BJJ, Complete Arts, and Other Things

[MJS]

Now, this is not meant to bash any arts, but simply to discuss their views and training methods.

While surfing the web and some other forums, I came across a link, which listed some interesting subjects. I thought I'd post here to get everyones views on the subject.

The first link is here. The author, a BJJ stylist goes on to say that BJJ is really all you need, as its a complete system. It touches a bit on the UFC, and due to all of the rules, BJJ is less effective.

The next link that caught my eye was here. The focus is on multiple attackers. The author goes on to say that if someone can't handle one BJJist, how can someone expect to handle 2 or more?

Now, after watching the two recent episodes of Fight Quest, which featured Krav Maga and Kajukenbo, I think that some very interesting points were made on the show. You had 2 guys, both with MMA backgrounds, thrown into 2 arts, in which weapons and mult. attackers are showcased. Now, I disagree with 2 things, that are typical comments of BJJ stylists, when the subject of weapons and multiples come up. First, IMO, not everyone you face is going to be trained in grappling or on the level of a MMA fighter, so to say that if you can't fight one BJJist, how're you going to fight 2 is moot IMO. Now, running is usually the only answer that you hear, and while its certainly a viable option, it may not always be the best. What if you're not a fast runner? What if the person chasing you is faster? What if you have your wife and kids with you? Are you going to leave them behind? So again, I do feel that its a good choice, but IMO, you better have a backup plan.

The second subject is weapons. I'm sure some disarming work is there, but I really havent seen a solid weapon defense program with the typical BJJ material.

Now, if we look back to Fight Quest, you saw Jimmy and Doug working against multiples as well as weapons, and IMO, while they at times resorted back to their old habits, ie: attempting to take the person down, they did pretty good overall. In the Kajukenbo episode, we saw Jimmy running thru some great mult. attacker drills. When they fell back on their old training, we also saw the results of that.

So, now that I ranted on and on ...I'd like to hear everyones views. Do you think that there are any complete arts out there that address it all? What are your views on the links that I posted?

Again, this is in no way, intended to bash any art. I cross train in BJJ, so if I thought it was totally useless, I wouldn't bother. However, I don't fall into the trap of thinking that one art is going to have all the answers, or that there are zero solutions to a given problem.

 

[charyuop]

I know this can sound kinda rethorical, but it is not the Art while it is more the way you train in that Art.
I notice that when we train in our dojo and we are an even number, so we end up paired, a certain situation arise. I attack or get attacked, do a technique. Wait for the opponent to get up and do all over again. Whilest I know I am supposed to keep a live awareness it is not easy when you know there is only one person there and that's who you will be dealing with.

On the other hand, when there is only 3 of us in the dojo the thing is completely different. You get attacked by one, deal with that one BUT in the same time you have to be aware of the position and movement of the other person, cos when you are done with one the other will be already there starting his attack. I am not talking about a training against multi attackers, it is always 1 vs 1, but the second attacker is there ready to attack as soon as you done dealing with the first one. Either you are ready or you get punched.

This translate in a very big difference in the body behavious. In the first case, most of us tend to have a little relaxation and that means before re-engaging the attacker you need to recoil your body ready like a spring.
In the second case your spring is always ready. Might finish a technique and as soon as you turn you need to move immediately, basically with no arrest of the movement. If you are practicing a technique (and that happens to me alot being still new and not having a great control of my body yet) you might have end up changing the technique or just improvise an evading movement in order to avoid being punched.
This doesn't necessarily mean that you will learn to fight multi attackers, but when the time comes when your teacher will introduce a multi attacker session (and I assume every MA has it) you already have a mentality for it.

 

[Andrew Green]

BJJ definately doesn't have all the answers, but that isn't going to stop people from claiming it does. But the same could be said about countless other systems.

I really think it comes down to one thing though. Over time, people will train the things they think are important. Spend enough time training and you will likely end up putting time into pretty much everything relevant to your interests. Some people will stick to one art / system, be it TKD, Karate, Kung Fu or BJJ, the system will have everything they want. Other people will explore other systems, integrate things and experiment with new things.

Either way, they will feel that they are getting everything they need from what they are doing, otherwise they would go add what they thought where missing.

