Is BJJ really effective?

[medic06]

For a BJJ forum, there sure are a lot of haters...

Naturally, because martial artists for the most part would rather refute and marginalize the contribution of BJJ rather than admit to the failing of their own system. It's all part of the disease I like to call "martial arts induced psychosis". The symptoms include a disassociation or warped view of reality, excessive mental role playing (the "what if" game), placing total faith in one person or belief without question, and an over inflated ego. It's kind of like belonging to a religious cult.


On another topic, I have a question for all BJJ and other grapplers. Do you practice on how to strike from the clinch? If so, please share some ideas.

[koto_ryu]

Naturally, because martial artists for the most part would rather refute and marginalize the contribution of BJJ rather than admit to the failing of their own system. It's all part of the disease I like to call "martial arts induced psychosis". The symptoms include a disassociation or warped view of reality, excessive mental role playing (the "what if" game), placing total faith in one person or belief without question, and an over inflated ego. It's kind of like belonging to a religious cult.

Oh, please BJJ is not the "ultimate" martial art that everyone so believes. While BJJ may be one of the best grappling styles for sport, it is far from being the best for street self-defense. Throughout its history the Gracies would only do 1-on-1 matches and never proved it fully as an effective form of street self-defense. Any art which actually has a takedown that brings you to your back, whether they're in your guard or not, is in my eyes one that would end up getting you killed on the street. Not to mention many of the same moves employed in BJJ are in many other styles but who prefer to do most of their fighting from stand-up and only go to the ground as a last resort, not as the first one.

[medic06]

Whoa!!! Pump your brakes there brother!!! I didn't say it was the ultimate, only that the techniques could be effective in a street situation. In my art there are plenty of techniques that I practice but would hesitate to use in a real life situation. BJJ is like any other art, it has effective techniques and it has weaknesses. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to "prove" a technique is effective in the street because a real situation is not a controlled environment and what may work in one situation will fail totally in another.

So, are there effective techniques in BJJ? Yes and no? Is it the ultimate? NO

[koto_ryu]

Naturally, because martial artists for the most part would rather refute and marginalize the contribution of BJJ rather than admit to the failing of their own system.

^ This specifically was the part I was talking about, here you're basically saying everyone else's system is a failure

[doubleouch]

Naturally, because martial artists for the most part would rather refute and marginalize the contribution of BJJ rather than admit to the failing of their own system. It's all part of the disease I like to call "martial arts induced psychosis". The symptoms include a disassociation or warped view of reality, excessive mental role playing (the "what if" game), placing total faith in one person or belief without question, and an over inflated ego. It's kind of like belonging to a religious cult.


On another topic, I have a question for all BJJ and other grapplers. Do you practice on how to strike from the clinch? If so, please share some ideas.

Straight Blast Gym has some videos that address striking and fighting from the clench.
straightblastgym.com

[JohnnyS]

Throughout its history the Gracies would only do 1-on-1 matches and never proved it fully as an effective form of street self-defense.

Are you claiming the Gracie's and their students never used their art in self-defense? That's a big call! I've got a bunch of stories from students and myself who have used BJJ as self-defence and came out just fine.

As for the Gracie's only doing 1-on-1 matches, please tell me which arts engage in one-on-many challenges?

[medic06]

^ This specifically was the part I was talking about, here you're basically saying everyone else's system is a failure

Nope, I'm basically saying that no art is complete and all have weaknesses.

[koto_ryu]

Are you claiming the Gracie's and their students never used their art in self-defense? That's a big call! I've got a bunch of stories from students and myself who have used BJJ as self-defence and came out just fine.

Be as it may, they're not as undefeated as they claim to be. Helio (I think that's his name, the father) was defeated by Kimura, a Japanese man who was a practitioner of nihon-ryu jujitsu. I never said it wasn't useful for self-defense, it just has too much of a limited focus, more on taking your opponent to the ground than being a well-rounded fighter. Most of the standup of the Gracies and other BJJ-only practitioners is laughable.

As for the Gracie's only doing 1-on-1 matches, please tell me which arts engage in one-on-many challenges?

Hindu wrestlers would often do bull-in-the-ring matches, sometimes as many as 3 on 1. Practitioners of batto jutsu will often fight multiple attackers, as do some eskrima styles (DeCuerdas does if my memory serves me correctly), the Thugees (Middle Eastern assassins) also had some very good ways of dealing with multiple attackers (mostly to get the hell away from them, but some of their techniques do prove interesting), ninja would train against multiple attackers and often in their missions were severely outnumbered, etc. There are countless examples, but a groundfighting-oriented art is the last I would choose for being my main tool of self-defense.

[koto_ryu]

Nope, I'm basically saying that no art is complete and all have weaknesses.

