Which grappling art should I do?

[kingoftheforest]

LOL! Someone's got a rubber knife stuck up their ass!

Well it can't be me cause you're so far up my ass there isn't even room for a fart.

[kingoftheforest]

Note, that I didn't say that one was more effective or less effective than the other. I simply said they are both ineffective.

If you are saying here that both are ineffective that what is an effective defense.

Armed means most likely you have a knife or gun.


So are you saying that if you were attacked by 5 people all at once you could shot or stab all 5 before being swarmed under. Mind you attackers don't scream there intentions then attack one at a time like on G.I. Joe.

they usually wait until they are as close as they can get before attacking. Also as has been pointed out multiple times on this forum, fine motor skills go out the window when the fights on.

So you will be able to aim shot or stab all 5 people after drawing your weapon in the 3 or so seconds you have to react?

If you feel neither unarmed stand up or grappling are effective what would you do if say you were exiting you car and rushed by 5 attackers? You can't run because you are cornered on all sides and the car is behind you.

or you can ignore this question like you ignore other parts of people's posts because it isn't convient to your case.

[kingoftheforest]

Wasn't the original question something like 'which grappling art should I do?'

Anyway, like USArmyBJJ, I practice BJJ because I enjoy it, not because of the self defense aspects particularly.

Personally if you want to train BJJ because it's fun kudos to you. but if you post in the Urban Military combatives/Reality based Martial Arts then I'd assume you are asking for effectiveness not necessarily fun.


So if you aren't interested in SD this should go in the MMA forum.

[kingoftheforest]

Not exactly. My specific statement was that, "It is incumbent on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to prove that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily better or even effective at all."

Then, I said, "I will willingly concede that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents. However, I would also argue that stand-up is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents." Note, that I didn't say that one was more effective or less effective than the other. I simply said they are both ineffective.

After that, I said, "Is there any evidence that TMA and/or RBSD fare any better?" So, my question was not for "stand up fighters," but specifically for TMA and RBSD people.

After dissecting the paragraph, I would think that it was clear that the argument was, "I don't think grappling or stand-up are effective for fighting multiple people. I concede that grappling is ineffective, but is there any proof that TMA and/or RSBD are any better?"

Keep looking at the term "grappling," because that becomes critical in understanding what comes next. (I feel like I'm teaching an LSAT class!)



I think that's a generally accurate assessment. Remember, my contention is that neither works.



The exact quote was, "I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground." The key words you should focus on were "on your feet" and "on the ground." I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground. What I said was, that there is no evidence that grappling is necessarily worse than striking.

Where you're confused is in assuming (like TTEscrima did) that "grappling" means, "going to the ground." It doesn't. In fact, please re-read the entirety of the first post and notice that I specifically said that having a "grappling" background might be better at avoiding ending up "on the ground." I say might, because I really don't know. It's all theoretical.

Hopefully, that clarifies it for you.

thank you. contrary to what the trolls on the forum may want to believe i just wanted to see how it was meant to be read. sometimes it's hard to get the "meaning" of what you are saying across.

I'm sorry if needing clarification offended someone and I'm sorry i was polite enough to ask what you meant and I'm sorry for explaining what I was reading as the to the meaning of what was typed.

Typed discussions are sometimes harder to understand because of lack of inflection in tone or emphasis on words.

When someone assumed what you were saying you got upset. seems asking for clarification and explaining the meaning that I interred from your words didn't elicit any better of a response from the sarcasm of your LSAT comment.

Your double speak seems to leave you nice little outs so I'll just assume next time to and save myself the trouble of being polite and asking.

As for your proof that stand up unarmed or otherwise works I'll refer you to WWI, WWI, Korea and Vietnam.

having had close relatives who saw combat in all these wars they never once told of a curriculum of ground fighting. Everyone of my relatives were taught stand up fighting and defense. Also a little research into the military programs and manuals for all these wars and the countries that fought in them on both sides show a curriculum of stand up fighting. if that's not proof enough for you that all the major militaries in the world up until the recent US military have used stand up including ancient militaries then I can see what kind of proof you want.

The Japanese used and taught stand up effectively so did the Chinese. OSS developed and used WWII combatives the Nazis' used stand up as well.

Silat Mubai which is the current US "enemies" fighting style is stand up. the American Indians used stand up. Civil War manuals show stand up fighting.