Eventually people that train long enough often become instructors, and carry their biases and opinions with them. So it's not that BJJ has all the answers, but poeple that have done nothing else are pretty likely to believe it does, and those are the people selling it.

It's also bad business to advertise your school as "We got some of what you need" when the McDojo across the street advertises as having "all"

 

[MJS]

I know this can sound kinda rethorical, but it is not the Art while it is more the way you train in that Art.
I notice that when we train in our dojo and we are an even number, so we end up paired, a certain situation arise. I attack or get attacked, do a technique. Wait for the opponent to get up and do all over again. Whilest I know I am supposed to keep a live awareness it is not easy when you know there is only one person there and that's who you will be dealing with.

Good points, and this is why I feel that working with a group or in a scenario drill setting can only help ones training.

On the other hand, when there is only 3 of us in the dojo the thing is completely different. You get attacked by one, deal with that one BUT in the same time you have to be aware of the position and movement of the other person, cos when you are done with one the other will be already there starting his attack. I am not talking about a training against multi attackers, it is always 1 vs 1, but the second attacker is there ready to attack as soon as you done dealing with the first one. Either you are ready or you get punched.

While mult. attacker training is good to do, having the 2nd person attack, before you really know and can adjust to whats coming is good as well.

This translate in a very big difference in the body behavious. In the first case, most of us tend to have a little relaxation and that means before re-engaging the attacker you need to recoil your body ready like a spring.
In the second case your spring is always ready. Might finish a technique and as soon as you turn you need to move immediately, basically with no arrest of the movement. If you are practicing a technique (and that happens to me alot being still new and not having a great control of my body yet) you might have end up changing the technique or just improvise an evading movement in order to avoid being punched.
This doesn't necessarily mean that you will learn to fight multi attackers, but when the time comes when your teacher will introduce a multi attacker session (and I assume every MA has it) you already have a mentality for it.

 

[MJS]

BJJ definately doesn't have all the answers, but that isn't going to stop people from claiming it does. But the same could be said about countless other systems.

Agreed, and thats one of the main arguments I have with some of my fellow Kenpoists, when the subject of groundwork comes up. Some are so dead set in saying that there is ground work in there, yet unless you conduct the dig of the century, its not obvious to the eye, hense the reason I train in BJJ.

I really think it comes down to one thing though. Over time, people will train the things they think are important. Spend enough time training and you will likely end up putting time into pretty much everything relevant to your interests. Some people will stick to one art / system, be it TKD, Karate, Kung Fu or BJJ, the system will have everything they want. Other people will explore other systems, integrate things and experiment with new things.

True, and of course, you will have one group that does that, and another that looks at the first group and says that they're missing out because they're not doing it like they do.

Either way, they will feel that they are getting everything they need from what they are doing, otherwise they would go add what they thought where missing.

Yup.

Eventually people that train long enough often become instructors, and carry their biases and opinions with them. So it's not that BJJ has all the answers, but poeple that have done nothing else are pretty likely to believe it does, and those are the people selling it.

And talking to those people, trying to get them to open their eyes is like talking to a brick wall. The words are being said, but they're just not getting thru.

It's also bad business to advertise your school as "We got some of what you need" when the McDojo across the street advertises as having "all"

True.

 

[Kwan Jang]

I have seen the arguments of that BJJ instructor before, as it was presented on another forum by one of his students. The guy eventually left in a huff since even the rest of the BJJ community there neither shared nor accepted his views. I believe there are some (self serving) fundamental flaws to his arguments. I will share some of the points I brought up with that student and shared with the BJJ community on the other board.

Fights are won on defense, in other words, the person whose defense collapses first is the one who loses. In the early UFC's, BJJ stylist Royce Gracie was pitted against fighters who had very little clue of how to defend or counter what he brought to the table. OTOH, Royce was very well prepared for their arsenal and game plan. The early UFC's didn't truly show that BJJ or submission grappling is superior to striking systems, it simply proved that the more prepared fighter can exploit the holes in other people's gameplans and that the element of surprise has won more battles than any other factor. It also doesn't hurt that your brother is the promoter and can hand pick the opponents who the majority have little experience against what you are doing either.

