Somehow, that's not enough for some people. I suspect these people also believe in a lot of conspiracy theories, but I digress.
The most creative attempt to discredit BJJ I've seen in recent times was the following video:
And while I could see it being compelling to someone who isn't informed, every point on this video is has a clear response. (Perhaps I'll put a video together someday as a response to it.)
So, here it is--a point by point rejoinder.
"Theory [sic] 1: lack of a quick responsive end to a fight"
"BJJ lacks fast [finishing] techniques" "is a game of chess/positional dominance" "he could call for backup or go for a weapon, so you should end it as quickly as possible"
He goes on to essentially pre-empt the "uh, UFC, duh?" argument by trying to claim that they were "willingly taken down" not knowing it was the Gracies "niche speciality", and then posits that if it takes a GRACIE several "minutes" to finish an opponent "with no concept of grappling", how can a normal BJJ practitioner have any hope?
Then he shows videos of some guys using karate-looking techniques successfully in street fight youtube videos. He claims that the fact that MMA has become more striking oriented is defense of his point. And he then claims that 'Martial Arts history has embraced certain [implied: striking] techniques over others [implied: grappling]'. Claims grappling was 'purposely left out in times of real combat due to lack of effectiveness in stages of battle'.
Answers:
There are a lot of points to make here.
1. BJJ vs. BJJ can be a slow game of positional dominance, but what we really should be evaluating is how long it takes an experienced BJJ practitioner to finish a new guy who walks in the door.
As an experienced, mid ranked student, and someone who has taught classes, and had the chance to roll with plenty of new guys, I can tell you: seconds. Within seconds, they are in a position to be permanently maimed. But it's not just new guys; I frequently submit people who have been training for 1 or 2 years within a minute or two, and occasionally will get them within less than a minute as well. Case in point, I visited an open mat at a new gym and submitted a blue belt who had about 20 pounds on me 3 or 4 times within 5 or 6 minutes.
1a. So, why did Royce Gracie take minutes to submit his opponents with no concept of grappling?
-Some of his opponents were finished very quickly.
-Some of his opponents were much stronger/heavier than him.
-Some of his opponents had a great deal of grappling knowledge (wrestling, etc.).
-All of his opponents were trained fighters, not your average person you might confront in a street fight.
-And finally, almost none of his opponents went to the ground willingly.
1b. Even BJJ vs. BJJ isn't always slow.
There are matches in the gi, and there are "no gi" matches without any cloth to grab on to. While even gi matches can be very quick and dynamic, even when between two well matched opponents, a no-gi match is rarely the same slow game of positional dominance. When the fighters aren't wearing clothing specially designed to give grips anywhere on the body imaginable--something that obviously slows down BJJ matches--the dynamism of BJJ shows up in spades. It can become incredibly acrobatic and intense.
In other words, when Chess masters face each other, chess is a slow game, because it's a complex game. But when a Chess master faces a beginner, the game is finished very quickly. If you add a clock to make it a blitz match, the effect increases, because the more experienced player has ingrained habits that will come out effortlessly in a moment of stress, while the beginner has no idea what he is doing.
2. We've got youtube videos too!
Oh, and your videos suck. The first one has guy literally walking (looking like he's high, btw) with his hands down by his waist--he doesn't even look like he's ready to fight. The second one has the defeated opponent literally walking up to the guy with his arms outstretched and away from his face, as if trying to win by sheer intimidation, when the guy finally does something other than push him away... Not the most impressive victories. Rex Kwon Do would have sufficed in those encounters...
3. BJJ has to resort to striking, a la MMA, to win arena fights these days
The author of this video is trying to argue that BJJ has now lost out to MMA, which relies heavily on striking, in open style competitions. In fact, the opposite is really the case; all strikers had to become proficient in groundwork if they wanted to have a chance.
3a. There are two other factors that have led to the predominance of striking in modern UFC/MMA fights.
The first is that with the rise of groundwork proficiency, an effective striker could effectively keep the fight standing, and in their realm of comfort, and they now had the advantage. This is because, and I will freely admit this, BJJ competition has encouraged terrible takedown study, and most BJJ guys don't know how to take someone to the ground skillfully. On the other hand, great takedowns aren't needed against 99% of people on the street--a mediocre one will do. Struggling to take down experts at combat is another thing entirely. It is for this reason that John Danaher, 3rd degree BB in BJJ under Renzo Gracie, makes the claim that no BJJ practitioner can reach his full potential in BJJ without also studying Judo.
