BJJ reality check
Posted by: McSensei
BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 05:15 PM
It's a question that has been asked of nearly every other kind of MA, so now it's the turn of BJJ.
How effective is BJJ on the street?
I have my own views on this and will air them soon enough, but first, I would like to hear from others.
PS
Let's at least try to keep this polite.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 05:29 PM
McSensei -
I understand your frustration with the attitude of certain practitioners and their arts. I am not convinced that this a good way to address the problem.
Some arts are more suited for certain situations than others are. This does not make them worthless, and the wise MA will cross-train to be capable in ALL situations.
Posted by: funstick5000
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 05:31 PM
i think someone should bring this up in bullshido
back to topic at hand. i don't actually know anything about BJJ i've heard it involves a lot of rolling round on the ground which i wouldn't want to do on the street, especially cos a lot of fights are about the point of last orders.
Posted by: cxt
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 06:02 PM
I would say "very" to "poor."
Depends on the skills of the guy/gal using it.
Just like mainly striking arts, there are certian specific situations that range from "ideal" to "poor" in terms of BJJ training and focus.
These situations may not be any problem for some--or major problems for others--just like the other arts.
Best answer I can give is "it depends."
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 06:29 PM
Quote:
How effective is BJJ on the street?
I haven't seen BJJ walking the streets lately. I've seen PEOPLE, but I haven't seen the art as much - out by itself.
That SOUNDS like a real smart-ass thing to say. The thing is, I didn't mean it that way. But I hope you understand the point.
How effective BJJ is "on the street" is as effective as the person is who has trained it.
I'd say that if a person was highly skilled at hitting arm bars, and chokes, etc.., that THAT individual is probably fairly capable of fighting effectively "in the streets" (or hallways, kitchens, libraries, movie theaters and anywhere else he might end up fighting).
Also, please consider airing your views over at the BJJ/MMA forum. We'd love to have you there as well.
-John
Posted by: McSensei
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 08:54 PM
I am not after a row with "certain practitioners," and we all know who we mean by that. It is just a question that has been aimed at every other MA so why not bjj. I also respect the fact that it is very much down to the individual practitioner, as with every other art. I fear I know too little about it to have a firm viewpoint, so I was actually hoping to hear from some of the more experienced students. Mostly, my knowledge about it comes from UFC and such like, where it appears seriously effective, but I want to know what adaptations are made to make it fit the street and is it effective there.
I have been witness to, not necessarily involved in, more fights than I care to mention and have rarely seen anybody deliberately take a fight to the ground unless they were losing the standup. So does someone who trains in bjj start their defence with a takedown or do they train some standup?
I will reiterate, let's keep it polite.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/19/05 10:05 PM
McSensei,
No disrespect intended, but you are working this question from the same stand point from which the MMA arts crowd usually aims their dismissive missives. And this is not a good starting point since now you start to rub the scales the wrong way by putting the onus of proof on hypotheticals, and what ifs.
Go with John's approach. In essence, the better trained person has a better chance. I think it is less the style, but how you train to cover the basics in a realistic manner. There are many traditional martial artists who do this without the fanfare of an areana fight. However, the training paradigm that many folk use in the MMA and the BJJ world has the benefit of forcing the opponents to utilize their techniques in a fairly resistive environment. It may not be life or death...but they have to make the stuff work. Good intensity. You find this in sporting environments across the board. The qualification is that yes, there are restrictions on techniques....but there are always these restrictions on techniques in every dojo or school I have ever been to. But what is important is that the techniques that are trained...are trained well for utility. And don't make the assumption that just because a person doesn't always show what he knows in a sporting environment, that he doesn't know the self defense application of techniques as well. This is true of traditional, BJJ, and MMA players.
This may not completely answer the question of utility in a self-defense situation, but it brings you closer...by forcing the actual use of the techniques in question...not a conceptual understanding of when maybe this happens and this technique is used...but an actual understanding by using. This is the needed ingredient in any MA practice, in my opinion.
