Somewhat common-sensical (and somewhat self-promoting), but theses guys (Rorion Gracie's sons) make some good points. Although relating to BJJ, it does address wider issues of the problem with purely sporting MA, while also acknowledging the benefits of sporting MA.
I think BJJ is going the way most other MA are going: tournaments and gold medals are becoming the most important thing. Old saying that might be true: The further you go from the source, the muddier the water gets.
Thanks for posting this Prize, found this interesting. I always enjoy these dudes videos and they are very well spoken.
I gotta say though, when talking about the differences between 'street and sport', failing to acknowledge the need to escape the ground seems a little bit odd to me. I do recognize that a dedicated grappler more than likely has an excellent chance of escaping someone if that's their goal. The ground skills can certainly get you OFF the ground too, but they didn't even seem to mention this. Also no mention how the guard might function differently..like maybe, don't pull it if you don't have to, unlike the comps where it's a common tactic. I think the idea that the guard is "neutral" outside a BJJ competition is a really questionable one, yet it sounded like his only concern with it was distancing and punch defense.
If the differences are going to be acknowledged shouldn't it also be acknowledged that most dangerous "street fights" aren't one on one confrontations with the luxury of not worrying about your environment?
Unless I missed something (and I watched the whole thing) they are basically saying that "street" GJJ simply consists of GJJ that defends against punches and uses a simplified, less diagnostic skillset..great, it's fantastic to see this kind of rare candor in combat sport, and IMO elevates their mentality above 99.9% of ANY school of martial artists out there teaching self defense, whereas most say "its all the same". However, isn't it kind of important to define what exactly they mean by a streetfight before doing this?
If it's a category as broad as say, an ambush blitz attack on someone vs. a consensual one on one pissing match between two young men that happens to take place on the street..then i'd say that 'street' GJJ is only slightly better off than sport GJJ in that regard, as it still only addresses the one on one fight between two willing participants, and has nothing to say (evidentally, just drawing conclusions b y what they say in the video) about the other scenario..
Those are good points Zach. The Gracie Academy do well to acknowledge that simply being a combat sport alone will not prepare you for a "streetfight" and a different mentality is needed.
I like the stuff from the Gracie Academy, but I do take it with a pinch of salt. The Gracie boys, while making good points here, are also trying to promote their own system of self-defense.
Rener, the guy on the left of the video, says some stuff in the GJJ combatives I don't agree with. For example, he mentions that no martial art is good against multiple opponents. Fair enough maybe, but there are MA and training that is going to be more useful in that situation than GJJ alone. He simply gets round GJJ not being effective in multiple attacker situations by lumping all MA in to the same category against multiple attackers, which doesn't present the full picture.
The GJJ combatives are overall a good program, but they do advocate establishing a clinch, take down and submission approach. There is a section on getting back up on your feet, though this is only a small part of the program.
And this is a personal preference I suppose, but I've never though joint locks were a great way of ending a "streetfight".
So the Gracie Acadmey make some good points and have a good philosophy overall, but it is fair to say there program alone (despite their marketing) would not necessarily be sufficent in terms of developing a "self defence" program.
