It doesn't work... Blog Post

[Hanzou]

You don't, but some people do. I don't think I've seen it happen with upper body locks, but have seen people who tap early for chokes, when they don't need to.

I have tapped to chokes that are painful instead of actually cutting off air or blood. However, I feel that tapping to pain really doesn't cheat the person doing the submission like tapping early to leglocks do.

Also, when I trained in sambo, they spent more time learning how to control leg locks to make them both accurate and safe then in BJJ. I don't know if that's isolated to the sambo school that I went to, but i've been to probably around 4 BJJ schools and none of them had that much focus on teaching leg locks safely. As a result they're either not done much, or done incorrectly.

Some BJJ schools are learning leglocks from DVDs because their instructor didn't learn it properly, and students are demanding to learn them. So yeah, I'm not surprised that the Sambo guys look better doing them.

 

[jobo]

For the last time; Relying on skill and technique is better than relying on size and strength.

its clearly not better if your very big and strong is it. ?

But back to this small weak woman who you claim has an advantage over similarly dedicated big strong BJJers.

how does this advantage manifest its self,

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I have tapped to chokes that are painful instead of actually cutting off air or blood. However, I feel that tapping to pain really doesn't cheat the person doing the submission like tapping early to leglocks do.

I think it depends on how much pain is requiring you to tap. If it's uncomfortable but probably something you can work through, then it probably wouldn't work against an actual person with adrenaline running. If it's blinding pain, that's preventing you from doing anything else, that's another story.

Some BJJ schools are learning leglocks from DVDs because their instructor didn't learn it properly, and students are demanding to learn them. So yeah, I'm not surprised that the Sambo guys look better doing them.

Seriously? Are the students aware of this? Cause I haven't heard of it. If that's something that instructors are doing in secret, that is a huge problem.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hanzou]

its clearly not better if your very big and strong is it. ?

Actually it is, because it can make you sloppy and miss technical details that a more skilled person can exploit. Also there's times where you can't power your way out of something.

But back to this small weak woman who you claim has an advantage over similarly dedicated big strong BJJers.

how does this advantage manifest its self,

The small weak woman (person) is getting more benefit from training than the bigger, stronger player. That size and strength can become a crutch.

 

[Hanzou]

I think it depends on how much pain is requiring you to tap. If it's uncomfortable but probably something you can work through, then it probably wouldn't work against an actual person with adrenaline running. If it's blinding pain, that's preventing you from doing anything else, that's another story.

Definitely the latter. If I can work through it I'll keep fighting. However, if it's agonizing pain and I can't get out of it, I think that's a fair thing to tap to.

Seriously? Are the students aware of this? Cause I haven't heard of it. If that's something that instructors are doing in secret, that is a huge problem.

Its pretty rampant actually, especially in academies that traditionally frowned on leg locking (hint hint). Do the students know? Good question. I'm not sure they would care as long as they're "learning" it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if you add strength it is always going to even the odds against a stronger opponent always

It is always going to *reduce the advantage of* a stronger opponent. It won't even the odds unless you reach their strength level.

all the arts are based on using technique t increase effective strength, all of them run in to trouble if the guy is significantly stronger than you. Including BJJ. The skill levels require to overcome a significant strength disadvantage exist,,, but not in the vast majority of people who practise an art.

To tell people that any art will reduce their risk of sexual assault with out explain the shortcomings is misleading

Some approaches reduce the advantage strength provides, so the required skill differential to offset the strength is also reduced.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

//// so having an advantage is detrimental ?

that seem a logical statment ???????????

So back to the case in point, a large male attacker on a small woman has
a) a significant advantage
b) a significant disadvantage

it has to be one or the other

when you decided we can exsplore the point, at the moment your just flip flopping in and out of fantasy land

You're confusing "attacker" with "person learning an art". A goes for one. B is for the other.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My impression is that he was talking about people who become disillusioned in a style and believe that the style in question "doesn't work". Obviously there's many ways a style can "work", but I think we enter questionable territory when we pretend that everything is equal and that the only thing missing is some exploration. Some systems simply have bad training methodologies that are further watered down by American consumerism and entitlement culture. Pretending that everything is equal leads to situations like the one I described where a woman searching for self defense advice ends up being utterly confused and gets generally bad advice when the answer is fairly obvious.