If you are not familiar with BJJ or say kickboxing where clinch work is done..then you will have a problem. If you go to clinch and allow this to continue, you will have one of two things occur: 1) You will disengage from the opponent (from my experience with attempts to hook the body and control the arms and using knees); or 2) You will be taken to the ground.
If the former happens then it is still standup (all fights initially occur here). If the latter, and you do not have any grounding in grappling while your opponent does, then you are hamburger.
The question would be if, when you spar, have you ever sparred 'till submission? If your answer is no...and fights are broken up before it goes to the ground, you are being prevented from exploring what might be a reality.
Even in basic sparring, how many times have you been in a clinch? How many times swept or thrown? Each of those are avenues for a grappler to take advantage of the venue that he is most comfortable in.
I am not saying that grappling is the best thing in the world, what I am saying is that it is just as viable, and more importantly, should not be ignored, as anything else you have studied.
Please note...this is coming from a karate-ka.
-B
Posted by: Meanstreak
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 01:04 AM
"It's a question that has been asked of nearly every other kind of MA, so now it's the turn of BJJ.
How effective is BJJ on the street?"
Ive read this question numerous times - on this and other forums (maybe i spend too much time on the net) it seems to be the MOST commonly questioned art - not the exception. Try to look in the old topics and you will find the exact same arguments.
Having said that the view i have is that a complete self defence skills set should include SOME ground fighting training - not the absolute basis. - make sure that there isnt an area of combatives that you are pathetic in. Or why not have some ability where everyone ELSE is pathetic in?
I read a post somewhere that has stuck in my head "you may not be interested in ground fighting, but ground fighting is interested in you"
Unless you can control everything thats going to happen in a fight (and lets be honest here you cant) everything is random - prepare for all eventualities.
Some bjj practitioners liked to use a statistic taken from the LA police that "90% of fights end up on the ground" - this doesnt quite work out in reality - because the objective for the police is to handcuff the guy preferably on the ground - different to a self defence incident.
Now even if the 90% statistic is true then consider that 100% of fights begin standing up.
If all the streets where covered with dojo mats, and there were volunteer referee's on call to stop anyone from biting, using pressure points, striking and so on then it would be perfect for self defence - but this isnt how real life is.
The other point against using ONLY bjj and submissions - is can you submit a chemically fueled/emotionally disturbed - maybe both and more attacker? - do they actually feel the pain and understand what is happening? In performing arrests and waiting for the police to arrive and take the people into custody ive had people struggle and twist for ages - even when in compliance locks and the like - my aim there was to hold someone there for police custody - now for everyone else who's not in a security team - or not having someone nearby to call the police to take over - what is going to happen to you when you get up and off of your attacker? - having re-read what ive just written i suppose that you could perform a break - but who has ever practised the actual break of an arm with an arm bar?
The good points about grappling is that it allows a lot of rough and tumble style practice - a generally realistic practise of ability - rather than some one doing some slow taps in a dojo then claiming "hah i just blinded you with an eye poke - then activated your percardium and liver dim mak points - which would have incapacitated you if it had been done at full force....though we never parctise this - beacuse it would be too deadly to ever do" - It may be all good and well to say that - but theres no way to tell if
A, Its actually true and not a scam
B, The person has the ability to perform full power strikes to an attacker when all they have been able to practise is light taps to a compliant partner.
Take care all.
Posted by: Cord
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 04:06 AM
Stand Up/striking: pros- stay on your feet(able to flee-very sensible), can keep distance, less likely to inflict serious damage (providing you dont riverdance on your oponents head if they go to ground).
Cons: likely to take a lot of punishment in return, no answer to ending up on the ground.
Grappling/ground fighting: Pros: limits damage you recieve, percieved as less aggressive in a legal sense, higher chance of quick incapacitation of attacker, good for messy 'roll on the floor' drunken fighting.
Cons: say goodnight if there is more than one attacker. Not safe in all environments (broken bottles on pavement, very near busy road etc). Not as easy to run from the ground. Actuall techniques more damaging than standup, despite court perception (Armbar- you are looking for a break, not a tapout. RNC- KO not ref stoppage etc.) Whilst this may make some sense to some judges, civil actions for physical harm will be more hefty with serious hospital time.