The second is that the structure of MMA and the UFC changed to promote more entertaining fights. Turns out most people get bored watching grappling (a fact frequently bemoaned in the BJJ community). That's not good for ad dollars, so instead of the original no time limit, no rounds format, there are now multiple short rounds. Even, often, for a black belt going against a purple belt, especially when you add in punches, it often does take time to finish a guy with a deep, solid understanding of defensive basics. So controlling the guy, wearing him down, hunting for the hole in his ground game is no longer a viable strategy in the UFC. It has to be Judo style, an intensive hunt for a quick sub, or nothing at all.
But again, the UFC is no longer a good comparison. Experts vs Experts has limited real-world applicability for predicting the outcome of Mediocre Practitioner vs. Average Joe. The fact that Expert BJJ practitioners beat even expert strikers in the early UFC's is astonishing evidence, however, of what the value difference between the two styles of fighting truly is.
4. History
In field combat with multiple opponents, obviously grappling doesn't make much sense. No one is pretending it does. But lack of applicability in pre-modern warfare doesn't really tell us much, if anything, about applicability of grappling in a modern self defense situation.
Grappling certainly has incredibly ancient roots, however, in all parts of the world, so this claim is even further limited. Indian wrestling, Greek wrestling, Russian folk wrestling styles, China has ancient wrestling arts, Mongolia, Turkey...
"Theory [sic] 2: The Fictional Universe of an Arena"
Claims in this section include "[in a mugging/rape scenario] your attacker usually chooses both his victim and background [editor: he means environment] carefully", lists some "restricted spaces" like "subways, hallways, staircases, bathrooms", points out that "they don't have free space to roll or perform takedowns", says "no one will mug you in an open street" as "this will draw attention", claims statistically most muggings happen in cramped spaces. Goes on to talk about how "sports BJJ" schools have neglected the basic self defense techniques taught in Gracie Jiu Jitsu and so called "Japanese Jiu Jitsu."
1. How small are these spaces?
In the smallest possible space, probably a very small bathroom, nothing really works. You don't have enough room for striking effectively. You're pretty much down to a bear hug and/or biting and eye gouging at that level--and there's not much to teaching that, but I'd like to point out that that still falls into grappling range, even if standing, and not striking range. Striking effectively, for the most part, requires space, with the possible exception of muay thai style elbow and knee strikes, to some degree. On stairs? Get off the fucking stairs. Nothing works there, either.
But a hallway, or a subway? You are showing pictures of BJJ competitions taking place in large open areas; but any competition for any style gives the competitors enough space that space isn't an inhibition for them to deal with, and that includes all formats of striking as well. Just because Boxing is practiced in a large canvas ring doesn't mean it doesn't work in a smaller setting.
2. BJJ actually does practice fighting in close quarters--more than probably any other style!
Frequently, BJJ schools don't have enough mat space to give everyone as much room as they want. So, when sparring, it is very common to have people attempting to control the fight within the confines of those around them, often limiting themselves to very small spaces of just a few square feet, and are expected to have enough self awareness of their environment to not run into other students training with them. BJJ works just fine in this setting, it just doesn't make sense to focus on this in training... and as far as I know, I've never heard of any style ever specifically trying to practice for tight confined environments, except for perhaps specialized military urban combat training. Still, my point stands.
"Theory [sic] 3: Actual Technique"
Shows a clip of a reality TV show that aired on the History Chanel, where a Krav Maga guy is fighting people with fake knives, and shows a BJJ guy trying to fight a guy with simulated knives unable to defend himself and getting stabbed. Frankly, I feel like those wielding the knife against the instructor looked as cheesy as people attempting to 'strike' Aikido grandmasters--making obvious movements to assist the instructor in defending himself, disingenuous attacks. But with the cameras rolling to prove how effective they were against BJJ, the knife wielding attackers gleefully adopt full power attacks, not the obvious and easy haymakers from the first part of the video against the instructor.
But who cares? Let's pretend I'm biased and imagining what suites my fantasy.
The instructor tells the BJJ purple belt who gets stabbed repeatedly (make note: BJJ guy doesn't get a knife, but is defending against someone with a knife), "you're a real good ring fighter, but you have no skill whatsoever in self defense" (cue the video's author jacking himself off at seeing his bias confirmed by this "expert")... Later, a voiceover where one of the hapless victims there to learn from the krav maga master goes, "everything we had ever been taught counts for nothing here" (cue climax of video's author)... The krav maga expert then later tells them to take of the gear, "we'll start teaching you guys because you don't know shit."
