Wrestling - Questions from a BJJ guy.

[Hawk79]

Hi there,

I know very little about wrestling. We do have wrestling once a week at BJJ but I have only gone to the class maybe 1-2 times because it conflicts with my striking training.

I had a lot of questions:
1. How is wrestling different to BJJ? What I mean by this is why are some of the techniques I am learning called wrestling techniques and other techniques are called Jiu Jitsu techniques? I am looking for a in depth answer here. I am aware that Jiu Jitsu focuses on ground fighting (I do Jiu Jitsu after all) but in the 1-2 wrestling classes I did we also seemed to be doing techniques on the ground.

2. How is wrestling different to Judo? It seems that in both martial arts you are taking people down. Once again, I am looking for a indepth answer. From my experience, I can see that wrestling seems to put people on the ground by doing "takedowns" that from an outsiders view just look like tackles. Judo puts people on the ground using throws. An outsider might describe them as "flipping" people onto the ground. So, my non-technical distinction is that Judo is about flipping people and wrestling is about tackling people. I would like to know the technical difference.

3. Does wrestling teach techniques that can be performed safely on concrete? The takedowns I have learned involve slamming your knee to the ground and then diving for your opponents leg. That doesn't seem safe for a self-defence scenario. If there are techniques that would be safe to do on concrete, can you give me the names of some of the techniques so I can look them up?

4. How is wrestling workable in a striking situation? From the very small exposure I have had to wrestling it seems that wrestlers will bend over and stick their head out - pretty much welcoming a hook or uppercut. Can wrestling be done from a normal fighting/boxing stance? I'm aware that wrestling is done in MMA but as you will see in question 1, I don't really know where the Jiu Jitsu stops and the wrestling begins. I often hear that Khabib is a good wrestler but all I see is striking and jiu jitsu. Presumably some of the "Jiu Jitsu" I am seeing him do is actually wrestling.

5. Is it easy to learn to defend against a suplex? Specifically, I am thinking of situations where I have rolled with a Judo Blackbelt. The Judoka was not able to easily throw me because I was defending myself (which I understand is against Judo rules). So, is the Suplex a technique that only works against people who don't defend against it or are completely unfamiliar with it?

6. What wrestling techniques would you recommend that I learn from a self defence perspective (if any). In particular I am thinking of situations where I might be on concrete. I am also thinking about techniques that do not cause catastrophic damage to my attacker (I don't want to end up in prison for defending myself). The suplex seems like a good example of a technique that would be overkill 99% of the time.

7. Does wrestling have positions the way Jiu Jitsu has? For example, the mount, side mount, cross mount, guard, back mount etc etc

Any help or advice is appreciated.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I’m just inserting a note here so that I remember to come back and write a response later when I have time. You have some in depth questions which will require in depth answers. I’m winding down for the night now and I’ll be on the road for much of tomorrow, but if I don’t post an answer by Monday, remind me.

 

[Hawk79]

I’m just inserting a note here so that I remember to come back and write a response later when I have time. You have some in depth questions which will require in depth answers. I’m winding down for the night now and I’ll be on the road for much of tomorrow, but if I don’t post an answer by Monday, remind me.

Thank you, I definitely will - look forward to hearing from you.

Just also be aware that wrestling is not a common martial art in my country. Based on movies, it seems that wrestling is very common in the United States (not sure if you are from there). But there would be no option for me to go to a wrestling place to learn more.

Never come across wrestling outside of BJJ.

The plan is to try and learn some wrestling techniques from Youtube videos and then apply it at BJJ open mat.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

3. Does wrestling teach techniques that can be performed safely on concrete?

The plan is to try and learn some wrestling techniques from Youtube videos and then apply it at BJJ open mat.

The Chinese wrestling "knee seize" is safe to be used on concrete.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Okay, here are my answers from the perspective of a BJJ instructor who also has a decent foundation in wrestling and Judo, as well as a bit of experience with Sambo and Sumo.

1. How is wrestling different to BJJ? What I mean by this is why are some of the techniques I am learning called wrestling techniques and other techniques are called Jiu Jitsu techniques? I am looking for a in depth answer here. I am aware that Jiu Jitsu focuses on ground fighting (I do Jiu Jitsu after all) but in the 1-2 wrestling classes I did we also seemed to be doing techniques on the ground.

My philosophy is that it's all wrestling. Every single culture has at least one if not multiple forms of wrestling. Folkstyle, Freestyle, Greco-Roman, Judo, Sambo, Shuai Jiao, Sumo, BJJ, Catch Wrestling, Glima, etc, etc. The underlying physical principles are the same. there are cultural differences in how the arts are presented and taught, but the technical differences are primarily just applications of the same underlying principles to the different competition rulesets. (i.e. what clothes are worn, what techniques are allowed, and what the criteria for winning are).

So the differences are primarily visible when you are training for competition under a particular ruleset. Once you start applying the arts for a more generalized fighting or self-defense purpose, then they all start to blend together.

So if you are comparing "wrestling" vs BJJ from a sport standpoint, it does depend somewhat on which form of wrestling you are talking about. Typically, the "wrestling" being referred to in this context is freestyle and/or folkstyle. Those sports award points for takedowns, reversals, pinning the opponent's shoulders to the mat, or "exposure", where the opponent is threatened with a pin but not all the way pinned. Submissions are not allowed and jackets are not worn. In contrast, BJJ allows submissions and may involve wearing a gi. BJJ also awards points for takedowns and positional control, but the scoring is different. The fundamental goal is still the same - to control the opponent's body without allowing them to control yours. The physical principles and concepts to acheieve that goal are the same. But the different rulesets encourage different tactics in certain areas.