TKD MT BJJ KM MMA KF whatever, all mA have techniques that can be used in certain circumstances in real altercations. As has been said previously, it is the person, not the technique that wins or loses a fight IMO
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 08:39 AM
What should be the goal, for civilians, in a self defense situation? For me, that's escaping the situation and all that entails. That begins with avoidance and ends with breaking contact and running away. With that in mind, taking someone to the ground would seem to delay that strategy.
Honestly I think that we should ask a lot more than the one question of whether BJJ is effective on the street. We might also consider:
• Is running away always possible?
• Is deciding to stand and strike with someone larger than ourselves a smart idea?
• What if the opponent is someone we know and love (who is disturbed)?
The answers to ALL of these questions are subjective.
To ask if BJJ is "effective on the street" is just too broad a question. Maybe the question we should ask is, would a skilled Brazilian jiu-jitsu person be effective in a FIGHT against a resisting opponent. The answer to that is a definite yes! That is beyond dispute because we’ve all SEEN skilled BJJ guys fighting.
One of the main reasons why BJJ guys become good fighters (after some time in the art) is because the art is trained “live”. The sessions all end with sparring/rolling. They can go all out during these sessions because they don’t have to worry about injuries due to impact (jiu-jitsu is the “gentle art”). This experience is what tends to separate them from those who do NOT spar or wrestle around in this manner. Experience is what separates the effective fighter from the Ineffective fighter. BJJ guys (and anyone else who trains their art “live”) tend to rack this experience up.
At the end of the day, it’s all relative. Pit two individuals together in a fight. The more experienced person within the given circumstances will likely be the more effective fighter. Beyond that, it’s a coin toss folks. Life IS a crap-shoot after all. But I think the old saying that “chance favors the prepared mind” (or “fighter” in this case) is applicable to this scenario.
-John
Posted by: Leo_E_49
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 09:15 AM
Quote:
It's a question that has been asked of nearly every other kind of MA, so now it's the turn of BJJ.
How effective is BJJ on the street?
I have my own views on this and will air them soon enough, but first, I would like to hear from others.
PS
Let's at least try to keep this polite.
Same answer as every other art. It's not the art that makes the student effective, the student makes the art effective. If the student is not comitted and doesn't train to defend themselves, no art (not BJJ, not anything) will help them defend themselves. BJJ has a good number of techniques which can be used in the street and can counter common "street" techniques. It also covers, in detail, a range of fighting which is only lightly touched on in other MA, thus making it quite exclusive in that area. It's got its pro's and con's like anything else.
Posted by: McSensei
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 02:45 PM
See, I knew it could be done. A rational and level headed discussion on the street effectiveness of BJJ.
MattJ, oh ye of little faith.
My own view is this, that BJJ, JJJ, Judo and all the grappling arts are good, supplimentary arts to support a main art that would be standup. I'm even taking JJJ myself, as the weakest link in my own chain is grappling and groundwork. My one real concern is the power/strength issue.
I feel that in standup highly trained small, against untrained big is relatively even. On the ground I would imagine "highly trained" is not the equalizer that it is in standup. I have heard that in BJJ a lot of emphasis is placed on brute force or whatever works, which kind of defeats the object of the Ju of Jujutsu altogether.
Please correct me if this is wrong.
Good imput so far guys
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 03:10 PM
Quote by McSensei -
Quote:
I have heard that in BJJ a lot of emphasis is placed on brute force or whatever works, which kind of defeats the object of the Ju of Jujutsu altogether.
I'm sure you haven't heard that from anyone that practices BJJ. Technique is paramount, just like in standup. Think back to UFC1 - Royce Gracie vs. Ken Shamrock. The much less muscular Royce was able to beat Ken - QUICKLY - through superior technique.
And Ken Shamrock, in addition to being much stronger, also had some wrestling experience.
It may seem that groundfighting is all about muscle, but don't mistake fighting for dominant postion (which can be hard) with actual submission technique.
BJJ can be very effective in the parameters it was intended for.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 06:24 PM
Quote:
I'm even taking JJJ myself, as the weakest link in my own chain is grappling and groundwork. My one real concern is the power/strength issue.
