How realistic is your art??
JJ THE J MAN
thinks that BJJ or the such is realistic fighting. Sure it's good one on
one a la UFC, but when is the last time you have seen a one on one
fight? Or a fight not involving weapons? I have n't , that's for sure. I
take BJJ and I like. It's a good sport but that's about it- a sport. It
does not take into account weapons and multiple attackers. You can't go
on the ground in a brawl- you'll be smashed. And God forbid a weapon is
introduced - I don't thinka BJJ guy would be proficient at disarming.
Bjj is good but not street realistic.
si...@yahoo.com
attackers or weapons into account isn't entirely accurate. I heard about a
seminar with Rickson Gracie where this was brought up. Rickson demonstrated
several ways that GJJ does take weapons and multiple attackers into account.
To say that "you can't go on the ground in a brawl" is also a little broad.
While I would certainly never *want* to go to the ground in a fight ...
that's not always a choice I can make. If the ground is icy or muddy or there
is loose gravel ... or maybe I'm just having a bad day and I trip, I can
quickly end up on the ground.
To say that BJJ (or anything else) has *no* realistic value is also a very
broad generalization. While BJJ as a system may or may not be good in a fight
(depends on the fighter, really), BJJ does have elements that are good to
know ... in case you do end up on the ground.
Incidentally, I don't study BJJ at all. I have had some exposure to it,
though, and have come to the conclusion that it doesn't really suit me
personally. This doesn't mean it's valueless, though. I simply prefer other
systems to get my groundwork from. I do advocate (and train) striking,
grappling, and groundfighting ... all of the above with and without weapons.
While it's impossible to be prepared for everything ... it is vital to be
exposed to as much as you can. Even if you have no interest in groundfighting
and you feel confident that no one can ever take you down, or that you'll
never need groundfighting ... how can you learn to fight a groundfighter if
you don't understand groundfighting?
I mean, take this scenario (and note, this is only one scenario ... there are
many many others that can illustrate this point):
A boxer should have the tools to beat a grappler. However, if that boxer has
never had someone shoot to his legs (i.e.: a single or double leg takedown),
then he's very likely to hesitate or freeze the first time it happens. If he
doesn't move or pound the grappler quickly, he will go down and will have
something broken quickly (assuming they're actually fighting).
If, on the other hand, the boxer has trained against grapplers and has been
attacked like this before then he's very likely to either get out of the way
or blast the grappler in the back of the head/neck/kidneys/etc. and dish out
a lot of damage before the grappler gets him down.
Again, this scenario could be presented in any way (i.e.: if the grappler
hasn't faced a boxer before he might get creamed before he even has a chance
to close the gap and go for a takedown).
What it boils down to is that if you think there's ever a chance you'll use
something, or have it used against you, then you need to familiarize yourself
with it.
The fad today is grappling and groundfighting. Therefore, you're very likely
to end up fighting someone who wants to go to the ground. If you've had no
experience dealing with groundfighters, you're likely to find yourself in an
uncomfortable position very quickly.
Mike
In article <35D56753...@aol.com>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Aiki1
eisma...@aol.com (EisMadchen) wrote:
> Can't we just say that bjj, like sport judo, is good for training and
matches,
> but is not so great for fight when weapons and other attackers show up.
You can say it, but it is not true. When a person does not take the time
to really look into something, all they see is the surface. On the surface
of BJJ, all you see is ground grappling for the most part. If one wants to
see more, one needs to look deeper, that's all. It is true that ground
grappling is a tremendous area of concentration in BJJ training.
EisMadchen
>
>Be careful with sweeping statements.
Should we be amused by the self-reference in the above statement?
>To say that BJJ doesn't take multiple
>attackers or weapons into account isn't entirely accurate.
On the other hand, it IS generally accurate. The average instruction makes no
effort to handle multiple attackers or weapons -- as opposed to Traditional
Jujutsu and Karate that assume weapons and multiple attackers even at a very
basic level.
This is especially a problem in an art that claims to define a new standard for
fighting.
> I heard about a
>seminar with Rickson Gracie where this was brought up. Rickson demonstrated
>several ways that GJJ does take weapons and multiple attackers into account.
>
Maybe he gave a class in standard jujutsu?
