground you need to move neck in two planes (lift or drop and turn) to get same orientation.
And that's just for starters...

That's just one perspective. You cannot say with any authority than the high ground is strategically superior for everyone. In Systema, it depends on the situation. There are no rules such as "always better to be on your feet."
I have seen people who view going to the ground as a failure. They will stand hunched over and allow themselves to be pummelled rather than simply drop which might give them an advantage (taking the attacker down as you fall, or from the ground.) Once they are on the ground, they tense up and all they can think about is getting back up again. Any opportunities that might come their way are utterly ignored because they are singularly focussed on getting back on their feet. Some people can focus on offensive moves simultaneous as they try to get back to their feet. But just as many will be too distracted to think of anything but standing up again.
The less comfortable you are in any situation, the more vulnerable you will be. The ground is not a worst-case scenario in Systema. Preferable though it may be to remain standing, you will eventually find yourself on the ground so might as well get comfortable there.
I'm sure I'm not alone in preferring groundfighting to standing up. It may be hard to believe and there's probably someone reading this is is certain that I am misleading myself and that I could not possibly be better on the ground. But that's what my experience tells me.
The strategic advantages come from individual who perceives them, not from the situation.
That's a Systema perspective, nothing more.
Best,
Rachel

 

[SilatSeeker]

"That's just one perspective. You cannot say with any authority than the high ground is strategically superior for everyone."

Actually, no, it's a generalization based on historical warfare. I can say with quite a bit of authority that "generally" dropping on the ground as first resort is an inferior strategy.

That's a lot different than saying you shouldn't be comfortable there psychologically or you should see it as a failure or that you shouldn't be situationally aware. But, generally speaking, yes, its an inferior position.

Fact: Gravity aids the standing opponent. Grounded opponent works against it.

Fact: Standing opponent has more mobility. Grounded opponent has less mobility.

Fact: Standing opponent can more easily Orient. Grounded opponent has to work harder to orient.

Fact: Standing opponent can bring full leverage of legs against grounded opponent - while grounded opponents legs lose ideal mechanical power.

Again, situational exceptions like machine gun fire, a fight on a padded mat with an opponent with NO ground experience, and when you have to.

"The less comfortable you are in any situation, the more vulnerable you will be."

True.

And the more vulnerable you are, the more vulnerable you are.

If you are on ground against a standing opponent - you are more vulnerable. If you are unarmed against an opponent with a knife, gun, stick, you are more vulnerable. If you are walking across open ground confronting a sniper in a bell tower, you are more vulnerable.

"No Rules" doesn't mean that very real probabilities don't exist in real life. Logically, the more probabilities on your side, the higher probability of success. That doesn't mean there aren't times to break rules to win. You just need to know when you are working against probabilities.

"Don't try to throw an opponent who's still in balance." is a good battle tested rule. There's nothing wrong with rules and principles. And there's nothing wrong with breaking them when the situation calls for it. (Maybe your up against a little twirp with no strength and you can easily muscle the throw without breaking a sweat). But if you don't know the rules, then you don't know when you are breaking them - which means one is in a very bad place. Vunerability.

 

[RachelK]

Actually, no, it's a generalization based on historical warfare. I can say with quite a bit of authority that "generally" dropping on the ground as first resort is an inferior strategy.

Because of this sentence, I skimmed through the rest of your post. Anyone who can say anything about combat with quite a bit of authority is too much of an authority for me to put much credibility in your statements. And who said anything about dropping on the ground as a first resort? That's your interpretation, I only said that fighting on the ground is not inherently a position of disadvantage.

If you are on ground against a standing opponent - you are more vulnerable. If you are unarmed against an opponent with a knife, gun, stick, you are more vulnerable. If you are walking across open ground confronting a sniper in a bell tower, you are more vulnerable.