If you're taking Japenese jiu-jitsu, don't expect to learn to grapple well, unless you're doing a lot of live rolling. That's what often sets BRAZILIAN jiu-jitsu apart from it's Japanese cousin. If you're doing a lot of rolling, that's great. Its just not often present within the typical Japanese jiu-jitsu program. Your situation may be different.
Quote:
I feel that in standup highly trained small, against untrained big is relatively even.
Sometimes you don't HAVE to be skilled when you're big. Being BIG is it's own attribute. All a person needs to do is get one lucky shot in on you if they're much bigger. On the ground however, it isn't likely that someone will stumble into a "lucky submission". That requires training in the way that flicking an arm out and back doesn't always require.
Quote:
On the ground I would imagine "highly trained" is not the equalizer that it is in standup.
It's an INCREDIBLE equalizer. You cannot begin to imagine. In fact, the opposite is actually the case. It's my opinion that you don't need as MUCH experience with BJJ to beat a larger untrained person than you would with a striking art. You have to be MUCH better than your opponent with the latter.
In contrast, I once beat a guy who weighed 310 lbs with an armlock in about 30 seconds total. I weighed (at that time) about 185 lbs. I'd been "practicing" BJJ from video tapes with my friends at that time for about a month. I however, would NOT have wanted to "trade" with that guy AT ALL!
Quote:
I have heard that in BJJ a lot of emphasis is placed on brute force or whatever works, which kind of defeats the object of the Ju of Jujutsu altogether.
That's completely inaccurate and couldn't be further from the truth. You'd have to experience it from high level guys. Once you do, every question you may have regarding the art WILL be answered for you.
-John
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 07:13 PM
McSensei,
To further what John said about the strength/skill set...I have to agree with John here. I will quote an Aikido instrcutor that I trained with for a short time who said "BJJ was Aikido on the ground."
-B
Posted by: McSensei
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 08:43 PM
Thankyou for the correction. As I have said I never had a firm viewpoint in the first place, but I'm grateful for the information.
Just to sidetrack my own thread a little,
Would judo be better for groundwork than JJJ? I keep looking at my sons Judo class and thinking, "I could do that," and they seem to spend a lot more time on the ground than my JJJ class. There is no BJJ class where I live that I'm aware of.
Posted by: oldman
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 08:48 PM
McS,
I'm a edan in old school tkd. I had the opportunity to train with a BJJ group for thee month when we let then use our school after they lost their lease.After they left i continied grappling with some friends at my home.I have used dvd's and books for training. It wont be heading off to Abu Dabi anytime soon but I am becomeing more capabale on the ground. I'm sure you have the experience when demonstratiing a 1step or self defense and a big 19 year old Brown belt says what if? and then you two are off to the races. Over the last year it has happened 3 or 4 times with me. Each time I have easily locked / choked or submitted both brown and black belts when things went to the ground. It is safe to say that they were all larger and probably stronger than me. It's not rocket science or magic or a quick fix. It step by step just like anything else.Some of the other guys on the thread know me and my story.I'm a trad guy for the most part.It's always frustrating when someone starts slagging on your arts or has just discovered how effective groundwork can be and become a pain in everyone backside. On the other hand I was a Boy Scout "Be Prepared" is still good advice.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/20/05 09:12 PM
Quote:
Thankyou for the correction. As I have said I never had a firm viewpoint in the first place, but I'm grateful for the information.
That's what we're here for. This is the place to ask questions. I still invite you to the BJJ/MMA forum for further Q&A sessions.
Quote:
Just to sidetrack my own thread a little,
Would judo be better for groundwork than JJJ? I keep looking at my sons Judo class and thinking, "I could do that," and they seem to spend a lot more time on the ground than my JJJ class.
If the JUDO group spends more time on the ground than your JJJ group, I'd HIGHLY advise you to do the judo. Consider that MOST judo groups don't spend NEARLY the time on the ground that the BJJ groups do. Also consider that the very rules within judo serve to keep people from becoming very functional on the ground.
Quote:
There is no BJJ class where I live that I'm aware of.
