Which grappling art should I do?

[USArmyBJJ]

Do some research before you just dismiss people. These guys opinions are highly respected in the SD and law enforcement fields.

<snip>

He does teach grappling and ground fighting defense, multiple attacker defense, weapons and weapons defense, and he advocates going to the ground as little as you possibly can, and getting up as fast as you can.

I didn't dismiss them. I stated that I don't know who they are. Either way, they seem to teach exactly what I said they should teach, "grappling and ground defense." Looks like those "experts" agree with me.

[USArmyBJJ]

So when was the last time you practiced edged weapon tactics in your BJJ class? How about weapon retention or shielding techniques?

None - I only go to the sport BJJ classes, not the self-defense ones (they're split at my school). I've said before that I'm not really interested in self-defense, except as it concerns debating online. I like BJJ for the same reason I like debating online - the sport of it.

Show me a MMA school that regularly teaches tactics for dealing with multiple or armed opponents,

I'll look. But I certainly don't know any off-hand. I'll state again what I've said in just about every post, but that you keep ignoring: I don't think BJJ is good for dealing with multiple or armed opponents. I just haven't seen any evidence that TMA or RBSD fare any better. I'm not "bashing" either of those arts. I'm not denying that they could do better. I'm saying that I'm a skeptic - and I haven't seen any evidence.

When was the last time you sent three guys with knives to jump one of your students in the middle of a dark alley at night in order to test whether they succeed or not?

I want to see the video, because I've attended well over a 100 MMA/BJJ schools since 1992 and NEVER seen one that regularly taught these techniques as a part of the schools normal curriculum.

You've regularly attended over 100 MMA/BJJ schools???? That's pretty amazing.

So how many CMA and RBSD schools have you attended to base your opinions on?

None. That's why I haven't bashed them. I've only asked for evidence.

[TTEscrima]

He does teach grappling and ground fighting defense, multiple attacker defense, weapons and weapons defense, and he advocates going to the ground as little as you possibly can, and getting up as fast as you can.

Actually he has a background in traditional JJJ but he left the school (where he was the assistant instructor) some time ago and teaches pure combatives now, hence his slogan, "You can't tap out on the street". He has multiple seminars and DVDS and not a one is about grappling. He now teaches things from WWII combatives and Tai Chi, and after training with us his go to technique is Boar's Horses hoof punch

[TTEscrima]

When was the last time you sent three guys with knives to jump one of your students in the middle of a dark alley at night in order to test whether they succeed or not?

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

You've regularly attended over 100 MMA/BJJ schools???? That's pretty amazing.

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.

None.

[kingoftheforest]

I didn't dismiss them. I stated that I don't know who they are. Either way, they seem to teach exactly what I said they should teach, "grappling and ground defense." Looks like those "experts" agree with me.

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

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.


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

[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.

[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.

[kingoftheforest]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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!