Video Author then lays some text talking about how foolish BJJ is not to cover all elements of combat, and to assume that a sport art can be effective in self defense.
Goes on to say BJJ is Kosen Judo that the Gracies renamed (false myth propagated by Renzo, who isn't known as an intellectual or a historian). And apparently BJJ these days includes kickboxing? Goes on a naming rant, saying it's just stolen kosen judo, basically.
1. Nothing works in a knife fight. Not even Krav Maga.
Anyone that thinks they can defend against a knife attack is deluding themselves. I know that the delusional will continue being delusional, even if you call them delusional, so instead I'll let this excellent little forum post called "Why I Don't Pretend To Teach Knife Defense" speak for me, since it's from another expert in Krav Maga.
Some choice quotes:
"In a big diverse group, it quickly becomes clear that almost nothing works against a fast moving, aggressive knife. The guys who have spent years with knives get slaughtered just as fast as people who have never tried it before- faster, if they really believe it works- they practically jump on the blade."
"But in the end, the critique is almost always the same. No one yelled for help. No one ran. No one yelled, "He's got a knife!" No one used the mirrors all around or the weapons lying everywhere (we usually do this at a MA seminar, remember)... in the end, people were trying to come up with martial arts solutions to survival problems. As much as we want to pretend otherwise, that is rarely a good fit."
"Knives aren't used for winning fights. Knives are used for killing people."
BJJ never claims to be effective against someone with a weapon. That's because nothing is effective against a weapon. That's the point of weapons. BJJ only claims to work in hand-to-hand combat. So this video effectively tells us not a damn thing, frankly. The ideal choice is *always* to not fight. If you are forced to fight, if there really is no way out, then you just better hope the guy doesn't have a knife.
2. Broad vs. Deep
I don't think any reasonable person (i.e., excluding a handful of delusional Gracies...) in BJJ will try to claim that BJJ is "the one answer to all self defense scenarios". We just don't make that claim as a community. We aim to do one thing, and do it very well--submission wrestling. It turns out that, if you're going to learn one skill set for self defense, that is the most important one to learn. (Seriously, the army did a study.) But if you really want to cover all the bases? It's very common to see Muay Thai classes taught alongside BJJ. It's very common to see "MMA" taught alongside BJJ. It's relatively common to see wrestling taught in BJJ schools, or to see BJJ practitioners cross train in Judo for the takedowns.
And that's because for BJJ practitioners know what they don't know. The same, unfortunately, can't be said for delusional traditional martial arts strikers...
Having an endless curriculum of techniques in every domain, like many self defense oriented TMA's (JJJ, etc.), means that mastery is virtually never achieved. On the other hand, BJJ aspires to nail the groundwork and submission game into a science. Recognizing a lack of expertise, the majority of the BJJ community doesn't try to pretend they know takedowns, or they know strike defense. They've just chosen to go deep into what they're good at.
3. "Sport Arts are useless for self defense"
I'm getting tired, so I'll be brief: sport, with a reasonable rule set, encourages high level of competition, realistic high intensity training, and real-world testing and feedback. The ability to go 100% without pulling punches and without safety gear is something unique to grappling, and certainly is something that gives it an edge over other styles of martial arts. Every movement, submission, position, everything a BJJ practitioner has in his arsenal has been battle tested through hundreds if not thousands of hours against opponents of various styles, body types, weights, strengths, and so on. That type of personal learning is the difference between learning to speak by immersion or learning to speak by reciting sentences learned in books all day, or classroom only instruction and schoolwork-style homework. There can't even be a comparison in that regard.
In brief, being a sport actually improves the power of BJJ, is doesn't decrease it.
4. BJJ isn't Kosen Judo (irrelevant, but whatever)
This is a silly myth propogated by Renzo, who probably just made the presumptuous connection when he heard of Kosen Judo.
Kosen Judo is just a ruleset practiced in schools in a district of Japan that doesn't prohibit guard pulling, among other modifications to be favorable to newaza (groundwork) techniques. In fact, "Kosen Judo" wasn't a thing when Mitsuyo Maeda left Japan, certainly not by that name--that name was only acquired because the rules were specifically modified to discourage groundwork in Judo, because Kano had a personal preference for throws and wanted them to remain the focus of Judo--and those modifications came as a direct response to the strategic innovations brought into play by the schools in the Kosen region.