Grappling legend Gene LeBell has mentioned that when the first karateka came on the scene in the USA, the "unbeatable technique" was the front kick (usually more of a high kick). This was because boxers, wrestlers and judoka hadn't had to deal with this new element and were unprepared to defend against it...at first. It wasn't too long though before high kicks were no longer an autowin and people figured out how to defend and counter against them. The same is true of BJJ and submission grappling. Over time, MMA fighters have developed the skills to defend and counter against both takedowns and the ground game.

In regards to the FIGHT QUEST programs, I think that these are very good examples of why ground fighting and grappling became overlooked by so many systems in the first place. Strategically, the ground is NOT a good place to be in a real fight. I do believe in having superior ground skills so that you can deal with the very likely situation that you may end up there, but even many of the very best grapplers will tell you it's a better idea to post back to your feet ASAP in a real fight. I LOVE submission grappling and BJJ is a big part of that curriculum that I train in and teach my students. Still, for self defense the only time I would ever choose to take the fight to the ground on purpose is IF my opponent had me totally outmatched in stand up. Then I might try to take him out of his element and hope that he was a one dimensional fighter. Otherwise, I want my groundfighting as a defense in case my opponent takes me down, especailly by a surprise attack. Then I will post back to my feet as quickly as I can because just too many other factors can enter into it when I'm on the ground. I'll leave my rolling for the mats in compettiton and class, thank you.

The Gracies have had a very strong propaganda campaign that many of their guys have bought into. It's not the use of gloves or the restriction of rules that is the reason that BJJ no longer dominates MMA competitions. It's the fact that no one is caught flat footed anymore and know how to defend and counter their gameplan. Ground skills in both submissions and ground striking are a very important part of a MMA practitioner or competitor's arsenal, but the days that you can catch an experienced fighter with the "sucker moves" are log gone. Even the fans and backyard guys have a decent knowledge of what you are up to nowdays.

Some of the often quoted propaganda put out by some of the Gracie clan (not all of the Gracie family have been part of this and some are privately opposed to it) includes lines that counter their systems obvious weaknesses. Their line is that "no one can really defend against these things, so why even bother". Well, the truth is that other people who focus on and train against multiple opponents and weapons have succesfully defended against them in real life many times. It's not a guarantee and you are at a distinct disadvantage, but your odds are far greater of success than not training for it IMO. Yet, their followers often quote these lines like scripture and believe it like it's their gospel.

 

[Andrew Green]

Their line is that "no one can really defend against these things, so why even bother".

It's an excuse to not train something, just like when other people go into the broken glass and getting stomped by multiple opponents routine about not bothering with ground work.

No one can train everything to a high level, there simply isn't the time for it. Unless you have nothing else to do, you can't train everything.

So I guess it's not just an excuse, although the phrasing usually turns it into one, but also prioritizing. BJJ often seems to "put all its eggs in one basket" in a sense. Amazing ground skills, but ignore many other aspects, sort of like a boxing school, amazing punches, but that's all.

I think most of the "my style is better then your style" fights are caused because everyone likes to judge others by their own standards. A BJJ expert will look around and see others not doing BJJ to the same level, and conclude those schools aren't as good. A Boxing club will look around and see that everyone else isn't doing boxing as well, and conclude the same. The stick fighting club looks around and sees that the boxing and BJJ club don't use weapons at all, so they must be no good. In the end, everyone thinks they are the best and everyone else is doing it wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

The next link that caught my eye was here. The focus is on multiple attackers. The author goes on to say that if someone can't handle one BJJist, how can someone expect to handle 2 or more?

Why would I be in a fight against two or more BJJists? Are Helio, Rorion, and Royce roaming the streets as a pack, looking to mug me for the $20 in my pocket?

I think the average street mugger is not someone who has spent a lifetime developing high level grappling skills, nor high level martial skills of any kind. Defending against multiple attackers, while certainly dangerous, doesn't mean defending against multiple individuals who are all highly trained martial artists of any kind.

 

[Flying Crane]

Agreed, and thats one of the main arguments I have with some of my fellow Kenpoists, when the subject of groundwork comes up. Some are so dead set in saying that there is ground work in there, yet unless you conduct the dig of the century, its not obvious to the eye, hense the reason I train in BJJ.

