Nic Gregoriades: Self defense training isn't necessary.

[Hanzou]

Starts at the 12:48 mark.

Roger Gracie's first black belt, Nic Gregoriades, says that self defense training isn't necessary.

It's quite an interesting take on things. Check it out.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It looks like Nic has three main points:

1) He doesn't see a lot of use in a common classic BJJ approach to "self-defense" - a curriculum of specific responses to particular attacks: you try to choke me from the front I do this, you bear hug me, I do that, etc.

I agree that there isn't a huge benefit in memorizing a list of canned responses to various untrained attacks. To my mind, the self-defense portion of BJJ training should cover the following:

a) instill appropriate habits and tactical awareness for protecting yourself in a self-defense context and understanding how those differ from the appropriate habits and tactics for competition
b) gain familiarity with common attacks from untrained fighters and understanding their strengths and weaknesses
c) develop skills of distance management
d) become comfortable dealing with strikes, both standing and on the ground

I do cover a lot of the classic Gracie self-defense curriculum in my classes, but I use it primarily as a vehicle for teaching the elements I've listed above. I don't really care whether my students can remember front choke defense #3 or headlock defense # 5 as long as they are solid on a, b, c, and d.

2) The best self-defense is avoidance or escape.

Absolutely correct.

It should be noted that Nic is a big, athletic, tough looking guy. For him avoidance can largely be achieved by not being a dumb-*** who goes looking for fights. Other people (women especially) are not always so lucky.

Avoidance is a key element of self-defense preparation, but most of that is beyond the scope of a jiu-jitsu class. Even so, there are aspects of escape and avoidance that can be worked in to training. Learning to be able to appropriately flip the mental switch between fighting and disengaging/escaping is crucial. I've found that a lot of students become locked into tunnel vision with a mindset of "I must beat this guy" as soon as they engage and have a hard time recognizing when it is time to disengage. Scenario or semi-scenario training is good for addressing this.

3) A good purple belt in BJJ should have all the skills he needs to handle an untrained opponent anyway.

If said purple belt has been training stand-up, distance management, punch defense, and takedowns in addition to his ground work, then yes. If not, it's more debatable.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think from his perspective and what he is training for that it probably isn't. It does veer away from part of Brazilian jiujitsu but since his focus is sport jiujitsu only then there you have it. However, that is just his frame of reference and someone else training with him might be wanting to learn more BJJ self-defense skill sets because that is what they want and or need for the skill sets they wish to develop. Or they mistakenly think they are learning self-defense from him when they really are not. I totally agree that common sense and not being there is a very good skill to develop. Unfortunately not everyone has common sense and they may need coaching in this area. Still there are times in life when violence may seek you out. It would be nice to have some skills sets in this area if that ever happens!

Bottom line, everyone trains for different reasons! Someone may be training because they want to get in shape, be fit or lose some weight. Another person might be training because they want to compete and yet another person may be training because they want to learn self-defense. Or someone just thinks its cool and that is their motivation. There are of course a lot more. Nic outlined pretty much that if you want to compete that he would be a good option. Self-defense training probably not so much. We both know that if you want to get fit that BJJ is an excellent option!

 

[drop bear]

It looks like Nic has three main points:

1) He doesn't see a lot of use in a common classic BJJ approach to "self-defense" - a curriculum of specific responses to particular attacks: you try to choke me from the front I do this, you bear hug me, I do that, etc.

I agree that there isn't a huge benefit in memorizing a list of canned responses to various untrained attacks. To my mind, the self-defense portion of BJJ training should cover the following:

a) instill appropriate habits and tactical awareness for protecting yourself in a self-defense context and understanding how those differ from the appropriate habits and tactics for competition
b) gain familiarity with common attacks from untrained fighters and understanding their strengths and weaknesses
c) develop skills of distance management
d) become comfortable dealing with strikes, both standing and on the ground

I do cover a lot of the classic Gracie self-defense curriculum in my classes, but I use it primarily as a vehicle for teaching the elements I've listed above. I don't really care whether my students can remember front choke defense #3 or headlock defense # 5 as long as they are solid on a, b, c, and d.

2) The best self-defense is avoidance or escape.

Absolutely correct.

It should be noted that Nic is a big, athletic, tough looking guy. For him avoidance can largely be achieved by not being a dumb-*** who goes looking for fights. Other people (women especially) are not always so lucky.