All that being said, why are some techniques in your BJJ class introduced as "wrestling techniques"? Strictly speaking, they are all BJJ techniques as well. The answer is historical. BJJ originated as an offshoot of Judo that specialized in newaza (groundfighting) and submissions. Any time you specialize your training in one area of skills, you take time away from developing others. So the pioneers of BJJ and several generations of BJJ practitioners after them were relatively weak in the area of takedowns compared to collegiate wrestlers or Judoka. The same throws and takedowns were there in BJJ - just not as highly developed as in Judo and wrestling. This was sufficient in the early years of the art, because the goal was just to drag opponents down to the ground any old way and then rely on superior groundfighting to finish the job.

But BJJ is an art that is continuously evolving and continuously stealing from any source that is useful. Once the secrets of BJJ were out, practitioners started discovering the difficulties in dealing with opponents who were extremely hard to take down or hard to keep down or hard to submit from the bottom of guard. BJJ practitioners had always learned from wrestlers, Judoka, Sambists, and other grapplers, but now they found more motivation to refine their skills in takedowns, countering takedowns, and fighting back to the feet from the ground. To do that, many invested the effort to learn from practitioners who were more skilled in those areas i.e. wrestlers. And because BJJ practitioners these days are generally less invested in promoting their own brand at the expense of others, we often give credit to those we learned from by referring to certain techniques as "wrestling" or "Judo". It's still BJJ, but we're acknowledging that we've improved our application of the movements via the example of practitioners of those other arts.

2. How is wrestling different to Judo? It seems that in both martial arts you are taking people down. Once again, I am looking for a indepth answer. From my experience, I can see that wrestling seems to put people on the ground by doing "takedowns" that from an outsiders view just look like tackles. Judo puts people on the ground using throws. An outsider might describe them as "flipping" people onto the ground. So, my non-technical distinction is that Judo is about flipping people and wrestling is about tackling people. I would like to know the technical difference.

The primary differences between Judo and freestyle/folkstyle/Greco-roman wrestling (besides the cultural trappings) are the presence of the gi (specifically the jacket), the scoring rules, and certain techniques which are prohibited in one competition ruleset but not the other. Honestly, almost any technique found in one can be found in the other, but if you are only training for competition, you may not learn the techniques which are banned in the sport, even though they are historically present in the art.

The reason you see more of the big throws (or flips) in Judo is two-fold. First, the rules of Judo allow you to win instantly with a clean forceful throw of your opponent onto their back. In wrestling, you would get points for the throw, but not an instant win. Secondly, the Judo gi jacket gives you handles to exert extra control over your opponent's upper body which makes such throws much easier to accomplish than in wrestling where you only have a sweaty body to grab. Wrestling does include those big throws, but without the gi and the motivation for an instant win, it becomes a higher percentage tactic to hunt for low shots. Note - Greco Roman does not allow grabbing below the waist, so you will see more of the big throws in that style of wrestling.

3. Does wrestling teach techniques that can be performed safely on concrete? The takedowns I have learned involve slamming your knee to the ground and then diving for your opponents leg. That doesn't seem safe for a self-defence scenario. If there are techniques that would be safe to do on concrete, can you give me the names of some of the techniques so I can look them up?

Absolutely. Let me clarify a few things first.

1) The reason for the wrestling takedowns where you bring your knee to the mat is because you are dealing with another wrestler who is maintaining a very low stance and bringing the knee down is the only way to get low enough to get underneath their hips. In a street self-defense scenario, that isn't a concern - no one is likely to attack you from a low wrestler's crouch. If your opponent is standing upright to throw punches, then you don't have to drop your knee all the way down to shoot in underneath them - you just have to bend your knees further than they do. Go on YouTube and search for "MMA takedown highlights". Most of the takedowns you will see come from a wrestling base and 95% of them do not involve dropping to the knee.

2) Even for the low shots where you take your knee to the ground, you absolutely should not be "slamming" it to the ground. Not only is that bad for your knee long term (even on mats), but it kills the momentum of your shot. The feel should be more like your knee is just skimming briefly along the ground. I still wouldn't recommend it on concrete, but try not to develop the habit of slamming your knee down if you want to develop a good low shot for competition.

3) There are a ton of wrestling movements that are safe for hard surfaces like concrete. (At least for the person executing them, perhaps not for the person being thrown.) Arm drags, head locks, trips, head and arm throws, hip throws, snap downs, sprawls, high doubles, high singles, duck unders, pins, reversals, body locks, the list goes on and on. I strongly recommend the Teach Me Grappling YouTube Channel with Coach Brian Peterson.

4. How is wrestling workable in a striking situation? From the very small exposure I have had to wrestling it seems that wrestlers will bend over and stick their head out - pretty much welcoming a hook or uppercut. Can wrestling be done from a normal fighting/boxing stance? I'm aware that wrestling is done in MMA but as you will see in question 1, I don't really know where the Jiu Jitsu stops and the wrestling begins. I often hear that Khabib is a good wrestler but all I see is striking and jiu jitsu. Presumably some of the "Jiu Jitsu" I am seeing him do is actually wrestling.