Might want to reword it a little better next time then

[JohnnyS]

I have never heard one instructor say to pull someone to guard in a fight. Don't confuse a valid strategy for sport-fighting to be what is taught for self-defense. Even in sport BJJ, people are taught to be on top, hence why you get two points for sweeps.

BJJ is effective as a self-defence tool, because:
a) It teaches a sound, simple strategy i.e. clinch, takedown, submit or strike.
b) It is practised against resisting opponents
c) Because of b), people have more realistic expectations of a fight than others who think they're in a Bruce Lee movie.
d) Against someone unfamilar with the ground, it only takes a few seconds to takedown, finish with an armbar and get back to your feet.

In our BJJ classes we also teach people how to end a fight standing by taking the back and choking etc, so BJJ students don't HAVE to fight on the ground.

Does BJJ teach valid knife defenses? No. Nor does anyone I know in BJJ advertise that they do. You want that, go do Kali.

Is BJJ perfect for multiple opponents? No, but what multiple opponents generally want to do is get you on the ground and put the boot in. At least BJJ teaches how to protect yourself on the ground, as well as how to get back up to your feet, things that I've never seen taught in other arts (or if they were, not realistically). No art can guarantee you success in a multiple opponent situation. The whole "go to the ground and his mates will kick your head in" is such a tired, boring argument anyway, because grapplers have friends too.

[JohnnyS]

I'd like to add one more thing.

While I may have taken up BJJ and other martial arts initially for self-defense, it's not the reason why I continue to train. Beating people in streetfights or in pubs is easy. I haven't trained for twenty years because I'm fearful of being in a fight; I haven't been in a fight in nine years, since I stopped working as a bouncer. I continue to train in BJJ not for self-defense, but to beat other BJJ guys. I love the art because it's simple, effective and it's not bullshit, you have to back up what you claim.

The chances of being in a fight, unless you frequent rough pubs and clubs, are so low that to spend years studying any martial art for that one incident seems foolish to me. Train in a martial art because you enjoy it, not out of fear of something that will probably never happen.

[medic06]

Might want to reword it a little better next time then

Yeah, you're right, I should have read through it before I posted it. I just think people are too worried about tearing down BJJ when they could be training and improving themselves and their own arts.

[DragonAE86]

I'd like to add one more thing.

While I may have taken up BJJ and other martial arts initially for self-defense, it's not the reason why I continue to train. Beating people in streetfights or in pubs is easy. I haven't trained for twenty years because I'm fearful of being in a fight; I haven't been in a fight in nine years, since I stopped working as a bouncer. I continue to train in BJJ not for self-defense, but to beat other BJJ guys. I love the art because it's simple, effective and it's not bullshit, you have to back up what you claim.

The chances of being in a fight, unless you frequent rough pubs and clubs, are so low that to spend years studying any martial art for that one incident seems foolish to me. Train in a martial art because you enjoy it, not out of fear of something that will probably never happen.

Whoo hoo! Someone is actually making a valid point instead of bickering about 'who's Dad has got a bigger TV'. No matter what the MA ppl study, you will always get someone slagging it - personally if it don't work for them then don't moan, but try something that does.

Someone with quick hands should study western boxing as the 1st resort.
Someone with strong legs, study Thai/kick boxing.

Anyways good post Johnny.

[crazyjoe380]

Some karate will disagree with the poll...



"And you stop the takedown by doing this stance here"

[jitzmandala]

And I'm gonna laugh when you get in a streetfight, take a guy to the ground to start grappling with him, and 3 of his buddies pop out of nowhere and proceed to monkey-stomp your brains.

This seems a matter of strategic error. This has nothing to do with the "effectiveness" of bjj. BJJ has proven itself effective inside it's familiar ranges of movement. Grappling.

If the thread was titled "effectiveness of bjj against multiple attackers in a streetfight" I suppose things would be different in how we judged the 'system' of bjj as effective in that particular situation. But for the individual in a self defense situation, your description sounds like a poor strategic judgement. Not a failure of a particular "system".

I'm not saying BJJ is entirely unsuitable for self-defense, I feel it can be effective, but saying its the ultimate weapon and your first line of offense in a streetfight is ridiculous. Fight standing up until you have no choice to go to the ground, then once you are on the ground get up as quickly as you can.

Personal preference must work together with flexibility. Comfort zones are nice things to hone skill and have a 'go to', having any range that you are truly "uncomfortable" in physically is any martial artists nightmare in a SD situation. What your talking about has more to do with self defense strategy, not the effectiveness of any art inside of it's elemental range.

Your coming off strong, but I see your point, it's important to train realistically, both with the 'technique' we use, and 'strategically' with our understanding of ranges and how they work together.

I could basically say the same thing about 'western wrestling'.... that it's USELESS in a self defense situation. But I don't believe that. I believe that any training that anyone does is usefull to them... to build on for the rest of their life. Familiarity is only a doorway to learning something new.

Dave in Oregon