Avoidance is a key element of self-defense preparation, but most of that is beyond the scope of a jiu-jitsu class. Even so, there are aspects of escape and avoidance that can be worked in to training. Learning to be able to appropriately flip the mental switch between fighting and disengaging/escaping is crucial. I've found that a lot of students become locked into tunnel vision with a mindset of "I must beat this guy" as soon as they engage and have a hard time recognizing when it is time to disengage. Scenario or semi-scenario training is good for addressing this.

3) A good purple belt in BJJ should have all the skills he needs to handle an untrained opponent anyway.

If said purple belt has been training stand-up, distance management, punch defense, and takedowns in addition to his ground work, then yes. If not, it's more debatable.

There are a few tricks and traps that you might want to look at from a skill set. Standing sleeper hold escapes. That sort of thing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Starts at the 12:48 mark.

Roger Gracie's first black belt, Nic Gregoriades, says that self defense training isn't necessary.

It's quite an interesting take on things. Check it out.

When he's saying that self-defense training isn't necessary he's only talking about it from a specific perspective. Then he goes into the same things that many people get in a self-defense class such as avoid the conflict and be aware. Run away. Don't go toe-to-toe. Use your environment, always know where your escapes are located (aka don't back yourself into a corner). I think he's referring to the self defense classes that are full of techniques and moves that almost so extensive that you might as well spend the money learning a fighting system.

A lot of bad situations can be avoided by doing things that don't involve fighting. And I think that's what he's referring to. But even the simple stuff many people don't understand. I'm always amazed at how people who study a fighting system are least likely to be in the type of situations that he's talking about.

 

[Star Dragon]

It looks like Nic has three main points:

1) He doesn't see a lot of use in a common classic BJJ approach to "self-defense" - a curriculum of specific responses to particular attacks: you try to choke me from the front I do this, you bear hug me, I do that, etc.

I agree that there isn't a huge benefit in memorizing a list of canned responses to various untrained attacks. To my mind, the self-defense portion of BJJ training should cover the following:

a) instill appropriate habits and tactical awareness for protecting yourself in a self-defense context and understanding how those differ from the appropriate habits and tactics for competition
b) gain familiarity with common attacks from untrained fighters and understanding their strengths and weaknesses
c) develop skills of distance management
d) become comfortable dealing with strikes, both standing and on the ground

I do cover a lot of the classic Gracie self-defense curriculum in my classes, but I use it primarily as a vehicle for teaching the elements I've listed above. I don't really care whether my students can remember front choke defense #3 or headlock defense # 5 as long as they are solid on a, b, c, and d.

2) The best self-defense is avoidance or escape.

Absolutely correct.

It should be noted that Nic is a big, athletic, tough looking guy. For him avoidance can largely be achieved by not being a dumb-*** who goes looking for fights. Other people (women especially) are not always so lucky.

Avoidance is a key element of self-defense preparation, but most of that is beyond the scope of a jiu-jitsu class. Even so, there are aspects of escape and avoidance that can be worked in to training. Learning to be able to appropriately flip the mental switch between fighting and disengaging/escaping is crucial. I've found that a lot of students become locked into tunnel vision with a mindset of "I must beat this guy" as soon as they engage and have a hard time recognizing when it is time to disengage. Scenario or semi-scenario training is good for addressing this.

3) A good purple belt in BJJ should have all the skills he needs to handle an untrained opponent anyway.

If said purple belt has been training stand-up, distance management, punch defense, and takedowns in addition to his ground work, then yes. If not, it's more debatable.

I generally agree to your comments, except 3) as an argument against self-defence training. It may be true that a good purple belt in BJJ could handle most untrained opponents. But then, what if they are not untrained? If there is more than one? If they have weapons? That's where the argumentation falls apart.

 

[Danny T]

I think he is describing self defense classes as fight back classes and not as self defense. Self-defense is much more than fighting back. It is more mindset and lifestyle than learning to fight although fighting back can be a part of self-defense.

 

[Star Dragon]

I think he is describing self defense classes as fight back classes and not as self defense. Self-defense is much more than fighting back. It is more mindset and lifestyle than learning to fight although fighting back can be a part of self-defense.

Right. Proper self-defence means developing a skill set that includes understanding and dealing with the psychological side of an altercation. On the other hand, in simplistic terms, any martial arts training can be said to relate to self-defence somehow.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I generally agree to your comments, except 3) as an argument against self-defence training. It may be true that a good purple belt in BJJ could handle most untrained opponents. But then, what if they are not untrained? If there is more than one? If they have weapons? That's where the argumentation falls apart.