Mitsuyo Maeda, with a strong base in Jiu Jitsu in general, and some years specializing as a student of Kano in Judo, and then with many years of honing his own personal style while traveling around the world and earning his way through life by competing against the best everywhere he went as an exotic foreigner for entertainment, developed his own style. Jiu Jitsu, being a more general term than Judo, was probably used by him because what he taught wasn't strictly Kodokan textbook stuff, so to speak. It was his own interpretation of grappling.
He only taught Carlos, the elder Gracie brother for a few years. Carlos then taught Helio. Together, they probably rediscovered a lot of techniques, and felt like they had innovated when they were really just replicating what already existed, for the most part, unknowingly. But in time, BJJ likely has contributed truly novel moves and submissions. Such esoteric moves as the baratoplata, the brabo choke, or Eddie Bravo's vaporizer, have likely never been codified and studied before.
What really defines BJJ is the ruleset. That's what really defines any martial art. Change the rules to Judo rules, and I guarantee you in another 100 years, it would look virtually identical to Judo. MMA, likewise, has developed as a martial art itself that is a response to its ruleset. BJJ has a ruleset that allows endless variation on the way two bodies can mesh together in grappling, and so it has become the premier grappling martial art. It got lucky and filled a vacuum; striking arts were sexy for a long time, and people in the USA, media center of the world especially then, and still largely today, forgot about grappling for the most part.
Anyways, point is: it has become its own animal with its own culture and its own open rule-set. As a Judoka myself, it isn't Kosen Judo. I do wish either Judo or BJJ would develop rules that would reward those two arts' skillsets equally, and BJJ is a branch off of Judo. But BJJ has gone quite a ways in a different direction than Judo now, and it would be a long ways back to a merger with those skills. As long as there is no punishment for pulling guard, I fear we'll never be rid of that wretched habit--but I'm digressing, and that's another post for another day.
Conclusion:
So, what is so magical about BJJ? Why is it so much more effective? Why is BJJ superior to striking, in general, for self defense?
Because as anyone who watches a boxing match can tell you, and many Gracie Challenge videos demonstrate, all it takes to shut down a good boxer (or striker of any kind) is a clinch. (Mayweather is a great illustration of the power of the clinch in striking to all of us...) You can't produce good shots from forced close range. And if all you know is striking when the fight goes to the ground (and as top heavy mammals balancing at all times on two small feet and long legs, that's not hard to force on someone who lacks very specific training to prevent--grappling training), then you have no offense and no defense and a lot of very bad habits in a realm of fighting that is a lot less intuitive than striking.
BJJ takes literally an average of 11 years to get a black belt. The upper 2.5% get it in 7 years. The lower 2.5% get it in 17 years. That kind of depth of study doesn't exist in most fields of martial arts.
If you still have doubts, I encourage you: go walk into your nearest legit BJJ school, and take a free class. Tell them you don't think it's effective and need some convincing. You'll likely find some friendly people glad to let you try just about whatever you want to convince you. My personal favorite is to take new people, put them on their back, mount them, and then tell them to try and get me off of them like their life depends on it, and we'll see how long it takes. I have literally done this on guys with 40+ lbs on me who walk in the door.
They never escape. They eventually give up.
Then I switch places with them. Reverse. Let them get whatever position they want. Ask them to tell me when I can move. They're off every time in seconds--frequently within 5 seconds, shockingly. Then I give them a few more tries, them failing to hold me down every single time, until they realize how deep the gap is between us, how incredibly incapable of getting up they were, of preventing me from getting up they are, and how amazing it was that I was able to hold them down with 100% effectiveness under full resistance.
My own instructor, in the early nineties, had two black belts in two forms of Karate, and several years of experience in JKD and Aikido (all of which he disavows as worthless now). Starting to hear about BJJ, he visited a school. After watching a class, he was intrigued, but wondered to himself, and asked the instructor:
Why don't you just stand up?
The fact that that line is equal parts funny and astonishing to anyone who has been doing BJJ for a while, and will seem like a legitimate question to those with no grappling experience, tells an endless amount between what that divide means.
Let me tell you, while I love the complexity of BJJ, and I love me a good chess match... The ability to hold someone down if I feel like it, and to get up if I feel like it?
My friend, in self defense terms, that's about as close to a superpower as you can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment