- Sep 29, 2013
- Reaction score
I don't know what is so difficult to understand. If you are fighting 1 vs 2. What are you going to do? Use your ground game and talk about how effective BJJ is? You'll lose, It always plays out the same way. 1 vs 1 , you can afford to use a ground game. 1 vs 2. Ground game will result in a loss. If you look at the 5 vs 5 MMA fights. It always plays out this way. As you see in the video below. This is what happens to a ground game when you have to fight more than 1 person.
The great error in your argument is that you think the goal is to go to the ground in every situation. If you watch that video closely, you'll see that both sides went for tackles and takedowns. It just so happens that in the chaos of that nonsensical show, one group got the better of another group and used simple numbers to overwhelm the other team. I have no idea why you think that's some statement against ground fighting, especially when its taught in pretty much every serious self defense discipline these days.
Martial arts that have a considerable amount of striking in it are more focused on the possibility of multiple attackers. Even a 2 vs 2 scenario makes a ground game very risky. 1 vs 1 can turn into a quick loss if other join in. The green shirt was fortunate that the guy he was beating up didn't have a friend around. Look how easy it is to interfere.
Yes, now take that exact same situation and imagine if the guy in the green didn't know ground fighting, and the other guy was on top of him socking him in the face over and over again. It's also important to note that the guy in the green could have ended that confrontation at multiple points, but chose instead to show some sort of dominance over his opponent (i.e. punching him in the head instead of just choking him out at the outset of the fight).
And if he knew ground fighting the person on his back wouldn't have needed his mommy to save him.
This is why people say being on the ground is not good. Gracies have even stated so themselves.
Who is saying that being on the ground is good?
If my brother is with me, and you and I get into a fight, You use BJJ on me, what do you think my brother is going to do while your hands are busy trying to control me. Lets add weapons to the scenario. I don't have a weapon but my brother has a knife. Yeah you are going to get stuck and it won't take a lot of effort for my brother to stab you. Where are you going to run? How are you going to defend against 2 people when you are on the ground?
We can flip this around to any martial art and the exact same thing happens. What? You think Kung Fu helps you fight against multiple armed people? Kung Fu exponents have problems fighting one unarmed person. This is the TMA delusion I'm talking about.
Let's just keep this in mind; You're essentially arguing that Bjj is heavily disadvantaged against multiple armed attackers, as if EVERY martial art isn't disadvantaged against multiple armed attackers.
If I have someone with me, then it doesn't matter if I have ground game or not. Not sure why this is so difficult. To understand. Listen to what they say 3:50
And listen to what they said at 4:08. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.
While fighting multiple attackers at once is a big risk. It's a definitely 98% certainty you'll lose if you go to the ground and think that you can fight multiple attackers while on the ground and still win. The other 2% depends on if you are able to get up quickly or at all after going to the ground.
And I'm asking again, who said that being on the ground is good?