All of these wars and conflicts were fought at some point on open battle feilds against multiples sometimes one side or the other outnumbered. Stand up worked then. LEO's are taught stand up against multiples.

Until the MMA marketing got to the US military stand up was predominate. SF uses stand up also still currently.

So there's plenty of proof. Some people just don't want to see it.

[Junka]

Wasn't the original question something like 'which grappling art should I do?'

Anyway, like USArmyBJJ, I practice BJJ because I enjoy it, not because of the self defense aspects particularly.

I would advise the OP to do the grappling art you find you enjoy the most, as to build reflexes takes time and if you're not enjoying yourself you won't stick at it. Forget the politics and just train.

BTW I'm also a skeptic of RBSD. I don't care how many rubber knife wielding assailants you've fought; it's always the best swimmers who drown. Basically, most people will only ever have a fighting chance against one opponent, so multiple opponents would depend on just how lame those opponents are. Yes, people interested in self defense should develop good striking but I've yet to see anyone willing to enter even a friendly boxing match, where they're outnumbered 2-1. I have seen large aggressive doorman pull this off by scaring the crap out of the guys mates but, I doubt it would ever work for diminutive little me.

I'm not slagging off anyone's training and as long as you're enjoying it and being realistic then....peace.

[jubaji]

LOL. It's funny to see that although USArmyBJJ is clearly going out of his way to be reasonable, TTExcrement (with his strange and stupid sig) and to a lesser extent KOTF are so stuck in 'pissy mode' that they just can't bring themselves to return the favor.

LOL! Someone's got a rubber knife stuck up their ass!

[USArmyBJJ]

So you said it is a unarmed stand up fighters duty to prove that it works better against multiple opponents.

Not exactly. My specific statement was that, "It is incumbent on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to prove that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily better or even effective at all."

Then, I said, "I will willingly concede that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents. However, I would also argue that stand-up is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents." Note, that I didn't say that one was more effective or less effective than the other. I simply said they are both ineffective.

After that, I said, "Is there any evidence that TMA and/or RBSD fare any better?" So, my question was not for "stand up fighters," but specifically for TMA and RBSD people.

After dissecting the paragraph, I would think that it was clear that the argument was, "I don't think grappling or stand-up are effective for fighting multiple people. I concede that grappling is ineffective, but is there any proof that TMA and/or RSBD are any better?"

Keep looking at the term "grappling," because that becomes critical in understanding what comes next. (I feel like I'm teaching an LSAT class!)

So as far as I can tell you are wanting evidence that it works. because the words you used in the order you used them say this in the English language.

I think that's a generally accurate assessment. Remember, my contention is that neither works.

So through my reading comprehension I comprehend that you contradicted yourself. Maybe you didn't understand what you said so I'll give you a chance to clarify.

The exact quote was, "I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground." The key words you should focus on were "on your feet" and "on the ground." I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground. What I said was, that there is no evidence that grappling is necessarily worse than striking.

Where you're confused is in assuming (like TTEscrima did) that "grappling" means, "going to the ground." It doesn't. In fact, please re-read the entirety of the first post and notice that I specifically said that having a "grappling" background might be better at avoiding ending up "on the ground." I say might, because I really don't know. It's all theoretical.

Hopefully, that clarifies it for you.

[kingoftheforest]

USArmyBJJ I am asking this next question for my own personal clarification because I don't understand some of the statements you have made. They seem to be contradictory and it started this current debate. Since I am a member of this debate I just want to be able to follow the train of thought you want to express.

You said:

2) It is incumbent on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to prove that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily better or even effective at all. I will willingly concede that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents. However, I would also argue that stand-up is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents. If you're fighting multiple opponents without a weapon, you are at an extreme disadvantage, and the chances of you winning are minimal at best. This is not to say that it can't happen - just that it's unlikely. I have seen a couple of videos on Youtube of boxers taking out more than one opponent, but I consider that the exception rather than the rule. Is there any evidence that TMA and/or RBSD fare any better?

Now I will acknowledge that you aren't claiming grappling is better for fighting multiple opponents. But you also ask for proof that stand up works any better. especially unarmed. When TTE pointed out that this may be a little off base you said:

I realized how bad your reading comprehension is. I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground.