Matthew Noell
How realistic are any of these antiquated arts? Personally, I'd rather
have some modern weapons and tools rather than a black belt if I have to
fight multiple armed attackers. OTOH I'd rather train an antiquated art
than go to the range and practice with my 9mm 5 times a week.
Matthew
In article
<Aiki1-17089...@dwan3-pool028.pw-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>,
Aiki1@re_move_earthlink.net (Aiki1) wrote:
> In article <199808180224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> eisma...@aol.com (EisMadchen) wrote:
>
> > Can't we just say that bjj, like sport judo, is good for training and
> matches,
> > but is not so great for fight when weapons and other attackers show up.
>
LEESENSEI
>have some modern weapons and tools rather than a black belt if I have to
>fight multiple armed attackers. OTOH I'd rather train an antiquated art
>than go to the range and practice with my 9mm 5 times a week.
>
>Matthew
Well Mathew, why can't you do both? I have to agree that given the choice in a
combat situation I would rather have a gun or other modern weapon, rather than
rely on my empty hands. If I find myself in a desperate situation and I forgot
to bring my gun, then you can bet that I will be damn glad that I have been
training in unarmed combat arts.
You have to realise that most empty hand martial arts, at least most
traditional unarmed martial arts such as those that were taught in Japan and
China were basically there to suplement the weapons training that was used by
the warrior class. The Samurai did not train in Taijutsu and other unarmed
arts instead of their weapon arts, they trained in these arts as an adition to
the weapons skills that they had to master. A Samurai would never run off to
battle and leave his sword or spear behind, but if his weapon got broken or
lost etc. then his unarmed skills would be all that stood betwen hi and death.
I just can't guarantee that the local neighborhood mugger is only going to
attack me when I have my handgun strapped to my hip. It is more likely that
trouble will likely find me when I am least expecting it. While I can forget
to load my gun, or take it with me everywhere, my combat skills are always
there for me.
Take care,
Lee Drew
EisMadchen
>
>> How realistic are any of these antiquated arts? Personally, I'd rather
>>have some modern weapons and tools rather than a black belt if I have to
>>fight multiple armed attackers. OTOH I'd rather train an antiquated art
>>than go to the range and practice with my 9mm 5 times a week.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
>traditional unarmed martial arts such as those that were taught in Japan and
>China were basically there to suplement the weapons training that was used by
>the warrior class. The Samurai did not train in Taijutsu and other unarmed
>arts instead of their weapon arts, they trained in these arts as an adition
>to
>the weapons skills that they had to master. A Samurai would never run off to
>battle and leave his sword or spear behind, but if his weapon got broken or
>lost etc. then his unarmed skills would be all that stood betwen hi and
>death.
>
opponent while your weapons are tied up, your opponent is usually as good as
dead since you end up with your weapon above him.
In modern terms, it takes a long time to draw and shoot in fighting time. The
best thing about unarmed fighting is that your weapons are always drawn and
generally can even be "leveled" without revealing them.
Tim
fighter get close to me. I say I can pull a trigger( if needed) faster
than a martial artist could get close enough to hit me.
On the other hand I do have a black belt in Jujitsu. Some times it is
inconveniant to carry my gun. Nice to know I have my other tools on my
body.
Oh and whoever wrote about going to the gun range 5 timmes a week....
I don't think so. Once a month for me. Thats 15.00 a month to shoot.
Tim
Mike
> With all the ground shit going on today I would think that every one
> thinks that BJJ or the such is realistic fighting. Sure it's good one on
> one a la UFC, but when is the last time you have seen a one on one
> fight? Or a fight not involving weapons? I have n't , that's for sure. I
> take BJJ and I like. It's a good sport but that's about it- a sport. It
> does not take into account weapons and multiple attackers. You can't go
> on the ground in a brawl- you'll be smashed. And God forbid a weapon is
> introduced - I don't thinka BJJ guy would be proficient at disarming.
> Bjj is good but not street realistic.
I get so sick of hearing this... how many years of practice would it take
for a Karate guy or any other style to be able to handle 2 or more
attackers with knives? A LONG TIME!! So saying BJJ is unrealistic because
you can't use it to beat up a gang of knife wielding thugs doesn't mean
Karate is any better; the possibilty exists to pull a miracle out of your
butt and beat up 2 or more guys, but the average BJJ or Karte guy is still
going to get his ass beat.