Here's a clue. Khabib doesn't actually train Jiu Jitsu. His background is in Wrestling, Judo, and Sambo. His takedown and top-control game is primarily wrestling based, although he has adjusted it for a context where striking is present.

The classic wrestling stance you mention (crouched and bent forward) is optimized for a competition ruleset where strikes aren't present and you need to protect your legs and hips while threatening your opponent's legs and hips. Once you add strikes to the context, then the wrestler will typically stand more upright. That doesn't prevent them from using their wrestling. A little while back I did an analysis of every UFC champion since the start of that promotion, and there have been more champions with a primary wrestling background than any other art. Daniel Cormier is an excellent example of how wrestling can work in MMA (or against strikes in general).

5. Is it easy to learn to defend against a suplex? Specifically, I am thinking of situations where I have rolled with a Judo Blackbelt. The Judoka was not able to easily throw me because I was defending myself (which I understand is against Judo rules). So, is the Suplex a technique that only works against people who don't defend against it or are completely unfamiliar with it?

It depends on how good the person trying the suplex is. Some of the top fighters in MMA have been suplexed. Some of the top wrestlers in wrestling have been suplexed. Some of the top judoka in Judo have been suplexed. It's definitely not something that only works on the clueless.

In the situation you describe with the Judoka, it sounds like there may have been some sort of miscommunication. Defending against a suplex (called Ura Nage) is absolutely not against the rules in Judo.

6. What wrestling techniques would you recommend that I learn from a self defence perspective (if any). In particular I am thinking of situations where I might be on concrete. I am also thinking about techniques that do not cause catastrophic damage to my attacker (I don't want to end up in prison for defending myself). The suplex seems like a good example of a technique that would be overkill 99% of the time.

I'm a big fan of the high single, the snap down, and the knee tap. They're low risk, don't require a ton of energy, they tie in well with my striking game, and they don't have to be super high impact for the person you are using them on.

7. Does wrestling have positions the way Jiu Jitsu has? For example, the mount, side mount, cross mount, guard, back mount etc etc

Wrestling has positions, but I don't know if they are so consistently and formally categorized as in BJJ.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Tony did a much better job than I could do for most of the answers, but have two quasi corrections.

First: He is correct that there's no rule against defending against a suplex. But what is not allowed (in competition) is stalling with a defensive posture. That's basically where you lean forward and push your butt back, which makes throws much more difficult (though not impossible).

In that case, you're not getting the contact needed for a suplex, and it's not a move that you rush into someone to do-it's a reactionary move. So it would make a lot more sense just to not try a suplex. If I was doing judo, and mentioned to my partner that I'm practicing ura nage, and they spent the entire randori in a defensive position I'd be pretty annoyed. Though I'd just temporarily give up on the suplex and try wrist locks (which are also illegal in competition) until you stopped being defensive.

Second: "The reason you see more of the big throws (or flips) in Judo is two-fold." I'd argue that it's three-fold. Both of the points tony mentioned, but around 10 years ago Judo banned grabbing the leg during any sort of tachi waza (basically any technique from a standing position - you can grab the legs when on the ground, "newaza"), which means things like a single or double leg takedown or no longer allowed. When you take away leg-grabbing, just like with greco-roman wrestling, you end up with bigger throws.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Thank you, I definitely will - look forward to hearing from you.

Just also be aware that wrestling is not a common martial art in my country. Based on movies, it seems that wrestling is very common in the United States (not sure if you are from there). But there would be no option for me to go to a wrestling place to learn more.

Never come across wrestling outside of BJJ.

The plan is to try and learn some wrestling techniques from Youtube videos and then apply it at BJJ open mat.

Monkeys point about judo leg control and recent "bans" and Tony's response to your comments about low single or double leg takedowns made me think of some of my past competition training.

Now, I learned my best newaza chokes in Judo, not BJJ, because my judo instructors were very old school. By the time BJJ came along I was all too ready for choking lessons. Looked forward to it.

Same thing with leg takedowns. I learned high leg grabbing throws in Kung Fu, and even Muay Thai. But those things are illegal in Muay Thai now. Didn't stop me from learning them and practice with a partner.

Wrestling, I have done since I was a babe and so that to me a lot more basic, fundamental than any other martial discipline. But the key difference there, and I think this goes for all martial arts, is history.

Some grappling arts have a military history, and tend to come from the areas with the most conflict. Russia, China, Japan, let's just say all of Asia. Jujutsu arm locks weren't originally a submission, they were for limb destroying. So in sparring today we just mimic the action with safety in mind (hopefully, unless you get the goofy white belt as a partner). A throw didn't end with an ippon, the next move was to murder the dude while he was still stunned, probably with a cruel piece of hardware.

But look at the folk, collegiate, and entertainment wrestling arts, and even Judo. They have very different histories. Folk wrestling comes from dudes sitting around campfires who want to stay frosty. Judo invented because Kano Jigoro was really smart and realized you can train longer with fewer injuries, but that was technically the same kind of student focus that goes into modern high school and college wrestling: physical and character development (right now the wrestlers here are rolling their eyes at me, but they know it).

BJJ brings that leg control thing back into focus. Grab a leg low, high, on the ground, and continue to choke or arm lock, going back to its Japanese military roots. Almost anything goes, including nasty painful locks. BUT, it is the defacto modern "entertainment" martial art in that no other art I can think of can be seen on modern TV the last 20 years as much as BJJ, except maybe pro boxing, but even then you don't see as much in the news and TV.