Buy some DVDs, grab some partners and TRAIN.
-John
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 12:02 AM
Quote:
I have heard that in BJJ a lot of emphasis is placed on brute force or whatever works,
I can only imagine the level of experience of the person you heard this from.
At 39 years old and 175 lbs, with two bad knees, a bum shoulder and neck, I regularly train competitvely with my 250-265 lb students. When I tap them out, I always credit it to my superior size and stength and tell them to get off the mat and get back in the gym. Everyone gets a good laugh.
Posted by: jkdchick
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 03:54 AM
Quote:
. On the ground I would imagine "highly trained" is not the equalizer that it is in standup.
I recently choked out a 250 pound police officer (we know each other, this was a friendly sparring match) SOLELY because I knew more than he did. He had me down on my back, couldn't think of anything to do but punch, I turned him over, took his back and RNC'd him. I weigh 164.
I had to rush out afterwards, but my instructor said he stood there for a full minute after I left with this "WTF just happened?" look on his face.
Posted by: otobeawanker
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 05:42 AM
I train MMA. One of the arts I've trained in is BJJ.
A have to agree with Cord on this one. Esentially BJJ is about taking the fight to the ground. The streets just arn't a safe place to be rolling around on the ground. Glass, needles, people stomping in, quick escape is gonna be tough if you have to stand up before you run, the view of your surroundings is not as good when your on the ground.
It's not that BJJ's not effective at beating an opponent. It's the fact that BJJ on the street can be just as dangerous to the one who uses it there.
Theres a flipside to that though. You can use your BJJ to avoid being taken to the ground by your opponent and keeping him out of the clinch range.
For the streets standup grappeling arts such as Russian Sambo may be more effective.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 09:54 AM
Quote:
I train MMA. One of the arts I've trained in is BJJ.
A have to agree with Cord on this one. Esentially BJJ is about taking the fight to the ground. The streets just arn't a safe place to be rolling around on the ground. Glass, needles, people stomping in, quick escape is gonna be tough if you have to stand up before you run, the view of your surroundings is not as good when your on the ground.
This is always the SAME argument that you hear, time and time again. First of all, fighting (for us BJJ guys) is and should be avoided. However, If I take someone to the ground, THEY'RE the one's who's back is agaginst the glass, needles, etc - not mine.
I've been around a while. I've seen a lot of miles of street. You'd think after hearing some guys talk, that you wouldn't be able to SEE asphalt because of all the needles lying around. Hell, most of the streets in my neck of the woods are fairly clean. You wouldn't want to EAT off of them but, I think you get my point. One thing to be sure of, you CAN'T dictate "where" you are going to be attacked. If you're attacked and taken down on the street, you're going to be fighting there and you'd BETTER have the ability to do so. Pluck the needles and glass out of your skin after you've survived the encounter.
Most fights don't happen on the "street" anyway. They happen in the HOME! Many times they happen in the kitchen (from what I've heard from a police officer somewhere before). They happen on front lawns, etc. Fights also happen in pool halls and OBVIOUS places where trouble can brew. That CAN mean that it's important to know where "trouble" is and avoid it.
Question for all of you: How often do you see people randomly fighting as you drive down the street? I mean, you're just out and about and as you drive, do you see people just randomly engaged in fighting -- on the STREET?
Quote:
It's not that BJJ's not effective at beating an opponent. It's the fact that BJJ on the street can be just as dangerous to the one who uses it there.
Getting your ASS kicked would be even MORE dangerous in my opinion.
Quote:
Theres a flipside to that though. You can use your BJJ to avoid being taken to the ground by your opponent and keeping him out of the clinch range.
Why keep him out of the clinch range?
Quote:
For the streets standup grappeling arts such as Russian Sambo may be more effective.
Isn't that the clinch?
-John
Posted by: malanr116
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 10:59 AM
Quote:
How effective is BJJ on the street?
I would say that BJJ is very effective on the street, in perfect conditions.
I will elaborate.