East Side Library
If your not dealing in weapon defense...if your not pulling muscles...if
blood doesn't flow on occasion...your playing around
DVC. Dave
KteDo
>for a Karate guy or any other style to be able to handle 2 or more
>attackers with knives? A LONG TIME!! So saying BJJ is unrealistic because
>you can't use it to beat up a gang of knife wielding thugs doesn't mean
>Karate is any better;
Personally - I think that any style/school that claims that they will teach
you to deal with multiple opponents is full of it. No doubt -people- can
handle multiple opponents, but hey, never any guarantees. If you are really
concerned about multiple attackers - carry pepper spray - safe, legal,
effective.
I have to assume that BJJ isn't all about groundfighting. I've come to
believe that the Gracies know how to strike, but knew that they were vastly
superior to their opponents in the groundfighting areana - and so decided to
take the fights to the ground. Of course, I've never seen a BJJ/GJJ class, so
I can only guess what they really teach. However, I can't support the belief
that groundfighting is the "best", or the "inevitable" conclusion to a fight.
Of course there is stupidity on both sides of the fence - standup guys claim
that they "wont' be taken down, and ground fighters claim that they are
unbeatable on the ground. Although it may not be the brightest of ideas,
biting some one tends to make them let go. Maybe you guys are made of some
tougher stuff, but I, and all the people I've ever wrestled (Wrestling meaning
simply some one tackled some one) have always let go if 1. they get pinched in
the right spot (Inner thigh for example) 2. they got grabbed in the right spot
(Love handles, armpit, groin area).
Forgeting about all the claims by standups that they can keep you from
grabbing them by attacking you in vitals (Throat, eyes, groin). there isn't
much to keep them from attacking you there once they -are- on the ground.
Sure, you can do it right back - but that kind of brings us to the "karate crap
is useless" argument (Karate crap being anything that is more complex than a
sloppy punch). OK, now everyone disagree with me - but do me a favor, tell me
-why- I'm wrong, other than misguided childhood, poor education, or male
pattern baldness (Hey, you never know).
Gryphon
>
> With all the ground shit going on today I would think that every one
> thinks that BJJ or the such is realistic fighting. Sure it's good one on
> one a la UFC, but when is the last time you have seen a one on one
> fight? Or a fight not involving weapons? I have n't , that's for sure. I
> take BJJ and I like. It's a good sport but that's about it- a sport. It
> does not take into account weapons and multiple attackers. You can't go
> on the ground in a brawl- you'll be smashed. And God forbid a weapon is
> introduced - I don't thinka BJJ guy would be proficient at disarming.
> Bjj is good but not street realistic.
Street realism=death wish.
How do you know that the guy you're tussling with doesn't have a
concealed knife in his jacket? Or worse? Before you know what hit you,
you can have a bullet lodged in one of your vital organs.
Only fools are concerned about "street realism" in MA. I've gone over
the reasons for my feellings on this a million times, but to make a long
story short, fighting is overrated. It seems that fighting is 99% of
what gets talked about here. And I thought this was supposed to be an
MA newsgroup...
Ryan "The Gryphon" Kelly
ATA Yook Geup (recommended)
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/kilroy
Bill
> It seems that fighting is 99% of
>what gets talked about here. And I thought this was supposed to be an
>MA newsgroup...
>
And I was under the impression Martial arts were
about fighting, self defense when fighting is needed,
and the ability to defend and protect with fighting skills.
Shame on me ;-)
Chuck Sears
LEESENSEI wrote:
> > How realistic are any of these antiquated arts? Personally, I'd rather
> >have some modern weapons and tools rather than a black belt if I have to
> >fight multiple armed attackers. OTOH I'd rather train an antiquated art
> >than go to the range and practice with my 9mm 5 times a week.
> >
> >Matthew
>
> Well Mathew, why can't you do both? I have to agree that given the choice in a
> combat situation I would rather have a gun or other modern weapon, rather than
> rely on my empty hands. If I find myself in a desperate situation and I forgot
> to bring my gun, then you can bet that I will be damn glad that I have been
> training in unarmed combat arts.
>
> You have to realise that most empty hand martial arts, at least most
> traditional unarmed martial arts such as those that were taught in Japan and
> China were basically there to suplement the weapons training that was used by
> the warrior class. The Samurai did not train in Taijutsu and other unarmed
> arts instead of their weapon arts, they trained in these arts as an adition to
> the weapons skills that they had to master. A Samurai would never run off to
> battle and leave his sword or spear behind, but if his weapon got broken or
> lost etc. then his unarmed skills would be all that stood betwen hi and death.
