Self-Defense Vs. Mutally Agreed Combat

[Hermosa]

As many of you who have followed much of my previous postings, probably know...I tend to have a little bit of a spiritual/non-violent edge to my opinions...

Anyway, I was thinking about the traditional Gracie-Jiu-jitsu stand-up self defense the other day. I happen to really like almost all of this, with the exception of the gun and knife stuff...but then again, I don't even find Kali's knife stuff to be very workable after 4+ years in that.

So..I'm thinking about this stuff and its clear to me that most of the BJJ self-defense gets a pretty bad rap. I started to think about why and this is what I came up with...

Basically I DO beleive that just as far as technical evolution go's...Todays modern NHB training is the highest level that martial arts have ever reached. That being said, I think that modern NHB training is the yardstick against which most techniques/styles are weighed as to consider them practicle or effective. For the most part, that is as it should be and I agree with that evolution. But then there's the BJJ self-defense stuff...this stuff does NOT hold up to scrutiny against modern NHB training, yet I find it pleasant and very useful...so what is the problem???

Then I realized that the difference is that ALL of modern NHB training is predicated on the idea that you have "agreed" to a fight. While BJJ self-defense is predicated on the idea that a fight has "found" you unaware and forced you into a position where self-defense is necessary. NOW..one may say, NHB training can totally be applied to the idea that a fight has "found" you and forced you into a position where self-defense is necessary...that's the way most people picture it I'm sure...

HOWEVER..(and this is where it gets spiritual)...If a fight "finds" you while you are in weapons, kicking or punching range...and you still fight, then you have "AGREED" to the altercation at hand. You have decided to stay and try your hand at using MA to defeat this opponent in front of you. If that is what you want to do..that's fine. But it occurred to me..that my ego is not big enough to warrant violence between me an another individual for pretty much ANY reason! Cussing and swearing wont do it, talkin about my momma wont do it, my girlfriend, my dog, even spitting at me or flipping me off or throwing a beer on me..none of it. If those things were going on...why would I stay in that environment? The only thing I can think of is when I have been literally GRABBED..(ie. grappling) and I can NOT simply remove myself..I must "grapple" in order to regain my freedom.

Therefore..for me...the idea of knifefighting, stickfighting, boxing or kickboxing, is all training for mutually agreed combat. You could ALSO "agree" to grapple but I don't condone that idea either.

I have more to say but this is fairly lengthy..so I'll stop here and open it up for discussion.

[wardancer]

I am still trying to understand your point?
I do not believe in self-defence but competitive MA format: any MA competitive actually rather than a so called self-defense class.

[CKD]

The BJJ self defense stuff gets a bad rap because it is not very good, for a more polite term. If you check out Royce Gracies self defense book, Rorion's self defense videos, and other you can judge it for yourself.

[Hermosa]

To Wardancer..

Very good contrast..

Overall all I absolutely believe in "Alive" training. I think it weeds out all the MA nonsense and exposes you to your true self. This CAN happen with boxing, kickboxing, judo, wrestling, BJJ, kendo, and fullcontact stick and knife sparring. So that IS true first and foremost...AND that is why I am not an Aikido guy.

Honestly, the principles of aikido and the teachings of O' sensei really inspire and appeal to me. There is just one problem, Aikido doesn't work.

This is why I've found BJJ to be basically perfect. It is an art with an "alive" training method...but it is more or less devoid of strikes and almost totally defensive. I believe that BJJ people still OWN the ground and I believe that the only way I'd ever have to fight is if an altercation literally landed on me...in which case we'd be grappling. IMO, if we were not grappling...I would no longer be in the area.

Therefore...while there is no doubt in my mind that if I "agreed" to combat with someone who crosstrained in boxing, thaiboxing, and wrestling, and BJJ..and I myself am a pure BJJ'er..I'd definately lose. But it wouldn't be on the ground..I'd be fine on the ground..I'd lose because I had "agreed" to keep fighting and this guy would jab me and hook me and kick my legs..all in the long ranges.

In conclusion..while I DO believe that ALL "alive" arts and training methods are very useful and go along way to promote true self knowledge...It occurred to me, that all it takes is a personal committment to never "agree" to fight..and then all you really need is a pure defensive discipline that has an "alive" training method, namely BJJ.

[Hermosa]

The BJJ self defense stuff gets a bad rap because it is not very good, for a more polite term. If you check out Royce Gracies self defense book, Rorion's self defense videos, and other you can judge it for yourself.