1. Strictly one-on-one fight.
2. If you are trained in BJJ
3. Even if your attacker is trained in BJJ
4. Your attacker is trained in another STANDING MA
IMO:
If i'm walking down the street, and somebody jumps me and takes me to the ground, the first thing on my mind is getting back up, NOT trying to "wrestle" or submit my attacker. On the street, i'm gonna get back up (if i'm on the ground) then i'm gonna procede to nutralize my attacker as quickly as i can. I'm not gonna put him in a choke and wait for him to submit. If there is one attacker on me, then the rest of his gang is right around the corner, and i do not want to be on the ground.
But i won't say that nobody should train in BJJ. I train so that i can get off the ground, not stay there.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 01:10 PM
Quote:
How effective is BJJ on the street?
I would say that BJJ is very effective on the street, in perfect conditions.
Any street fight is going to be a very IMPERFECT condition.
Quote:
I will elaborate.
1. Strictly one-on-one fight.
2. If you are trained in BJJ
3. Even if your attacker is trained in BJJ
4. Your attacker is trained in another STANDING MA
NO martial art evens the odds in multiple attacker situation. Running away can save your hide. That simply means making the decision to avoid conflict. Anyone can do this -- even BJJ guys.
Quote:
IMO:
If i'm walking down the street, and somebody jumps me and takes me to the ground, the first thing on my mind is getting back up, NOT trying to "wrestle" or submit my attacker.
Is that always the case, even when the opportunity for a joint lock is staring you in the face? IMO, if I have a golden opportunity for a joint lock or choke, I'm going for it.
Naturally, getting back up is always what you're trying to do. It is DURING that fight that potential submissions become available. Plus, it isn't always possible to "just get up".
And ALL of that IS "wrestling".
Quote:
On the street, i'm gonna get back up (if i'm on the ground) then i'm gonna procede to nutralize my attacker as quickly as i can.
That's assuming you CAN just get back up. That isn't always possible. I mean, SURE it is in a perfect world, but life isn't always perfect. That's why you train ground fighting.
Quote:
I'm not gonna put him in a choke and wait for him to submit.
Why NOT put a choke on him? Chokes render people unconscious and pretty quickly as well (if it's applied right). That IS one of the few near guaranteed fight stoppers. You're going to pass up an opportunity to choke in favor of something less guaranteed??
And what is this "waiting for him to submit"? Who would do THAT? Do you mean, you would just hold him at the edge of pain and wait for him to say "Okay.....I'll quit, I'll quit!!!".
Do you mean, you wouldn't just break his arm or dislocate his shoulder joint??? I know I would. Maybe that's just me.
Quote:
If there is one attacker on me, then the rest of his gang is right around the corner, and i do not want to be on the ground.
So, his gang is hiding around the corner eh? Where is YOUR gang then? Mine is usually with me.
Quote:
But i won't say that nobody should train in BJJ. I train so that i can get off the ground, not stay there.
Not a bad idea (getting off the ground). Sometime it CAN be the better strategy however (to stay ON the ground).
-John
Posted by: Cord
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 02:50 PM
Quote:
Question for all of you: How often do you see people randomly fighting as you drive down the street? I mean, you're just out and about and as you drive, do you see people just randomly engaged in fighting -- on the STREET?
i have to say I see alterctions like this on average once per 3 night shifts (thats as many as we do in one block).
British town centres are rife with this behaviour, between 11.30 pm and 2.30 am in any given town/city centre is a pretty grim scene.
i should say that my list was designed, not to diminish the value of good grappling skills, but to offer a sense of balance in the face of what often becomes 'BJJ is the daddy of all real MA' comments from its fans/practitioners. Your defense of an attack should be appropriate for the circumstances and environment, this means knowledge of both striking and grappling is vital to have a hope of success in any and all circumstances.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 04:03 PM
I suppose you may find violence such as this in some of the worse parts of the worse cities during such times of the evening.
You'd have to look hard to find it however. I've personally NEVER seen it (outside of bars....I'm talking about right out on the streets that I drive) throughout all of the cities I've lived in and have visited.
I'm not saying it doesn't or can't happen. I'm saying it's a RARITY for most of the population, if your job isn't that of a police officer. Even then, violence is found more often within dwellings.