Now my reading comprehension is pretty good and my understanding is that proof and prove are derivatives of the same word.

Incumbent means; Imposed as an obligation or duty.

So you said it is a unarmed stand up fighters duty to prove that it works better against multiple opponents.

Prove:To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

So as far as I can tell you are wanting evidence that it works. because the words you used in the order you used them say this in the English language.

You then proceed to say in the second quote that you did not say these things.

So through my reading comprehension I comprehend that you contradicted yourself. Maybe you didn't understand what you said so I'll give you a chance to clarify.

[USArmyBJJ]

I simply ASKED the students how often they trained with knives, most common answer, NEVER!! So I'd ask the instructor if they taught multiple opponents, and the answer was always the same textbook MMA line "you can't fight more than person" we don't teach that here, So I'd ask where the practice weapons were and I'd be told they didn't have them. So then I ask how they they teach knife or firearm defenses without practice weapons and they tell me point blank they don't teach those type of techniques. BTW, never is a long way from regularly in case your not clear on that.

I see. Makes sense.

[TTEscrima]

LOL. I gotta tell you - that's actually pretty awesome.

No shit, that's why people who've attended Boars training praise it so highly and those who mock it have not attended and thus do so from the shadows.

Even then. To regularly watch, participate, and talk to students at over 100 schools - enough that you can say what they regularly teach - is pretty impressive. Hats off.

If he isn't he who can't be named, he's working from the same manual.

It's okay, I read that manual too. My flow chart might even be more up to date.

I didn't say I attended them regularly, but it is a nice try at the old "twist their words" tactics. I simply ASKED the students how often they trained with knives, most common answer, NEVER!! So I'd ask the instructor if they taught multiple opponents, and the answer was always the same textbook MMA line "you can't fight more than person" we don't teach that here, So I'd ask where the practice weapons were and I'd be told they didn't have them. So then I ask how they they teach knife or firearm defenses without practice weapons and they tell me point blank they don't teach those type of techniques. BTW, never is a long way from regularly in case your not clear on that.

[TTEscrima]

You also seem to have the same problem as you're predecessor the habit of selective reading and attempting to put the best spin on your words and attempting to make it seem someone has said something they haven't.

I noted he has the same tendencies and posting style etc as he who cannot be named as well.

[USArmyBJJ]

Regularly teach and curriculum mean the same thing. Go grab that dictionary you mentioned earlier.

I have to be honest with you - I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

EDIT: Looking back, I figured it out. Congrats for pointing it out, I guess? I wasn't being sarcastic towards him. I honestly thought that, if true, it was pretty impressive.

[kingoftheforest]

Regularly teach and curriculum mean the same thing. Go grab that dictionary you mentioned earlier.

[USArmyBJJ]

Actually smartass we do shit like all the time with airsoft guns, rubber knives and escrima sticks.

LOL. I gotta tell you - that's actually pretty awesome.

No, I attended, watched, participated, and asked the students and instructors about the curriculum. I even went to a particular school that taught BJJ/MT but didn't even allow sparring in the MT classes. I do believe XF visited that school and had the same experience.

Even then. To regularly watch, participate, and talk to students at over 100 schools - enough that you can say what they regularly teach - is pretty impressive. Hats off.

[USArmyBJJ]

Actually they don't. they don't teach grappling as their main line of defense.

I never said they did. I said they advocate the same thing as I do. That is, they teach you grappling and ground defense in order to be able to defend yourself in that particular situation.

They also teach you fight like you train.

So, when they practice - do they always try to knock each other out and gouge each other's eyes, and go for a weapon and stab each other and stuff? I mean, if you fight like you train...

So if sport dueling is your thing you're going to fight according to the "rules" and 'codes" of sport dueling. The other guy's input may not follow rules and codes.

Ok.

You also seem to have the same problem as you're predecessor the habit of selective reading and attempting to put the best spin on your words and attempting to make it seem someone has said something they haven't.

I'm not sure who my "predecessor" is, but do you have any evidence that I've accused you of saying something that you haven't said? You said flat-out that those instructors taught grappling and ground defense. I said that I agree with them doing that. I'm not sure how you read into my statement that I thought they taught "only" grappling and ground defense.

Did you say you were active military? I missed weather you did or not.

Was. I'm Reserve now.