I see that attitude as defeatist. Armed, I'd have no chance against Vladimir Vasiliev. Standing up, I can name half-a-dozen people who would make short work out of me from the ground. Obviously the sniper situation is a disadvantage, just like being surrounded by two dozen gun-wielding attackers is a disadvantage to a person in a wheelchair. We can name all kinds of scenarios where one person is at a huge disadvantage. But we're talking about groundwork, and I still believe that being on the ground, even against a standing attacker, is not a disadvantage unless you allow it to become one.

"Don't try to throw an opponent who's still in balance." is a good battle tested rule. There's nothing wrong with rules and principles. And there's nothing wrong with breaking them when the situation calls for it. (Maybe your up against a little twirp with no strength and you can easily muscle the throw without breaking a sweat). But if you don't know the rules, then you don't know when you are breaking them - which means one is in a very bad place. Vunerability.

It is obvious from your statement above that we disagree. I am a Systema practitioner and your remarks are so contrary to the Systema way of combat that our points of view are bound to differ. Since this is a Russian Martial Art forum, I hope you will keep in mind that I'm only offering the Systema point of view.
Best,
Rachel

 

[SilatSeeker]

"Because of this sentence, I skimmed through the rest of your post"

Too bad, you missed some good stuff.

"Anyone who can say anything about combat with quite a bit of authority is too much of an authority for me to put much credibility in your statements."

Would that include the authority of Vlad? Does it apply to your "the Systema way of combat". Your in a bit of a bind here since in the realm of combat you've just said you can't put much credibility into anyone that says anything about combat with quite a bit of authority.

Hopefully this discounting of those who speak with authority doesn't extend to other fields of human knowledge.

"I see that attitude as defeatist."

Cool. I see it as reality. And looking at reality clearly doesn't mean defeatist. It means understanding that inferior positions are a very real fact, understanding when you are on the wrong end and using that knowledge productively. Usually that means lots of imagination, fluidity, creativity and innovation.

I don't take the reality of superior strategic positions and lay down and die when they are not on my side. That's silly. Just as silly as denying that there isn't such a thing as a superior strategic position in combat.

Seriously, how does realizing that someone holding a gun or knife is in a strategically superior position = defeatism? It's a reality. Now creatively deal with the place you find yourself in.

"But we're talking about groundwork, and I still believe that being on the ground, even against a standing attacker, is not a disadvantage unless you allow it to become one."

Okay...I'm probably not going to change your mind on that.

"It is obvious from your statement above that we disagree."

LOL, I'd say that's an understatement

"Since this is a Russian Martial Art forum, I hope you will keep in mind that I'm only offering the Systema point of view."

I'm only here because I think Systema offers much to the world of combat. And so does healthy discourse over areas of disagreement - especially at the level of core principles - philosophies.

Anyway, I guess this thread was originally about Bjj vs. Systema, not about the fact or illusion of superior positions in combat. My apologies to the board and I'll start a different thread next time - no more hijacking.

 

[RachelK]

Would that include the authority of Vlad?

Yes, Vlad doesn't come across that way. He's actually a very humble person considering his skill and experience. We could all take a page from his book in that regard.
Best,
Rachel

 

[Jackal]

Two people are placed 10 feet apart – one standing, one on the ground. There’s a pistol on the ground halfway between them. Who gets to it first? One can cover ground faster; the other has less actual distance to travel.

 

[SilatSeeker]

Forgive me... but your question above triggered this dialogue from BladeRunner in my memory...

HOLDEN: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when....

LEON: Is this the test now ?

HOLDEN: Yes. You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you lookdown and see a.....

LEON: What one ? What desert ?

HOLDEN: Doesn't make any difference what desert.. it's completely hypothetical.

LEON: But how come I'd be there?

HOLDEN: Maybe you're fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself.. who knows. So you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you....

LEON: A tortoise. What's that?

HOLDEN: Know what a turtle is?

LEON: Of course.

HOLDEN: Same thing.

LEON: I never seen a turtle. But I understand what you mean.

HOLDEN: You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.

LEON: You make these questions, Mr.Holden, or they write 'em down
for you?

 

[rutherford]

Good answer, because there really is no right answer. It depends entirely upon the two people in question.

But a thought provoking scenario, nonetheless.