I've never heard anyone on MT or any other forum claim that all systems are equal. That's a strawman argument I've seen quite frequently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I highly highly doubt this. Ive seen beginner students tap to knee on belly or too much pressure before. I've seen beginners tap to a choke that wasnt locked in/wouldn't have worked, but caused enough pain they thought it would.

And I've also seen, at multiple dojos, in both sambo and bjj, tap to heel hooks/ankle locks before their in place, because they either get scared of ankle locks, or they don't think the person doing them is going slow enough.

Yeah, I've tapped out a time or two when I thought the person wasn't being controlled, and didn't want to wait and see if they'd stop the technique early enough. I'd expect that to happen from time to time in any place that uses locks and submissions.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Its pretty rampant actually, especially in academies that traditionally frowned on leg locking (hint hint). Do the students know? Good question. I'm not sure they would care as long as they're "learning" it.

But this brings it full circle. If they're "learning" it, not actually pressure testing it, and learning it from someone who learned it from a video, is that fair? Should new students be informed of this before they come in? Is that any better than someone thinking their wrist locks are going to work because their instructor said so, but the instructor learned them improperly and never pressure tests anything?

At the very least, in the second style, it's more obvious that they're not pressure testing it if they're not pressure testing anything. In BJJ it's more hidden since everything else is being pressure tested and it seems like leglocks are as well.

Also your rating is from this part "academies that traditionally frowned on leg locking (hint hint)". That made me chuckle.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yeah, I've tapped out a time or two when I thought the person wasn't being controlled, and didn't want to wait and see if they'd stop the technique early enough. I'd expect that to happen from time to time in any place that uses locks and submissions.

Which in itself isn't bad, as long as the person knows that's why you tapped. But that's not always the case. And the other replies from hanzou have enlightened me to an issue that I didn't realize was as big as it might be in BJJ.

 

[jobo]

You're confusing "attacker" with "person learning an art". A goes for one. B is for the other.

so which one is which ?, it seem clear that a) is an advantage for both

but we are discussing someone learning in order to defend themselves, so they are the same thing

 

[Hanzou]

so which one is which ?, it seem clear that a) is an advantage for both

but we are discussing someone learning in order to defend themselves, so they are the same thing

The point is that a woman seeking self defense would be better off going to the Bjj academy than the Aikido dojo. A woman seeking to learn more about Japanese culture and moving meditation would be better off at the Aikido dojo.

 

[jobo]

It is always going to *reduce the advantage of* a stronger opponent. It won't even the odds unless you reach their strength level.


Some approaches reduce the advantage strength provides, so the required skill differential to offset the strength is also reduced.

evening the odds means making them closer to even. not making them identical

 

[jobo]

The point is that a woman seeking self defense would be better off going to the Bjj academy than the Aikido dojo. A woman seeking to learn more about Japanese culture and moving meditation would be better off at the Aikido dojo.

how are you quantifying that ? if she ends up raped and beaten, then she may as well have have either or non at all, the outcome is exactly the same

So go on .. quantify it

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point is that a woman seeking self defense would be better off going to the Bjj academy than the Aikido dojo. A woman seeking to learn more about Japanese culture and moving meditation would be better off at the Aikido dojo.

In most cases, true in both parts.

 

[jobo]

It is always going to *reduce the advantage of* a stronger opponent. It won't even the odds unless you reach their strength level.


Some approaches reduce the advantage strength provides, so the required skill differential to offset the strength is also reduced.

all approaches are dependent on techniques that give you a mechanic advantage, so reducing the strength you need for them to be effective. ALL OF THEM.

the greater the strength deficiete, the more mechanical advantage you need, therefore the greater the skill required, not as you say, lessor skill levels

 

[Gerry Seymour]

evening the odds means making them closer to even. not making them identical

That’s not the usage I’m used to. Might be a dialectical difference.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

all approaches are dependent on techniques that give you a mechanic advantage, so reducing the strength you need for them to be effective. ALL OF THEM.

the greater the strength deficiete, the more mechanical advantage you need, therefore the greater the skill required, not as you say, lessor skill levels

You don’t seem to be actually making a point any longer.

 

[jobo]

Actually it is, because it can make you sloppy and miss technical details that a more skilled person can exploit. Also there's times where you can't power your way out of something.



The small weak woman (person) is getting more benefit from training than the bigger, stronger player. That size and strength can become a crutch.

if she cant defend her self she is getting no benefit at all from the training or at least no more benefit than she get from step aerobics or aikido