It is in there, but not to the same degree that you will find in a devoted BJJ or other grappling school.

In the early days, the late 1950s and early 1960s, lots of falling, throwing, rolling, and kicking from the ground was a staple in the training. The method was not intended to stick around and win the submission thru grappling. Instead, it was meant to break away from a grapple, regain your feet and carry the fight from there, or else simply get away. It's focus is in self-defense, not winning the match. So it's a different, abridged approach to grappling, compared to an approach that seeks to stay as long as it takes to win the submission.

This method is what the early students of Mr. Parker, such as the Tracys, trained. It is still included in the Tracy system, but much of this material was never formally codified within the Self Defense techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's an excuse to not train something, just like when other people go into the broken glass and getting stomped by multiple opponents routine about not bothering with ground work.

No one can train everything to a high level, there simply isn't the time for it. Unless you have nothing else to do, you can't train everything.

So I guess it's not just an excuse, although the phrasing usually turns it into one, but also prioritizing. BJJ often seems to "put all its eggs in one basket" in a sense. Amazing ground skills, but ignore many other aspects, sort of like a boxing school, amazing punches, but that's all.

I think most of the "my style is better then your style" fights are caused because everyone likes to judge others by their own standards. A BJJ expert will look around and see others not doing BJJ to the same level, and conclude those schools aren't as good. A Boxing club will look around and see that everyone else isn't doing boxing as well, and conclude the same. The stick fighting club looks around and sees that the boxing and BJJ club don't use weapons at all, so they must be no good. In the end, everyone thinks they are the best and everyone else is doing it wrong.

Good post, Andrew.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think as a practitioner that it is always important to have an open mind, reevaluate your training constantly and at any level be willing to learn. No one person, no one art has all the answers. So train, continue to grow and always look at other people's perspectives and stay most importantly young at heart! (don't become close minded)

 

[Doc_Jude]

Some of the often quoted propaganda put out by some of the Gracie clan (not all of the Gracie family have been part of this and some are privately opposed to it) includes lines that counter their systems obvious weaknesses. Their line is that "no one can really defend against these things, so why even bother". Well, the truth is that other people who focus on and train against multiple opponents and weapons have succesfully defended against them in real life many times. It's not a guarantee and you are at a distinct disadvantage, but your odds are far greater of success than not training for it IMO. Yet, their followers often quote these lines like scripture and believe it like it's their gospel.

I wonder how the Gracies & BJJ folks feel about Dog Bros. work such as "Die Less Often" working FMAs together with BJJ to defend against determined knifers...
The more BJJ that folks learn, the less Über it is. Besides, if grappling is all that, how does one explain Liddell/Coutour? Very few BJJ fighters (if any) have superior takedowns to Randy, & yet Chuck got the 2 out of 3.
IMO, there are no complete arts. There are some pretty well-rounded ones, but no art can prepare you for potentially 100% survivability in any situation. There isn't enough time in a single lifetime to learn all that. & if there was, you wouldn't need it since you'd eat/sleep/poo/train all in the gym!

 

[Doc_Jude]

I think as a practitioner that it is always important to have an open mind, reevaluate your training constantly and at any level be willing to learn. No one person, no one art has all the answers. So train, continue to grow and always look at other people's perspectives and stay most importantly young at heart! (don't become close minded)

That's it right there. When I look at lifetime martial artists like Chuck Norris, Gene Lebell and Dan Inosanto, guys that are always learning, eternal students, it's humbling.

 

[still learning]

Hello, When you get poke in the eye or hit in the groin? .....you will be at a disvantage.....

Anyone can do those hits....Bjj, karate, Judo, and so on....knows these will be the primary tarkets.

The whole idea about martial arts? ...is to end the fight quickly and in your flavor!

Fighting mulitple guys....the idea is to hit the right tarkets...and get out of there (escaping is the goal).

These are black belt techniques that is taught to you from white belt level...eye poke and groin attack...WHY? ....very effective NO matter the style or martial arts!

How long will it take you to learn to poke an "eye" or hit the groin? ...

NOT long and anyone can do this!

Aloha,

 

[MJS]

I have seen the arguments of that BJJ instructor before, as it was presented on another forum by one of his students. The guy eventually left in a huff since even the rest of the BJJ community there neither shared nor accepted his views. I believe there are some (self serving) fundamental flaws to his arguments. I will share some of the points I brought up with that student and shared with the BJJ community on the other board.