Look at Proresu, Japanese pro wrestling. Those guys, like my hero Tiger Mask, are some of the most athletic, powerful people to ever walk the planet. Who here would pick a fight with Tiger Mask, on the ground or standing? These guys are masters of physical body manipulation and prove it.

Now you might get asking what about Dan Severn. Well, the only double suplex I can think of in competiton history was Dan in the UFC. Wrestler, and he dominated almost everyone.

UFC matches have time limits today because it took Royce Gracie almost half a hour to submit Dan Severn, something that hasn't been repeated since.

Which brings me to my point, and Tony kind of hit on this. Once you are physically capable of, after years of training, to efficiently manipulate another person, regardless of rules laid over your actions, that "blend" is complete, making whatever enviro (training hall, mat, street, grass, bus) kind of irrelevant. Grappling is after all, an art of adaptation.

I recommend watching four movies that really get grappling, in this order

1- Vision Quest, with Matthew Modine(wrestling movie with 80s training montages)
2 - Red Belt, with Chiwetel Ejiofor (first big BJJ movie, lots of heart)
3 - Foxchaser (wrestling movie, true story, dark side of competitive nutjobs)
4 - Conan the Barbarian (82). My favorite movie of all time, grappling pit fighting, Arnold in his prime, Sandahl Bergman).

 

[Oily Dragon]

Almost forgot .

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'd argue that it's three-fold. Both of the points tony mentioned, but around 10 years ago Judo banned grabbing the leg during any sort of tachi waza (basically any technique from a standing position - you can grab the legs when on the ground, "newaza"), which means things like a single or double leg takedown or no longer allowed. When you take away leg-grabbing, just like with greco-roman wrestling, you end up with bigger throws.

I thought about mentioning that, but as far as I can tell Judo was much more focused on the big throws than wrestling long before the rule against leg grabs went into effect. Even for Judoka who liked using Morote Gari (double leg takedown), the ippon rules favored the big slam version rather than relying on low shots. I also think that getting a collar grip on your opponent can make it easier to stuff low wrestling style shots than is possible without the jacket.

Red Belt, with Chiwetel Ejiofor (first big BJJ movie, lots of heart)

I'm torn on Red Belt. On the one hand, you have great performances by some excellent actors (especially Ejiofor) and some decent fight choreography. On the other hand,, the fights are often obscured by the camera angles, dark lighting, and unnecessary cuts. Plus the plot makes exactly zero sense once you think about it for more than a minute.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I thought about mentioning that, but as far as I can tell Judo was much more focused on the big throws than wrestling long before the rule against leg grabs went into effect. Even for Judoka who liked using Morote Gari (double leg takedown), the ippon rules favored the big slam version rather than relying on low shots. I also think that getting a collar grip on your opponent can make it easier to stuff low wrestling style shots than is possible without the jacket.

I'm torn on Red Belt. On the one hand, you have great performances by some excellent actors (especially Ejiofor) and some decent fight choreography. On the other hand,, the fights are often obscured by the camera angles, dark lighting, and unnecessary cuts. Plus the plot makes exactly zero sense once you think about it for more than a minute.

That walk the wall reversal, though. You know someone out there is training it right now.

I liked how it showed the light and dark side of BJJ. I liked the sense of honor, given modern BJJs social dilemmas (being loved and hated).

 

[Hawk79]

Thank you for your responses. I found them really informative.

However, I do still need some more information.

I should have given some more context to my original question so I will add some more now. I am interested in martial arts for the purposes of developing my own self-defence and defensive tactics curriculum. Note this is not the same as wanting to personally be good at self-defence (although that is kind of inherent in my goals). I think I know enough Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu to be able to defend myself in a lot of situations - but I really want to make sure that I have the best techniques possible for my self-defence curriculum. That means that the main techniques need to be lawful in the vast majority of situations that people are likely to come across in a self defence type situation. For example, a suplex is unlikely to be lawful in most self defence scenarios.

I have a good understanding of the legal aspects of self defence and it is my informed opinion that most martial artists I meet would end up in prison if confronted with a self-defence situation simply because they lack an understanding of how the law works and make assumptions that all self-defence situations are either extreme situations or situations where you can walk away.

So I try and learn as much as I can about martial arts in order to integrate what I am learning with the law.

Wrestling and Judo are two martial arts that I don't have ready access to. For that reason, I am trying to decide whether to buy a book on the subjects and then practice the techniques at BJJ open mat.

The problem is, I can't tell if a wrestling textbook is going to teach me anything practical that I won't already learn in Jiu Jitsu "wrestling". From the answers so far it would seem that all of wrestling is technically Jiu Jitsu but it is surely the case that a lot of the wrestling stuff is going to take years to learn if you are only practicing studying it once a week - unless wrestling only has a few techniques.

So, if I buy a wrestling book, is it likely to contain a lot of techniques that:
1. Aren't already taught as basic Jiu Jitsu wrestling.
2. Are safe for both parties when performed on concrete.
3. Are unlikely to cause catastrophic damage to an aggressor - resulting in the defender going to prison.

My personal strength is knowledge of self defence law. It is the martial arts aspect that I am lacking (although I am not a beginner).

The same issue arises with Judo, the answers provided do answer the questions I asked but at this stage don't help me determine whether it is worthwhile buying some books and video courses. If I get a wrestling book/video course, will it teach me enough to make the Judo book redundant (given that I also do BJJ)?