Ok..that was intelligent. That's like saying this stuff is no good because its no good! Why is it no good? What is it lacking?

Also, I've just wrote a novel about this stuff..do you really think that I have not checked it out yet?

IMO the gracie self defense stuff IS good. --NOt really the gun and knife but I talked about that earlier-- Most people don't like it because they veiw it through an NHB perspective, but it requires another perspective and that is what this whole thread is about..

[darrianation]

So, what are we supposed to be discussing exactly?

Have you ever noticed, or is it just me, that it is easier to discuss an opinion that is opposite of your own rather than one that is the same? Hmmm…well, that’s were I am at on this one. I agree I think…about what you are saying about non-verbal (or verbal) agreement to fight versus being attacked. I do make the distinction.

I think you and most folks will agree however that you need to be able to fight in all ranges. I have my own little labeling of ranges that I use although they are the same as anyone else’s just the terms might be slightly different. Weapons, striking (with kicking range and punching range), and grappling ranges first being clinching in which from here throws and takedowns can be executed (or just clinching and using damaging techniques from here) and ground fighting. For SD you need to know and be able to fight in all these ranges because sometimes you do not get to pick the range you fight in, sometimes the range picks you.

However the first duty of any SD program should not be to teach fighting but to how to avoid fighting. The breakdown should look something like this:

1) Intelligence/knowledge
2) Prevention
3) Awareness, recognition (recognition of risks and threats), and trusting your own instincts
4) Avoidance
5) Decision making
6) De-escalation or escape
7) Fighting

Now, Hermosa you tend to lean towards grappling if a fight should break out my motto is (of course to avoid, but if unable to) “Hit first, hit hard, and hit often grapple only if you have too. Now when I say grapple I mean ground fighting. Personally I concentrate a lot of my training in the clinching range. My personal principles of fighting are thus:

1) Close aggressively with the enemy using a bridging technique (palm strikes, punching combos, etc)
2) Clinch and control while simultaneously gouging the eyes, throat strikes, neck cranks, doing many other close quarters techniques to cause damage.
3) Finnish or break and escape

This allows for distraction, disorientation, unbalancing, and most importantly turns his psychology against him this allows you to exert your will upon him.

However something to always keep in mind Engaging in combat for what ever the reason can cost you your life or your freedom, so what ever the reasons you have for fighting they better be worth giving up your life or possibly going to prison for.

[CKD]

Ok..that was intelligent. That's like saying this stuff is no good because its no good! Why is it no good? What is it lacking?

Also, I've just wrote a novel about this stuff..do you really think that I have not checked it out yet?

IMO the gracie self defense stuff IS good. --NOt really the gun and knife but I talked about that earlier-- Most people don't like it because they veiw it through an NHB perspective, but it requires another perspective and that is what this whole thread is about..

You didn't really clarify why you like it either. You just said it was all good besides the weapon defenses. But if you want to know what I think it is missing, there are no pre-emptive strikes, no information on multiple attackers, and no mindset. It also shows very little de-escalation techniques. Besides that I am not so sure about the haymaker defense. It also didn't show defense against a hook. Fights happen in all ranges. What happens if you are up against a wall and an attacker is wailing on you? That is not grappling range but the attack happened. They do not have to attack you with a grappling attack. Also it does not show how to defend weapons on the ground. You wrote a book, thats great(title would be nice, instead of just saying a book) but does that mean your opinion is right? No. You did some research, so have other people on this forum, including I. I tried this techniques on resisting opponents and compared everything to other arts. It fell short to other arts like ROSS and Geoff Thompson's system. It was missing a lot of things other arts had. It had some good defenses. The basic ones that nearly every art has and you could find at karate dojos. Like the simple grab the foot when a person has you in a rear bearhug. Or the front bearhug defense when you use your hands to push him away at the face, but I typically use it with a tripping technique as they are going away because if you do it the way in the book they could clock you in the face. Another problem I find is the way it is trained. They tell the attack and the partner defends with little resistance. There are also no self defense sparring to simulate the attack. Everything is pre-planned. I am not new to bjj and this is my honest opinion on its self defense aspect.

[IPON]

If a fight "finds" you while you are in weapons, kicking or punching range...and you still fight, then you have "AGREED" to the altercation at hand. You have decided to stay and try your hand at using MA to defeat this opponent in front of you. If that is what you want to do..that's fine.