>
> I just can't guarantee that the local neighborhood mugger is only going to
> attack me when I have my handgun strapped to my hip. It is more likely that
> trouble will likely find me when I am least expecting it. While I can forget
> to load my gun, or take it with me everywhere, my combat skills are always
> there for me.
>
>
Well stated. You hit the crux of the matter dead on.
No matter what kind of weapon training you may have: impact, penetration or
missile, there may come a time when you have no weapon available. If you become
dependant upon a weapon, then you are a serious disadvantage if you can't use it.
You *always* have your hands and feet, and most importantly, your brain.
Sean J. Carey
you should be training to defend yourself in a real street situation. We
spend probably 75% of class talking about street realism, what to avoid what
to watch for and when to run. Of course he may have a knife in his jacket.
So rather than running (first option) and leaving my family behind so he can
stab my wife in the back, MAYBE, just maybe I'd better prepare by practicing
street type self-defense against a knife so I can protect myself and my
family. Martial Arts IS fighting, no matter how many times you've hashed it
in your head. It has been for hundreds and even thousands of years. As for
only 'fools' being concerned with street realism, I'll gladly be that fool.
I'd rather be prepared to defend my family than let some street jackal get
ahold of them.
>Street realism=death wish.
>
>How do you know that the guy you're tussling with doesn't have a
>concealed knife in his jacket? Or worse? Before you know what hit you,
>you can have a bullet lodged in one of your vital organs.
>
>Only fools are concerned about "street realism" in MA. I've gone over
>the reasons for my feellings on this a million times, but to make a long
>story short, fighting is overrated. It seems that fighting is 99% of
>what gets talked about here. And I thought this was supposed to be an
>MA newsgroup...
>
Matthew Noell
The point that you are missing, and that Mr. Kelly is making, is that
it is all fine and good for you to have a preocupation with "street
realism", but there is a lot more to the arts. Many folks who train in
the martial arts are not interested in "street realism" or learning to
fight. They train for completely different reasons, most which are not
discussed on this newsgroup. Most teachers and very experienced martial
artists do, IMVHO, not have a preoccupation with "street realism", rather
they are interested in personal transformation, intellectual growth,
health, relaxation, fitness, sprirituality etc. Many arts have their
roots in combat. But many practioners are now taking the arts in new
directions. Good directions. Directions that give them satisfaction and
fullfillment and do not involve a basis in fighting skills. Who are you
and I to tell the next guy that he "should be training to defend" himself
if what he wants from an art is fitness, health, focus, fun, etc.?
Respectfully,
Matthew
In article <6rjvs3$n93$1...@news1.rmi.net>, "Sean J. Carey"
D.A.Trevaskis
<<<<>>>>
Perfect response.
I train MA for when I DON'T have weapons. And I train traditional
weapons for when I HAVE NOTHING BUT WHAT'S AT MY FINGERTIPS. I don't
expect to neutralize a gun, except MAYBE under SPECIFIC circumstances.
Expect the worst, and train for it.
Dave T.
<<<<>>>>
Gryphon
> <<<<>>>>
> Perfect response.
> I train MA for when I DON'T have weapons. And I train traditional
> weapons for when I HAVE NOTHING BUT WHAT'S AT MY FINGERTIPS. I don't
> expect to neutralize a gun, except MAYBE under SPECIFIC circumstances.
> Expect the worst, and train for it.
>
> Dave T.
> <<<<>>>>
To train for the worst and expect it is all a person can realistically
do. I don't want to be misunderstood. I've never said that fighting is
wrong. I've only said that a fool is worried about how well he can
fight, cause MA is about *conflict resolution*. If fighting is what it
comes down to, then a fight will happen; I simply find it ridiculous to
read threads about which art is best when none of them really can argue
with a gun.
J Thomas Howard
> My gun can be drawn in.65 sec and fired in .90 sec. Not letting the
> fighter get close to me. I say I can pull a trigger( if needed) faster
> than a martial artist could get close enough to hit me.
Hmm. That puts you considerably ahead of the curve. You are saying you
can draw from concealment (since we are talking about street self-defense)
in .65 seconds? And fire accurately? Under stress?