I would love to be able to create a type of "Self Defence MMA" with a big emphasis on legal standards and rules for self defence.

The law is one of the most fundamental aspects of self-defence and there is no system that I am aware of that integrates and indepth understanding of the law with martial arts strategies and techniques.

Even when people do try and take the law in to account, they often end up only thinking about criminal standards and not civil standards.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The law is one of the most fundamental aspects of self-defence ...

I assume the weapon training is out of your consideration.

 

[Hawk79]

I assume the weapon training is out of your consideration.

No, because right now I am focusing on what Wrestling and Judo might be able to offer.

It is a large subject so I work through the martial arts and try and identify things that are likely to be useful within a legal context.

Obviously everything depends on context and there will even be situations where a suplex would be permissible. But I want to focus on the techniques in Wrestling and Judo that are most likely to be useful in a lot of self defence and defensive tactics situations.

 

[drop bear]

Thank you for your responses. I found them really informative.

However, I do still need some more information.

I should have given some more context to my original question so I will add some more now. I am interested in martial arts for the purposes of developing my own self-defence and defensive tactics curriculum. Note this is not the same as wanting to personally be good at self-defence (although that is kind of inherent in my goals). I think I know enough Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu to be able to defend myself in a lot of situations - but I really want to make sure that I have the best techniques possible for my self-defence curriculum. That means that the main techniques need to be lawful in the vast majority of situations that people are likely to come across in a self defence type situation. For example, a suplex is unlikely to be lawful in most self defence scenarios.

I have a good understanding of the legal aspects of self defence and it is my informed opinion that most martial artists I meet would end up in prison if confronted with a self-defence situation simply because they lack an understanding of how the law works and make assumptions that all self-defence situations are either extreme situations or situations where you can walk away.

So I try and learn as much as I can about martial arts in order to integrate what I am learning with the law.

Wrestling and Judo are two martial arts that I don't have ready access to. For that reason, I am trying to decide whether to buy a book on the subjects and then practice the techniques at BJJ open mat.

The problem is, I can't tell if a wrestling textbook is going to teach me anything practical that I won't already learn in Jiu Jitsu "wrestling". From the answers so far it would seem that all of wrestling is technically Jiu Jitsu but it is surely the case that a lot of the wrestling stuff is going to take years to learn if you are only practicing studying it once a week - unless wrestling only has a few techniques.

So, if I buy a wrestling book, is it likely to contain a lot of techniques that:
1. Aren't already taught as basic Jiu Jitsu wrestling.
2. Are safe for both parties when performed on concrete.
3. Are unlikely to cause catastrophic damage to an aggressor - resulting in the defender going to prison.

My personal strength is knowledge of self defence law. It is the martial arts aspect that I am lacking (although I am not a beginner).

The same issue arises with Judo, the answers provided do answer the questions I asked but at this stage don't help me determine whether it is worthwhile buying some books and video courses. If I get a wrestling book/video course, will it teach me enough to make the Judo book redundant (given that I also do BJJ)?

I would love to be able to create a type of "Self Defence MMA" with a big emphasis on legal standards and rules for self defence.

The law is one of the most fundamental aspects of self-defence and there is no system that I am aware of that integrates and indepth understanding of the law with martial arts strategies and techniques.

Even when people do try and take the law in to account, they often end up only thinking about criminal standards and not civil standards.

MMA already is a self defense type of MMA.

 

[Hawk79]

MMA already is a self defense type of MMA.

I strongly disagree. It is not optimized for self defence.

I have trained with several MMA fighters (but not in MMA - I don't do MMA) and they did not exhibit any knowledge of self defence. They would end up in prison.

Same with boxing. I have met boxers who talk to me about self-defence. They will end up in jail. Jiu Jitsu? Same thing, they are one self defence situation away from going to prison.

To be clear, I have no doubt that an MMA fighter could beat up an attacker but that is not what I am interested in. That is not necessarily self defence.

An MMA fighter would make an excellent self-defender after several hours of instruction with a lawyer - including plenty of question and answer time.

I guarantee you that after speaking with a lawyer an MMA fighter would make changes to the way they intend to defend themselve if attacked. Even then, a legally trained MMA fighter is still not the ultimate master of self defence. For that, I think the MMA fighter needs to continue to think about his training within the context of the law, call the lawyer up on a regular basis and ask more questions. Speak to criminologists etc etc.

Being able to win a fight or beat someone up is not self defence. It is an important part of self defence but it is not the same thing. And that's the difference.

There are techniques that are not taught in MMA that people use for no other reason than to help satisfy legal burdens.

I assure you, MMA fighters are not as prepared for self defence situations as they could be - I don't question there ability to win the violent confrontation. That's not self defence though.

Even many self defence courses are terrible at teaching self defence (e.g. "there are not rules in the streets" - yes there is. It's called criminal law).

There is a fine balance that a defender must juggle between the legal consequences and the physical consequences of a violent confrontation. You can be the kind of person who assumes the worst in every scenario and acts accordingly (using MMA) - ending up in prison. Or you can be the kind of person who is so afraid of getting in trouble that you end up being beaten up everytime because you refuse to try and defend yourself. Or you can strive for a balance where you take some risk of physical injury to offset the risk of legal consequences and vice versa.

As an MMA fighter, if you get into a fighting stance at the first sign of trouble, you are already creating evidential issues for yourself. The fighting stances will make you physically safer at the cost of creating potential legal issues for you. If you stay relaxed but maintain distance, then you are limiting potential evidential issues that could arise while also keeping yourself reasonably safe.

In summary, MMA fighters are the perfect people to create a form of self defence. But they are not themselves experts in self defence. If they ever do get together with a lawyer, victimologist and criminologist, I would expect them to create an amazing new martial art. Would the new martial art look a lot like normal MMA? Yes, i'm sure it would. But there would be enough differences that you could distinguish it from pure MMA.

 

[drop bear]

I strongly disagree. It is not optimized for self defence.

I have trained with several MMA fighters (but not in MMA - I don't do MMA) and they did not exhibit any knowledge of self defence. They would end up in prison.

Same with boxing. I have met boxers who talk to me about self-defence. They will end up in jail. Jiu Jitsu? Same thing, they are one self defence situation away from going to prison.

To be clear, I have no doubt that an MMA fighter could beat up an attacker but that is not what I am interested in. That is not necessarily self defence.

An MMA fighter would make an excellent self-defender after several hours of instruction with a lawyer - including plenty of question and answer time.

I guarantee you that after speaking with a lawyer an MMA fighter would make changes to the way they intend to defend themselve if attacked. Even then, a legally trained MMA fighter is still not the ultimate master of self defence. For that, I think the MMA fighter needs to continue to think about his training within the context of the law, call the lawyer up on a regular basis and ask more questions. Speak to criminologists etc etc.

Being able to win a fight or beat someone up is not self defence. It is an important part of self defence but it is not the same thing. And that's the difference.

There are techniques that are not taught in MMA that people use for no other reason than to help satisfy legal burdens.

I assure you, MMA fighters are not as prepared for self defence situations as they could be - I don't question there ability to win the violent confrontation. That's not self defence though.

Even many self defence courses are terrible at teaching self defence (e.g. "there are not rules in the streets" - yes there is. It's called criminal law).

There is a fine balance that a defender must juggle between the legal consequences and the physical consequences of a violent confrontation. You can be the kind of person who assumes the worst in every scenario and acts accordingly (using MMA) - ending up in prison. Or you can be the kind of person who is so afraid of getting in trouble that you end up being beaten up everytime because you refuse to try and defend yourself. Or you can strive for a balance where you take some risk of physical injury to offset the risk of legal consequences and vice versa.

As an MMA fighter, if you get into a fighting stance at the first sign of trouble, you are already creating evidential issues for yourself. The fighting stances will make you physically safer at the cost of creating potential legal issues for you. If you stay relaxed but maintain distance, then you are limiting potential evidential issues that could arise while also keeping yourself reasonably safe.

What do you notice about this video?

Hopefully it should be 4 guys got absolutely womanhandled and nobody got messed up to the point where it could be considered excessive force. And therefore wind up in prison.

Where do you think she gained the ability to do that?

 

[Hawk79]

What do you notice about this video?

Hopefully it should be 4 guys got absolutely womanhandled and nobody got messed up to the point where it could be considered excessive force. And therefore wind up in prison.

Where do you think she gained the ability to do that?

I saw what you saw. And I absolutely think that if this was done in a real self defence situation she could be prosecuted.

When it comes to whether she has committed a crime, the law is going to look at two main things: the actus rea (the act) and the mens rea (the mindset). So, let us assume that what she did was acting in self defence to a real life attack. My question for you:

1. Did she commit the act of applying force (the actus rea)? I hope you would agree she did.
2. Did she do this intentionally (the mens rea)? I hope you would also agree that she did use the force intentionally.

I have no doubt that she would admit to the police that she used the force we saw in the video and that she did so intentionally.

That is what we call a prima facie ("on the face of it") crime. And in fact, that is all you showed me - a video of her committing a crime - the part that makes it not a crime (the consenting/sport part of it etc etc) is not really relevant because you are using the video to demonstrate her self defence. The relevant part of the video, taken in complete isolation, is a crime. You have to add facts on to make it not a crime. You didn't add a hypothetical self-defence scenario in.

The video is quite literally of a fight. In real life (i.e. if they were fighting for real), they would all be facing prosecution.

Now that is okay, because obviously we are talking about self defence (which can be a defence to a crime). Which brings me to the next point.

I understand that you are an MMA fighter. So why don't you tell me how she is going to explain this situation to the police in a way that she does not get prosecuted for assault? Pretend I am the police officer and you need to explain what happened to me. Feel free to make up the facts of the self defence scenario.

I am not expecting you to be able to explain her behaviour in a way that avoids her being prosecuted. However, even if you do prevent her from being prosecuted, that does not change the fact that MMA fighters in general do not receive the appropriate training for self defence. It does not change the fact that the few MMA fighters I have spoken have talked about their self defence strategies in a way that makes it highly likely they will end up being prosecuted.

I want to make it clear that I appreciate your responses and know that you have gone out of your way to give helpful responses to other posts I have made. So I hope you will not take my reply as offensive. However, this comment:

Hopefully it should be 4 guys got absolutely womanhandled and nobody got messed up to the point where it could be considered excessive force.

Already leads me to expect that you will not provide a good explanation for her actions. There are several issues with what you said (assuming my assumptions about your assumptions are correct).