Yes, I noticed that too. He was, at one point, a member here as well, and yes, his views were the same then.

Fights are won on defense, in other words, the person whose defense collapses first is the one who loses. In the early UFC's, BJJ stylist Royce Gracie was pitted against fighters who had very little clue of how to defend or counter what he brought to the table. OTOH, Royce was very well prepared for their arsenal and game plan. The early UFC's didn't truly show that BJJ or submission grappling is superior to striking systems, it simply proved that the more prepared fighter can exploit the holes in other people's gameplans and that the element of surprise has won more battles than any other factor. It also doesn't hurt that your brother is the promoter and can hand pick the opponents who the majority have little experience against what you are doing either.

Grappling legend Gene LeBell has mentioned that when the first karateka came on the scene in the USA, the "unbeatable technique" was the front kick (usually more of a high kick). This was because boxers, wrestlers and judoka hadn't had to deal with this new element and were unprepared to defend against it...at first. It wasn't too long though before high kicks were no longer an autowin and people figured out how to defend and counter against them. The same is true of BJJ and submission grappling. Over time, MMA fighters have developed the skills to defend and counter against both takedowns and the ground game.

Good points! A good example is the fight with Royce and Hughes. That was Royces first UFC fight in a long time and it was apparent that Matt was not hindered by him.

In regards to the FIGHT QUEST programs, I think that these are very good examples of why ground fighting and grappling became overlooked by so many systems in the first place. Strategically, the ground is NOT a good place to be in a real fight. I do believe in having superior ground skills so that you can deal with the very likely situation that you may end up there, but even many of the very best grapplers will tell you it's a better idea to post back to your feet ASAP in a real fight. I LOVE submission grappling and BJJ is a big part of that curriculum that I train in and teach my students. Still, for self defense the only time I would ever choose to take the fight to the ground on purpose is IF my opponent had me totally outmatched in stand up. Then I might try to take him out of his element and hope that he was a one dimensional fighter. Otherwise, I want my groundfighting as a defense in case my opponent takes me down, especailly by a surprise attack. Then I will post back to my feet as quickly as I can because just too many other factors can enter into it when I'm on the ground. I'll leave my rolling for the mats in compettiton and class, thank you.

Agreed. Having some ground knowledge will give you the necessary tools to get back to a standing position. Of course, anytime multiples, weapons, or the fact that you're rolling on a hard surface comes up, the attempts to shoot down those valid points, flow like water. "No art has good defenses for multiples and weapons" is the usual reply. IMO, thats crazy, and it shows that the people who say that, really don't have any idea as to what other arts teach. I think that the 2 arts I mentioned from the FQ show represented some good examples of multiples and weapons.

The Gracies have had a very strong propaganda campaign that many of their guys have bought into. It's not the use of gloves or the restriction of rules that is the reason that BJJ no longer dominates MMA competitions. It's the fact that no one is caught flat footed anymore and know how to defend and counter their gameplan. Ground skills in both submissions and ground striking are a very important part of a MMA practitioner or competitor's arsenal, but the days that you can catch an experienced fighter with the "sucker moves" are log gone. Even the fans and backyard guys have a decent knowledge of what you are up to nowdays.

Exactly.

Some of the often quoted propaganda put out by some of the Gracie clan (not all of the Gracie family have been part of this and some are privately opposed to it) includes lines that counter their systems obvious weaknesses. Their line is that "no one can really defend against these things, so why even bother". Well, the truth is that other people who focus on and train against multiple opponents and weapons have succesfully defended against them in real life many times. It's not a guarantee and you are at a distinct disadvantage, but your odds are far greater of success than not training for it IMO. Yet, their followers often quote these lines like scripture and believe it like it's their gospel.

And the typical reply to this is that, "If its not on tape, it didn't happen!" Well, sorry, but I don't walk around with a camcorder. I don't need to put something on tape to know if it works or not. But, if people want video proof that bad, the FQ arts showcased that very well. One thing that always gets bashed is the elbow to the back, yet we clearly saw Jimmy take an elbow to the back in the Kaju episode and it worked!!!

Like you said...there are people out there that focus on these things. Just because they don't run around playing movie star or entering the ring, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

 

[MJS]

Why would I be in a fight against two or more BJJists? Are Helio, Rorion, and Royce roaming the streets as a pack, looking to mug me for the $20 in my pocket?

I think the average street mugger is not someone who has spent a lifetime developing high level grappling skills, nor high level martial skills of any kind. Defending against multiple attackers, while certainly dangerous, doesn't mean defending against multiple individuals who are all highly trained martial artists of any kind.

Exactly!!!

 

[MJS]

It is in there, but not to the same degree that you will find in a devoted BJJ or other grappling school.

In the early days, the late 1950s and early 1960s, lots of falling, throwing, rolling, and kicking from the ground was a staple in the training. The method was not intended to stick around and win the submission thru grappling. Instead, it was meant to break away from a grapple, regain your feet and carry the fight from there, or else simply get away. It's focus is in self-defense, not winning the match. So it's a different, abridged approach to grappling, compared to an approach that seeks to stay as long as it takes to win the submission.

This method is what the early students of Mr. Parker, such as the Tracys, trained. It is still included in the Tracy system, but much of this material was never formally codified within the Self Defense techniques.

Oh, I don't doubt that there is some there. And I also agree that we don't want to roll for 30min looking for an armlock. I guess my feelings are, if you want to get better at an area, go to the source. If I really want to finetune my weapons disarm, understand, etc., I'm going to look at a weapon based art.

 

[MJS]

It is in there, but not to the same degree that you will find in a devoted BJJ or other grappling school.

In the early days, the late 1950s and early 1960s, lots of falling, throwing, rolling, and kicking from the ground was a staple in the training. The method was not intended to stick around and win the submission thru grappling. Instead, it was meant to break away from a grapple, regain your feet and carry the fight from there, or else simply get away. It's focus is in self-defense, not winning the match. So it's a different, abridged approach to grappling, compared to an approach that seeks to stay as long as it takes to win the submission.

This method is what the early students of Mr. Parker, such as the Tracys, trained. It is still included in the Tracy system, but much of this material was never formally codified within the Self Defense techniques.

Oh, I don't doubt that there is some there. And I also agree that we don't want to roll for 30min looking for an armlock. I guess my feelings are, if you want to get better at an area, go to the source. If I really want to finetune my weapons disarm, understand, etc., I'm going to look at a weapon based art.

 

[Flying Crane]

Oh, I don't doubt that there is some there. And I also agree that we don't want to roll for 30min looking for an armlock. I guess my feelings are, if you want to get better at an area, go to the source. If I really want to finetune my weapons disarm, understand, etc., I'm going to look at a weapon based art.

right, if you want to really excell in an area, then you need to focus your training on that. It's like Andrew said, it's a matter of setting your priorities and deciding what aspect(s) of fighting are most important to you, and spending your limited and valuable training time working on that.

But, many arts do have elements to deal with most any situation. This doesn't mean every aspect is fully developed to the level of a specialist. But they have enough of a focus on it to be competent generalists. Maybe they specialize in one area, but contain enough material and focus on the other areas that they could still be effective against that kind of attack, so long as the attacker is not a highly trained specialist himself. Or at least they have developed methods to combat that kind of attack. If a striker is attacked by a grappler, he doesn't need to grapple to defend himself. He needs to understand grappling enough to be able to deal with the attack, but he ought to be able to defend himself by sticking with his own methods, and not being suckered into fighting the other guy's fight.

 

[MattJ]

Besides, if grappling is all that, how does one explain Liddell/Coutour? Very few BJJ fighters (if any) have superior takedowns to Randy, & yet Chuck got the 2 out of 3.

Liddel was a champion wrestler (California State Championship in Freestyle). You have to know grappling to be able to defend grappling, unless you are some kind of freak phenom. Exceptions do not prove the rule, in any case.

IMO, there are no complete arts. There are some pretty well-rounded ones, but no art can prepare you for potentially 100% survivability in any situation. There isn't enough time in a single lifetime to learn all that. & if there was, you wouldn't need it since you'd eat/sleep/poo/train all in the gym!

Agree with you there, LOL.