Hermosa I don't think your point is clear. While your wording is "AGREED" it implies "CHOICE" and from one perspective the argument for choice is always an option. But is it really always choice. If I am at a ATM (Money dispensing machine) late at night to get cash and someone comes from behind and asks for all my money I ahave a choice give the money and take a chance or be killed and definately loose the money anyway. Not the best example granted but my point is I may "AGREE" to fight for SD becuse that is the best or only option for my survival. If someone where just in my face and I can walk away I would agree with you but that is not always an alternative.

[Hermosa]

Great thoughts you guys..seriously.

Most everyone is a bit confused about what we are supposed to be discussing..Let me me try to clarify.

Give me some examples of situations where the following are true...

1-you have NOT "agreed" to fight, you've been forced to fight.
2-you are NOT in grappling range.
3-you are exchanging blows with your opponent.

I know that there are some scenarios where this could be true..but I think that its fairly hard for those 3 things to all be true at the same time in most cases.

So I guess the point I am trying to make is that I believe when most people roll that mental movie in their head about defending themselves...what they usually imagine is a mutally agreed combat scenario and not real self defense. And if this is true..it may possibly bring to light some new ideas about what you train and why you train what you do.

[darrianation]

One example of agreeing to fight would be like in a bar when someone says lets step out side and you say okay lets go. This is not a self-defense situation because you know damn well what you are stepping outside to do, and this is avoidable. You made a conscious decision to fight before hand.

In Ipon’s example a good self-defense technique would have been not to go alone to a ATM late at night or if unavoidable to check to see if someone was lurking near by, If this has failed and there was an attempted robbery the next best thing to do would be to give up your money. A bad technique would be to say hey F*** you and start doing Bruce Lee imitations.

The SD skills here are knowledge and prevention-you should have known not to go by yourself late at night to an ATM. Awareness and risk assessment- what kind of neighborhood is the ATM in? What kind of lighting was there? Is it near where a lot of people are, in a crowded public place, or down a deserted dimly lit part of town? Did you check before getting money out of the machine if there was someone lurking near by? Did you stand there counting the money?

Remember the robber is taking full advantage of the fact that he believes he will get away with it without a lot of witnesses. He will most likely be armed or have friends nearby. He will strike when the time is right for him, when he has all the advantages. Don’t give him those advantages.

Bad situations like this one as well as most others usually are avoidable and usually only happen when you have been lack in your own personal security procedures or you have never developed a security plan to begin with.

This is what you should know about personal protection. Learn the do’s and don’ts, learn how to develop a good personal security plan and live it. Stay safe!

[CKD]

Great thoughts you guys..seriously.

Most everyone is a bit confused about what we are supposed to be discussing..Let me me try to clarify.

Give me some examples of situations where the following are true...

1-you have NOT "agreed" to fight, you've been forced to fight.
2-you are NOT in grappling range.
3-you are exchanging blows with your opponent.

I know that there are some scenarios where this could be true..but I think that its fairly hard for those 3 things to all be true at the same time in most cases.

So I guess the point I am trying to make is that I believe when most people roll that mental movie in their head about defending themselves...what they usually imagine is a mutally agreed combat scenario and not real self defense. And if this is true..it may possibly bring to light some new ideas about what you train and why you train what you do.

I understand your mutually agreed combat point. But I do not understand why you think highly of the bjj self defense techniques and why you think fights only happen in grappling range. Also please tell us the name of the book you wrote. I couldn't find anything about it. There are several scenarios for your three steps. Lets say you are entering your apartment and a man suddenly attacks you confusing you with someone else. You have limited space and he is throwing wild punches at you. If you tried to run away he would simply grab you and shove you down or other things. That wasn't the greaest scenario but right now I am feeling a bit lazy. Basically if people, obstacles, walls and other things prevent you from getting away a person can attack you. Or maybe the confrontation starts and turning around and trying to run is not an option because he can simply grab you and shove you down.

[darrianation]

krys, I am not to keen on BJJ SD techniques either but I haven't seen all of them. The ones I have seen both from BJJ and the Gracie book I am not impressed with.

I think that Hermosa is simply talking about true/real SD versus what the common misconceptions are among many MAs. In many MA classes self-defense isn't really all that defined. Someone punches you block and counter, or someone pulls a knife and you disarm. They really don't take into account all the nuances, the environment, or the details leading up to the event. Many think that a bar fight or a fight at a party over some girl is self-defense.

There are many scenarios you can go through as you said; some can be classified, as SD while others wouldn't. I guess what I think he's saying is that there is a difference between just plain fighting and self-defense.

To me fighting is mostly or even totally avoidable and usually exists lower on the use of force ladder. While a true SD situation is sudden or an ambush and one is usually caught off guard and exists higher up the use of force ladder. The stakes are much higher (usually) in a SD situation. A true SD situation is usually a criminal assault, rape, attempted murder, by a person who is capable of doing it.

When I think of SD I think of coming home late at night entering my house and there is Bubba who was just released from prison after serving many years in maximum security for murder. He is armed with a knife or a gun and so is his buddy.

Not all SD situations involve fighting many employ other tactics, where is fighting, well it's fighting.

[IPON]

Darr - I agree 100% it really was not that great of an example. My point was just that the concept of choice can be somewhat subjective. While it is always better to aviod there are situations SD or other that are forced on you (actually that would be SD) so is it really "choice" when I "agree". That was my understanding from hermosa. The bar scene you stated is a good example clearly one does not have to go "outside" and teh confrontation can be avioded. Essentially, with a fight there is agreement and choice, with SD there generally is not.

[Hermosa]

More clarification..

Specifically ..I am mainly contrasting the idea of using strikes vs. using grappling techniques.

It seems to me..that if at any time you were in a fight and the fight itself resembled a boxing match, thaiboxing match, karate, or taekwondo, then that would mean that you must have the room to move around and throw punches and kicks. Therefore..if you had room to move around why would you continue to spar with your opponent? Would you not just take off?

I am saying that a grappling scenario..much like what CKD described where you walk in to a bar and are suddenly grabbed and shoved to the ground..would be a situation where, A-the fight just happened...B-you can't simply walk away because you've been physically detained by you opponent holding on to you. This situation would warrant using BJJ techniques to free yourself and/or disable your opponent...I don't see it involving the need for striking of any kind.

SO...my ultimate point is this--It seems clear to me, that as long as you never agree to move around with an attacker and spar..you should never need to train in anything other than BJJ....AND once again, why would you never move around with and attacker?...because the very fact that you CAN move around, dictates to me that you could also flee...

Therefore--If you had the ability to move around, which would mean that you also have the ability to flee, and you did NOT flee..then that decision to not flee..would be in my mind, an agreement to fight. Thusly, you are now, no longer in a real self-defense situation.

CKD..My apologies on my earlier post. I did not mean to have you think that I actually wrote a real book..I said "NoveL" out of sarcasm to refer to my very long initial thread. Sorry.

[CKD]

Specifically ..I am mainly contrasting the idea of using strikes vs. using grappling techniques.

It seems to me..that if at any time you were in a fight and the fight itself resembled a boxing match, thaiboxing match, karate, or taekwondo, then that would mean that you must have the room to move around and throw punches and kicks. Therefore..if you had room to move around why would you continue to spar with your opponent? Would you not just take off?

I am saying that a grappling scenario..much like what CKD described where you walk in to a bar and are suddenly grabbed and shoved to the ground..would be a situation where, A-the fight just happened...B-you can't simply walk away because you've been physically detained by you opponent holding on to you. This situation would warrant using BJJ techniques to free yourself and/or disable your opponent...I don't see it involving the need for striking of any kind.

SO...my ultimate point is this--It seems clear to me, that as long as you never agree to move around with an attacker and spar..you should never need to train in anything other than BJJ....AND once again, why would you never move around with and attacker?...because the very fact that you CAN move around, dictates to me that you could also flee...

Therefore--If you had the ability to move around, which would mean that you also have the ability to flee, and you did NOT flee..then that decision to not flee..would be in my mind, an agreement to fight. Thusly, you are now, no longer in a real self-defense situation.

CKD..My apologies on my earlier post. I did not mean to have you think that I actually wrote a real book..I said "NoveL" out of sarcasm to refer to my very long initial thread. Sorry.

You do not have to move around to strike. People can stand still and strike or do little movement and strike. A scenario is a person just coming up and starts striking you in a bar, running away would be hard because of obstacles and revealing your back or side to your striking opponent would not be a good idea. You could try to take him down but it might not be the smartest idea considering you might get some boots to the head. Also a pure bjj dude might have some trouble trying to take a person down(bjj does not have the best takedowns). Wrestling is also not an uncommon thing to do in high school and college so you might not be able to take him down at all if he is skilled. Statistics show that punches are the most common form of attack in the nation. Fights happen in all ranges and I would not rely on pure bjj to defend myself.