It's important to understand that the crime of assault does not have an "excessive force" component. You can commit an assault without even hurting someone. No doubt you are thinking of a self defence situation but the video was not of someone acting in self defence which leads me to believe that you intended to show the techniques as self defence techniques that are inherently lawful (which is not true).

You didn't establish that she was acting in self defence (i.e. by making up a scenario to go with the video). So you would need to tell me what the scenario is in order to be able to argue she is acting in self defence. That's the step you missed and that is the step that will result in MMA fighters going to prison. It can't just be any scenario. You can't just say "in a self defence scenario". That is not how the law works. You need to actually explain what happened, what she was thinking, why she was thinking that way. Only then can we determine if she acted in self defence. Only once we determine that she was acting in self defence can we determine whether the force was excessive or not.

I don't want to comment further (point out more potential issues) as it will be easier if you tell me what you think she should say to the police - what information would be relevant to them. After that, I can give you a more indepth explanation.

Crime = Actus rea + Mens rea - defence.

She did not use any techniques that would specifically be used to address legal evidential questions - she doesn't know them. She is not taught them as part of MMA.

TLDR: 1. The techniques shown are not inherently lawful. 2. "Excessive force" is not a component of assault. 3. The actions of the women would be a crime in most situations. 4. Her MMA background could be used against her. 5. The video is of a fight (although it is a consenual/sport one) which would be a crime if this were real life.

 

[drop bear]

I saw what you saw. And I absolutely think that if this was done in a real self defence situation she could be prosecuted.

When it comes to whether she has committed a crime, the law is going to look at two main things: the actus rea (the act) and the mens rea (the mindset). So, let us assume that what she did was acting in self defence to a real life attack. My question for you:

1. Did she commit the act of applying force (the actus rea)? I hope you would agree she did.
2. Did she do this intentionally (the mens rea)? I hope you would also agree that she did use the force intentionally.

I have no doubt that she would admit to the police that she used the force we saw in the video and that she did so intentionally.

That is what we call a prima facie ("on the face of it") crime. And in fact, that is all you showed me - a video of her committing a crime - the part that makes it not a crime (the consenting/sport part of it etc etc) is not really relevant because you are using the video to demonstrate her self defence. The relevant part of the video, taken in complete isolation, is a crime. You have to add facts on to make it not a crime. You didn't add a hypothetical self-defence scenario in.

The video is quite literally of a fight. In real life (i.e. if they were fighting for real), they would all be facing prosecution.

Now that is okay, because obviously we are talking about self defence (which can be a defence to a crime). Which brings me to the next point.

I understand that you are an MMA fighter. So why don't you tell me how she is going to explain this situation to the police in a way that she does not get prosecuted for assault? Pretend I am the police officer and you need to explain what happened to me. Feel free to make up the facts of the self defence scenario.

I am not expecting you to be able to explain her behaviour in a way that avoids her being prosecuted. However, even if you do prevent her from being prosecuted, that does not change the fact that MMA fighters in general do not receive the appropriate training for self defence. It does not change the fact that the few MMA fighters I have spoken have talked about their self defence strategies in a way that makes it highly likely they will end up being prosecuted.

I want to make it clear that I appreciate your responses and know that you have gone out of your way to give helpful responses to other posts I have made. So I hope you will not take my reply as offensive. However, this comment:



Already leads me to expect that you will not provide a good explanation for her actions. There are several issues with what you said (assuming my assumptions about your assumptions are correct).

It's important to understand that the crime of assault does not have an "excessive force" component. You can commit an assault without even hurting someone. No doubt you are thinking of a self defence situation but the video was not of someone acting in self defence which leads me to believe that you intended to show the techniques as self defence techniques that are inherently lawful (which is not true).

You didn't establish that she was acting in self defence (i.e. by making up a scenario to go with the video). So you would need to tell me what the scenario is in order to be able to argue she is acting in self defence. That's the step you missed and that is the step that will result in MMA fighters going to prison. It can't just be any scenario. You can't just say "in a self defence scenario". That is not how the law works. You need to actually explain what happened, what she was thinking, why she was thinking that way. Only then can we determine if she acted in self defence. Only once we determine that she was acting in self defence can we determine whether the force was excessive or not.

I don't want to comment further (point out more potential issues) as it will be easier if you tell me what you think she should say to the police - what information would be relevant to them. After that, I can give you a more indepth explanation.

Crime = Actus rea + Mens rea - defence.

She did not use any techniques that would specifically be used to address legal evidential questions - she doesn't know them. She is not taught them as part of MMA.

TLDR: 1. The techniques shown are not inherently lawful. 2. "Excessive force" is not a component of assault. 3. The actions of the women would be a crime in most situations. 4. Her MMA background could be used against her. 5. The video is of a fight (although it is a consenual/sport one) which would be a crime if this were real life.

All techniques are lawful depending on the circumstances.

Ok. Force has to be legal, justifiable and proportionate.

So providing she can identify why she used force in the first place. (Which is generally an attack or fear of an attack)

Then all she has to is justify why she used the force she did. Which considering nobody got injured. That will be pretty easy to do. She used force while they were a threat. And then backed the force off as soon as they were not.

Had this been an actual self defence. While they were capable of fighting back she could have also punched their faces in.

Eg. Victor lyall.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=898463577789528

He tried to exit the fight. He tried to deescalate. And stopped when the threat stopped. Even advancing on the guy who spat on him is ok. Because spitting is assult. And he can prevent people from doing that.

