Weapon and Multiple Attacker Defense

[MJS]

Considering there are numerous BJJ schools out there, I'd imagine that there would be some differences in the way material is taught. That being said, I'd like to discuss how BJJ covers the area of weapons and more than one attacker. I recall that Royce put out a book which had some weapon defenses in there.

Are weapons and mult. attackers covered in your school? If they are, what methods of defense do you use?

Mike

 

[MJS]

Wow, I was actually hoping to see some replies here, considering that we have quite a few grapplers on this site.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, and say that this is not something covered in the typical BJJ material?

Mike

 

[Phil Elmore]

Schools that focus primarily on grappling are notoriously weak when it comes to these practical self-defense realities. I'm guessing that is why this topic got few replies.

 

[Andrew Green]

Wow, I was actually hoping to see some replies here, considering that we have quite a few grapplers on this site.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, and say that this is not something covered in the typical BJJ material?

Mike

Sorry, must have missed it

Well, BJJ seems to be almost straight Judo in terms of weapon defences if you go "by the book".

However each grappling school is going to be different, there is not a set criteria across the board like is often the goal for many other systems. Every instructor will do things differently.

Many grappling schools don't go into either of those area's much at all, prefering to focus on a smaller skillset, but to a higher level.

That said, for both weapons and multiple attackers I think grappling is a neccessity, because it is going to happen whether you like it or not.

For multiple attackers you'd be looking at clinch work and takedown defence, standing up off the ground if you do end up down. In the clinch you need to work strikes and control, trying to keep one person in between you and the others, and being able to break away quickly and cleanly.

With weapons, it's going to depend on the weapon. If someone has a stick, and you don't, and you plan on fighting. I think you're going to want to try and crash in and fight in the clinch, or take it to the ground. Need to get inside that range to take the sting out of the weapon, control the arm and hopefully get the weapon.

Bladed weapons... let's just admit you're going to get cut up 90% of the time. But, if you're going to try you need to get control of that arm, which means clinch and some variation of a 2 on 1, possibly taking it to the ground from there. But you need to control that weapon hand.

Of course I am not a BJJ stylist, but these are the things I've found work best, and best doesn't mean well, in live training. But in either of those circumstances even untrained people are going to give you a hard time, especially if something sharp is involved and you got nothing.

 

[Andrew Green]

Schools that focus primarily on grappling are notoriously weak when it comes to these practical self-defense realities. I'm guessing that is why this topic got few replies.

And sweeping generalizations are usually ________?

 

[Phil Elmore]

That statement is itself a sweeping generalization. The statement, "gravity makes things fall down" is a sweeping generalization -- and one that is true more often than it is not. Grappling is an important skill. It is not a primary defensive strategy for pragmatic self-defense, however, and among the reasons it is not are the very reasons you will not find a grappling school that can teach you how to successfully grapple your way out of a multiple-attacker or weapon-inclusive scenario.

 

[Andrew Green]

How many grappling schools have you spent a good amount of time in that you are able to draw that conclusion?

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

No BJJ school I have been to focuses on multiple attacker scenarios or weapon defense. Thats not to say these things don't exist (I hear Royce requires his black belts to know a lot of self defense techniques), they are just not the prime focus. Obviously, grappling skils are taught first and foremost.

However saying BJJ schools don't impart practical self defense skills is ridiculous. Even if multiple attacker and weapon based scenarios are not commonly taught, fundemental fighting principles are constantly drilled into students heads. Blocking strikes to get the clinch, takedowns and takedown defense, getting off the ground quickly, and fighting from your back are all essential both to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and to surviving an attack. They are most commonly shown to be applied in one on one confrontations, but if a person can't defeat a single opponent they have little chance of defeating several of them.

 

[Phil Elmore]

No BJJ school I have been to focuses on multiple attacker scenarios or weapon defense. Thats not to say these things don't exist (I hear Royce requires his black belts to know a lot of self defense techniques), they are just not the prime focus.

Exactly. That is the problem. Such schools ignore out of necessity facets of pragmatic self-defense that simply cannot be ignored when one considers real-life survival. This does not make such schools bad; it simply makes their curriculum unrealistic or incomplete, depending on how you look at it.

We could just as easily ask, "What strategies do Formula One racing schools teach for dealing with roadblocks?"

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

It's a fair enough criticism, though it depends on how much credit on gives to multiple attacker training in actually preparing a person for such a situation. Most of it I have seen is little more then roleplaying a set scenario.

Personally, I'd rather have a good base in the general fighting skills I mentioned, and BJJ schools do a wonderful job of teaching this. As many people have pointed out, you don't know how an actual fight is going to go down untill you are involved in it. Good training that can be applied flexibly will pull a person through a fight safely before a set in stone technique will.