I think he would say that for dealing with multiple attackers or weapons, you are better served by working on your 100-meter sprint than on weapon disarms or the like.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think he is describing self defense classes as fight back classes and not as self defense. Self-defense is much more than fighting back. It is more mindset and lifestyle than learning to fight although fighting back can be a part of self-defense.

That's how I took it when he said that.

I think he's talking about stuff like this video. People spend time to learn how defending against stuff like that, but in there are so many ways that an attacker could attack her from behind including hit her in the head with a stick or something or sucker punch. The best solution that would work in many situations is just to take note of who is behind you. Every now and then just look behind you as a precaution to make sure that nothing out of the ordinary is going on.

 

[Star Dragon]

I think he would say that for dealing with multiple attackers or weapons, you are better served by working on your 100-meter sprint than on weapon disarms or the like.

Right. We should forget about self-defence altogether and take up running practice.

 

[Star Dragon]

When he's saying that self-defense training isn't necessary he's only talking about it from a specific perspective. Then he goes into the same things that many people get in a self-defense class such as avoid the conflict and be aware. Run away. Don't go toe-to-toe. Use your environment, always know where your escapes are located (aka don't back yourself into a corner).

That is sound advice and should be part of self-defence training.

I think he's referring to the self defense classes that are full of techniques and moves that almost so extensive that you might as well spend the money learning a fighting system.

I beg your pardon? I thought we ARE talking about fighting systems. Almost every martial art is a fighting and self-defence system, essentially.

A lot of bad situations can be avoided by doing things that don't involve fighting. And I think that's what he's referring to. But even the simple stuff many people don't understand.

It's true that many altercations can be avoided or de-escalated. Having the confidence that you can fight if things go south is very valuable here.

I'm always amazed at how people who study a fighting system are least likely to be in the type of situations that he's talking about.

True for real masters. Not always true for intermediates, sadly.

 

[Hanzou]

First part Ryan discusses Self Defense.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Roger Gracie's first black belt, Nic Gregoriades, says that self defense training isn't necessary.

Self defense training isn't necessary,. Until it is.

 

[Hanzou]

Self defense training isn't necessary,. Until it is.

Well do you think a pro boxer would need SD training to fend for themselves in a street fight?

I don't think so.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That is sound advice and should be part of self-defence training.

The guy isn't saying that the techniques aren't useful. Being more aware of who is around you may have prevented such an attack happening in the first place.
I'm saying this because I've actually experienced this with a friend of mine. Where 2 guys seemed to be walking behind us too close as if they were trying to size up me and my friend for an attack. My friend also picked up on the same feeling as well. We were with our girlfriends and neither one of them were aware that these 2 guys were up to no good.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I beg your pardon? I thought we ARE talking about fighting systems. Almost every martial art is a fighting and self-defence system, essentially.

He's not talking about the martial arts stuff. He's talking about those courses and classes that aren't there to train people how to fight. The self-defense that a trained fighter of a fighting system would do, is not always the same self-defense that an untrained fighter or a person with no fighting skills should do. That's why I made the comment "self defense classes that are full of techniques and moves that almost so extensive that you might as well spend the money learning a fighting system." at lease then the person would get some strength building and conditioning. Running away is only an option if you can run more than 10 yards faster than the attacker. If you are out of breath at the end of 10 yards with no energy to fight back then you may have made matters worse.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

He's not talking about the martial arts stuff. He's talking about those courses and classes that aren't there to train people how to fight.

Actually, no. He's talking within a BJJ context about the classic Gracie self-defense curriculum. Stuff like the standing techniques in the first part of this video:

To give some context, you can view BJJ as having 3 major components (this is my formulation, not everybody will see it the same way):

Vale Tudo: techniques and tactics for challenge matches against a tough fighter who may be trained in another martial art. This is the classic stuff you see in early MMA and videos of Gracie challenge matches. Control the distance, clinch, takedown, submit.

"Self-defense": this includes much of the same techniques as in the Vale Tudo category, but also a lot of techniques against attacks from an untrained opponent in a non-challenge setting. Counters for wrist grabs, headlocks, bear hugs from behind, standing chokes, sucker punches, knife and club disarms, etc. The video above gives some good examples. The larger aspects of self-defense are not traditionally covered. There are some instructors who attempt to address such matters (myself, for one), but we're probably in the minority.