Interesting. I don't disbelieve you, some people can do that. But most
cannot. Tueller drill is a good example of what happens to most people in
timed draw-and-shoot situations.
> On the other hand I do have a black belt in Jujitsu. Some times it is
> inconveniant to carry my gun. Nice to know I have my other tools on my
> body.
Precisely!
Thomas
------------------------------------
tho...@binary.net
http://www.binary.net/thomcat/
"There are none so blind as those who
WILL NOT see."
myself
>
> In response to knive threat, there are arts that spend ALOT of time learning
> very effective knife and anti-knife techniques. Kali and Silat come to mind.
> As for guns, Lew Enforcement's "Tuller Drill"
Where could I find out more about this drill?
--
Force is used as a last resort where
humanity and justice cannot prevail.
- Gichin Funakoshi
Todd D. Ellner
>As for guns, Lew Enforcement's "Tuller Drill" shows that an armed attacker
>of AVERAGE physical abilities can close the distance of 21' in an aVERAGE of
>1.5 seconds. It is a well known fact that a determined attacker can get
>instde and do considerable damage AFTER being shot. It takes about 1.5
>seconds for a SKILLED gunfighter to draw and fife two shots accurately.
It's even worse than that. The Tueller (sp?) drill has the guy with the
knife and the guy with the gun moving at a signal by a third person. Modern
Warrior (the folks who first and most thoroughly debunked pepper spray)
changed the experiment a little by letting the guy with the knife attack
whenever he wanted to. The range at which the gun-user could effectively
draw and fire moved from 20 feet to about 30.
Regards,
Todd
--
Todd Ellner | Let man wear the fell of the lion, woman the fleece of
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | the sheep.
(503)493-4431 | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Subetai
In response to knive threat, there are arts that spend ALOT of time learning
very effective knife and anti-knife techniques. Kali and Silat come to mind.
As for guns, Lew Enforcement's "Tuller Drill" shows that an armed attacker
of AVERAGE physical abilities can close the distance of 21' in an aVERAGE of
1.5 seconds. It is a well known fact that a determined attacker can get
instde and do considerable damage AFTER being shot. It takes about 1.5
seconds for a SKILLED gunfighter to draw and fife two shots accurately. If
you miss or if the attacker is too mean you are in aworld of hurt. It was
the conclusion of the developer of the drill that if you could not drawe,
fife and move off the line of attack before you were reached you were
potentially "dead". Cops have been killed by knives after shooting multiple
rounds in an assailent. The prevailing opinion in the "professional" combat
community that a knife is generally superior in "arms-reach range". The very
range that most germs would choose to attack in.
East Side Library
OK folks nothing hard about this one...
Dennis? Tuller an LA cop designed the "tuller drill" about 10 years ago.
1. place someone 7 yards (21 feet) away from you
2. have them "charge you at a signal given by a third person
3. they pat you on the shoulder as they go past
4. stop watch determines the time
takes about 2 -2.5 seconds for an AVERAGE person to do this one...a young in
shaped person is 1.5 -2.0 seconds
the purpose of the drill is to train cops and armed civilians concerning how
little time you have to react to someone with a knife who starts to "move on
you". Most cops and armed civilians can't draw and get hits in less than
2.0 seconds. Also deer (not hard to kill) have run a hundred yards with
their hearts distroyed by rifle fire) If the bad guy has a club the time is
reduced because he now has a "reach advantage" over a knifer. This is why
most trained armed types will begin SHOOTING when a knifer or club bearing
bad guy begins to move. THIS HAS WENT TO COURT, AND THE COPS HAVE WON THE
LEGAL CASE...AFTER THEY GOT THE JURY UP AND HAD THEM RUN THE DRILL
THEMSELVES. The deadly threat involved is pretty well demonstrated by the
drill.
Sean J. Carey
more to the arts. I COMPLETELY agree. Though American Kenpo is not a
'traditional' martial art, things such as respect and loyalty to fellow
students, instructors, associations and to those who came before us who also
tried to perfect their art are all found in our Kenpo system. However, Mr.
Kelly's quotes were:
"Street realism=death wish", and
"Only fools are concerned about 'street realism' in MA."
disagree with. I have no problem with statements about a Martial "ART". I
do know that 90-95% of the martial artists I know train specifically for
self-defense, not for conditioning, flexibility or an art form.
Sean