 

[Andrew Green]

Exactly. That is the problem. Such schools ignore out of necessity facets of pragmatic self-defense that simply cannot be ignored when one considers real-life survival. This does not make such schools bad; it simply makes their curriculum unrealistic or incomplete, depending on how you look at it.

We could just as easily ask, "What strategies do Formula One racing schools teach for dealing with roadblocks?"

Can I repeat my question, what grappling experience do you have that lets you make the generalizations about it?

"it simply makes their curriculum unrealistic or incomplete, depending on how you look at it."

That's a pretty big claim to be making with out any decent first hand experience, and not one that I have heard anyone with a few months training in a grappling school make.

Ignoring the stuff taught in grappling schools would IMO, lead too a much greater level of incompleteness and unrealistic training.

 

[MJS]

EXCELLENT!!! Thanks for the great replies!! :ultracool

This thread was started with the intention to 'pick the brain' so to speak, of people who grapple on a more regular basis, so to get a feel as to what type of training is done to assist with these attacks. It was in no way intended to slam or start a flame war. IMHO, civil, friendly discussions are much more productive than constantly bashing someone.

So...back to the discussion. Andrew and MGB: Looking at both of your posts, it seems like the general consensus is to close the distance, ie: clinch, and get control of the weapon. Certainly two points that I agree with. Of course, I'd imagine some modifications may have to be made, considering a weapon is involved, not just empty hands. Even with the Arnis and Kenpo that I train in, not waiting until the blade or stick is half way there is a key idea.

On another note...I often hear that if its not a weapon oriented art, executing a defense will be a bit harder. What are you thoughts on this and how does this effect your defenses?

Mike

 

[Andrew Green]

On another note...I often hear that if its not a weapon oriented art, executing a defense will be a bit harder. What are you thoughts on this and how does this effect your defenses?

Mike

Not sure what you mean here?

 

[MJS]

Not sure what you mean here?

Basically, the more focused an art is on something, the better the defense will be due to having an understanding on a much larger scale. For example: Kali, Arnis, etc. are all Filipino based arts. The blade and stick are two things that these arts focus alot on. The same for BJJ. The focus is on grappling. Yes, in the FMA's, there is also focus on empty hand just like in BJJ there is focus on striking and kicking. I have weapon disarms in Kenpo, but I look at the FMA's to get a better understanding and expand my knowledge. I look at BJJ to help round out my ground game.

 

[Andrew Green]

Ok, then yes, I agree.

If you don't train with weapons regularly you'll have a harder time dealing with them. You also need to learn both sides, so if you want to learn to defend a weapon, you need to learn to attack with one. Otherwise you are just defending strikes from other people that don't know what they are doing, and that's not of much benefit.

Same as guys with no grappling stating factualy the best way to defend a takedown is "Insert silly theory here", if you don't train with weapons, chances are what you try won't be that effective.

 

[green meanie]

Grappling is an important skill. It is not a primary defensive strategy for pragmatic self-defense, however, and among the reasons it is not are the very reasons you will not find a grappling school that can teach you how to successfully grapple your way out of a multiple-attacker or weapon-inclusive scenario.

That's not true. It depends on the school and where their priorities lie. It might be the case in a school that's primary focus is competing: Wrestling, Judo, Brazilian, or otherwise. But there are MANY good schools out there who train and with self-defense in mind and dealing with multiple attackrs and weapons are part of the curricululm.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Name some.

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

All of them. I have never been to a BJJ school that does not teach techniques which will protect someone in a fight, whether there are multiple attackers or one guy with a flashlight.

BJJ teaches control over opponents, which is essential for surviving a weapon based attack. It teaches protection on the ground, and how to get up fast while protecting yourself, which is essential for surviving an attack by multiple people. It teaches how to block strikes, close the distance and take down an opponent while defending agaisnt the same, which is essential to surviving any fight.

Should people pull guard in a streetfight? Probably not, but at the same time no BJJ instructor teaches there students to do this. They teach them the basic skills which will protect them in a fight and how to use them.

There are plenty of good schools within an hour from Syracuse, check them out and see what they have to offer before you condemn them.

 

[RoninPimp]

Every BJJ school I personaly have been to addresses the problems that mutiple opponents and/or weapons present to an unarmed person. The odds in those situations suck, and they recognize that. They don't bother to teach hypothetical fantasy techniques to use. There are BJJ techniques found in most JJJ curriculum which are ok, but with weapons and/or mutiples are low percentage. These techniques are similar to the RedZone stuff too.

So no Phil, they don't teach their curriculum to fight and win in those situations. No realistic art should teach to fight unarmed and win against weapons and/or multiples.

That said, the fundamental fighting skills that BJJ or MMA training build may carry over to those situations. I would argue for firearm usage in those situations though.

 

[Andrew Green]

Name some.

Name some you've trained at that didn't...

Most do, but as has been said, recognize that in those situations, it doesn't matter what you got, you're odds suck.