He doesn't have to wait to get attacked. he can shape up defensively if they are being threatening, he can kick people in the head. He just has To show he was trying to exit the situation and that he stops when they are no longer a threat.

 

[Hawk79]

All techniques are lawful depending on the circumstances.

This why I would like to see MMA fighters work with lawyers, criminologists, and victimologists to develop an MMA style self defence.

Yes, you are correct. All techniques are lawful depending on the circumstances. I am glad you picked up on that. You showed a video of techniques without a context/circumstances. That is why the video is no more a self defence video than if you had shown someone shooting someone with a training gun. It's a technique video/demonstration.

Ok. Force has to be legal, justifiable and proportionate.

No, this isn't correct. Certainly is has to be legal (that's a given) but it does not necessarily have to be proportionate (I guess it does depend on the jurisdiction you are in). Being "proportionate" sounds more like law enforcement use of force policy rather than self defence law. It will quite often be the case that proportionate force is justifiable force but justifiable force is not always proportionate. Disproportionate force can be justified or unjustified.

So here is the first thing that a self-defence orientated style of MMA could address. The level of violence used in self defence does not necessarily need to be proportionate. That's important for the MMA fighter to understand when they use force and also how they interpret the force that is being used against them. Some times disproportionate force will get them into trouble, other times it won't. A clear understanding of the law would help MMA fighters understand the implications of what they are doing as well as what their attacker is doing.

Based on this misunderstanding of the law, a defender may lose the fight simply because they restricted themselves to "proportionate" techniques in circumstances where the law would have permitted them to use disproportionate force. You lost the physical fight.

Also based on this misunderstanding of the law, a MMA fighter may misinterpret someone else's disproportionate use of force as an attack when it is in fact legitimate self defence. In this case, your response (based on a belief you are acting in self defence) may be unjustified. You lose the legal fight.

So providing she can identify why she used force in the first place. (Which is generally an attack or fear of an attack)

This is the problem right here. It is also what I was hoping you would attempt to do - to explain how she would attempt to justify her use of force. This is the key point at which I would expect MMA fighters to fail and it is also the area where the people I have spoken to in real life fail.

YOU as the potential defendant have to establish an evidential foundation for your use of force. That is more difficult than people realize. The prosecution only needs to show that you committed the act and had the required mindset. After that, the obligation moves to the defendant.

By admitting to self defence you have already done the prosecutions job - the act and mindset can be proven by reference to the police statement. You haven't yet done your (first) part of the job - establishing an evidential foundation for self defence.

That will be pretty easy to do. She used force while they were a threat. And then backed the force off as soon as they were not.

It is not easy to do. I promise you. There are LOTS of cases where people thought that it would be easy to explain their position to the police. Some of them are really tragic cases (i.e. I don't believe they deserved to go to prison).

Had this been an actual self defence. While they were capable of fighting back she could have also punched their faces in.

No, this is wrong. The question of whether you are in a self defence situation is separate from the question of the force used. You need to establish that you are in a self defence situation - and that is not at all easy and then consider the force used separately.

It is hard to respond in a detailed way simply because I don't have all the facts of this hypothetical situation. However, I do think she is at risk of arrest and prosecution.

The point is that MMA provides an excellent training opportunity as well as a broad array of techniques for the establishment of an effective Self Defence system. MMA is probably the best martial art that exists right now for people who want to learn self defence - but the martial art that is best for self defence does not yet exist.

There are techniques that the women could have done to improve her legal position. She did not do them because she was not demonstrating a self defence martial art. It doesn't mean that MMA fighters are doomed to prison any time they defend themselves. It just means that they are not as prepared as they could be.

I also note that in some of the footage she put her knees to the ground - MMA has many techniques that are too dangerous for most defence situations. I would rather prioritise techniques that have more universal applicability.

So just how complicated can the law get? It can get more and more complicated and a basic understanding of criminal law is not enough. People don't know what "justifiable" means and how the courts think about the word. We can look at it in a basic way:

Crime = Act + Mindset - Defence

Slightly more complicated:
Act: Behaviour; circumstances; consequences
Mindset: intentional; reckless; negligence; etc etc (there are many different categories)
Defences: Excuses; justifications etc etc

But then it can be even more complicated. Just look at the "behaviour" element of an "Act" (actus rea):
Behaviour: Positive act; omissions - arising from duties (special relationship to person; special relationship to harm; assuming a particular responsibility), continuing act doctrine, legislative adjustments.

Justifications (notice it is not called a "right")? Lets say the MMA girl was justified under the criminal for her actions - what about under civil (Tort) law?

You don't need to know all of criminal and Tort law to be able to understand self defence law. But you do need to understand a lot more than what most martial artists believe they know.

I have never come across a martial artists who explains self defence law well. Even once you understand self defence law, it is not enough - you need to integrate it into MMA.

 

[drop bear]

You don't need to know all of criminal and Tort law to be able to understand self defence law. But you do need to understand a lot more than what most martial artists believe they know.

I have never come across a martial artists who explains self defence law well. Even once you understand self defence law, it is not enough - you need to integrate it into MMMMA.

Without going too much in to legal matters. There are basically two sections of the law you need to be familiar with.

Use of force and citizens arrest.

Which over here is the crimes act. Which I will reference because they are all pretty generic.

They do change a bit from state to state.

462a.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 462A Use of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence

classic.austlii.edu.au

And 418.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 418 Self-defence--when available

www5.austlii.edu.au