Sport competition: techniques and tactics for competition under grappling-only rules against another trained grappler. Rules for such competition have varied over the years. The current mainstream BJJ competition rules were originally formulated to a) reward actions which would advantageous in a vale tudo match and b) distinguish the sport from Judo competition. Over the years, competitors have innovated tactics and strategies for such competition that the previous generation of practitioners never envisioned and frequently disapprove of.

In recent years, these aspects have somewhat splintered the art.

MMA has become its own established sport. Instead of BJJ practitioners using the classic vale tudo approach to prove their superiority of BJJ over other arts, you have fighters who pull from a variety of arts and use selected elements of BJJ as just one piece of the puzzle.

Tournament BJJ competitors have created increasingly specialized tactics and strategies that work in whatever rules they are competing under and may or may not have relevance outside of those rules. Schools that are primarily focused on winning tournaments may neglect other elements of the art. Since striking is not allowed in competition, they may not spend time developing skill at defending punches. Since the most common BJJ ruleset awards only minimal reward for takedowns, they may also neglect takedown skills. The classic "self-defense" curriculum may be omitted entirely.

Depending on the BJJ academy you attend, you may encounter anything from an fairly even mixture of these three aspects of the art to a heavy focus on just one. Right now, there are a lot of schools that focus almost entirely on tournament grappling competition. This makes many old-school practitioners unhappy and there is periodic sniping between the camps.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Actually, no. He's talking within a BJJ context about the classic Gracie self-defense curriculum. Stuff like the standing techniques in the first part of this video:

To give some context, you can view BJJ as having 3 major components (this is my formulation, not everybody will see it the same way):

Vale Tudo: techniques and tactics for challenge matches against a tough fighter who may be trained in another martial art. This is the classic stuff you see in early MMA and videos of Gracie challenge matches. Control the distance, clinch, takedown, submit.

"Self-defense": this includes much of the same techniques as in the Vale Tudo category, but also a lot of techniques against attacks from an untrained opponent in a non-challenge setting. Counters for wrist grabs, headlocks, bear hugs from behind, standing chokes, sucker punches, knife and club disarms, etc. The video above gives some good examples. The larger aspects of self-defense are not traditionally covered. There are some instructors who attempt to address such matters (myself, for one), but we're probably in the minority.

Sport competition: techniques and tactics for competition under grappling-only rules against another trained grappler. Rules for such competition have varied over the years. The current mainstream BJJ competition rules were originally formulated to a) reward actions which would advantageous in a vale tudo match and b) distinguish the sport from Judo competition. Over the years, competitors have innovated tactics and strategies for such competition that the previous generation of practitioners never envisioned and frequently disapprove of.

In recent years, these aspects have somewhat splintered the art.

MMA has become its own established sport. Instead of BJJ practitioners using the classic vale tudo approach to prove their superiority of BJJ over other arts, you have fighters who pull from a variety of arts and use selected elements of BJJ as just one piece of the puzzle.

Tournament BJJ competitors have created increasingly specialized tactics and strategies that work in whatever rules they are competing under and may or may not have relevance outside of those rules. Schools that are primarily focused on winning tournaments may neglect other elements of the art. Since striking is not allowed in competition, they may not spend time developing skill at defending punches. Since the most common BJJ ruleset awards only minimal reward for takedowns, they may also neglect takedown skills. The classic "self-defense" curriculum may be omitted entirely.

Depending on the BJJ academy you attend, you may encounter anything from an fairly even mixture of these three aspects of the art to a heavy focus on just one. Right now, there are a lot of schools that focus almost entirely on tournament grappling competition. This makes many old-school practitioners unhappy and there is periodic sniping between the camps.

Oh ok. Then I misunderstood what he was referring do when he spoke about self-defense. The reason I was thinking that he was talking about a fighting system because he is a trained fighter. If that's the case then it's easy for a trained fighter to say that no one needs to take self-defense classes. Sort of like rich people telling poor people that they don't need to have money to be happy. I understand what you are saying better than what he's referring to.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Oh ok. Then I misunderstood what he was referring do when he spoke about self-defense. The reason I was thinking that he was talking about a fighting system because he is a trained fighter. If that's the case then it's easy for a trained fighter to say that no one needs to take self-defense classes. Sort of like rich people telling poor people that they don't need to have money to be happy. I understand what you are saying better than what he's referring to.

I think the reason he didn't explain things more clearly is that he was being interviewed on a BJJ podcast that is aimed at BJJ practitioners who would already be familiar with those in-house controversies.