-John
Posted by: Cord
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 04:36 PM
But as far as I can tell, the states does not have the same extent of heavy drinking culture that we have in Britain- you are lucky. I can honestly tell you that if you spent anytime around taxi ranks/late night food vendors in britain during the hours I stated, you would either be witness to, or victim of literal street violence.
My job has me driving through the centre of town post 'closing time' to reach properties under our protection, Drunken fights and violent arguments are a regular and unpleasant part of the scenery on this journey.
Different culture, different frequency.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 04:49 PM
Quote:
But as far as I can tell, the states does not have the same extent of heavy drinking culture that we have in Britain- you are lucky.
No, we have the heavy CRACK and Methamphetamine culture.
Quote:
I can honestly tell you that if you spent anytime around taxi ranks/late night food vendors in britain during the hours I stated, you would either be witness to, or victim of literal street violence.
You could probably find that anywhere. However as I stated, you'd have to go LOOKING to find it. That would mean, going looking where you obviously shouldn't be. Naturally, the self preservation instinct would tell you to avoid places like that. If it's within your job description, well then you have a problem don't you?
What is it you normally see? Gunfire? In the same situations here, that's a normal part of the nighttime in the more crime-ridden areas where "street violence" is likely to occur.
-John
Posted by: funstick5000
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 04:56 PM
its true, we have a very large binge drinking promlem in the uk, last time i was out at i got started on by someone who followed me half way up a street before his friends got bored. he thought (and said repeatedly with various profanitys) i'd tried to set him on fire with a lighter i'd rigged and was messing about with. i just apologised and walked on, he still postured at mein an oh so threatening way half way up a hill.
i just realised, when people try to look 'hard' they take on the posture of male pigeons!! *cue to oldman with pic*
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 07:05 PM
Yep, it's out there if you go looking hard enough to find it - particularly where alcohol flows freely. But that's still a sort of "out of the ordinary" thing in parts.
I drive quite a bit. I've been on the road for YEARS. During the last 8 years, I have driven approximately 350 THOUSAND miles (566 thousand kilometers). During those years on the road (all different roads), I've not seen YET, two guys out fighting randomly. Again, this isn't to say that it doesn't happen, only that you have to go into violent places to find it. If self defense is avoidance (and avoiding places like that is always the first step), then the issue of STREET fighting will rarely become a factor in one's life.
That said, if a fight happens, and it literally IS "on the asphalt of a street" (I have no numbers to tell me how often this actually happens), you're STILL likely to go to in a clinch and onto the ground. Your best option would be to RUN don't you think?
Good thread! I like where it's going so far.
-John
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 07:09 PM
This again?
JKogas has infinitely more patience with this argument than I.
My only point is that, as much as you try to jam BJJ into your "box", it just won't fit. Enjoy your debate but don't bring it over to the BJJ forum. It's been done to death.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 08:21 PM
Fletch -
It never goes away. Have you ever noticed that the argument always seems to come from those who do NOT train grappling?
-John
Posted by: McSensei
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 09:10 PM
I have come to the reasoned opinion that every MA faces this question. The reason is because essentially the fighting arts are just that, FIGHTING arts.
At least by asking these questions of each others art we all have the opportunity to glimpse a little of what it's like on the other side of the fence. The more mature among us will take those glimpses and act upon them, to round off their own skills.
As for what Cord was saying, I agree entirely about the kind of stuff that goes on in the places mentioned. I live in a town called Dartford just on the outside of London. It's would be described as a suburb, but it's full of Londoner wanabees all out to prove something. If you want to eat after about 10.30pm in my town, you order a delivery or face the consequences. If you want a cab, you have to phone one or face the consequences. Sometimes though, it is unavoidable and to get in a fight in these places, especially a drawn out ground fight, wouldn't be pleasant. The number of times I've seen a crowd gather round 2 guys on the floor and just start taking swipes at both guys you wouldn't believe. There are some real cowards out there.
Having said that, if I'm in a fight on the ground and other people are taking potshots at me, I'd still rather be winning against the other guy on the floor, than losing to him as well.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 10:02 PM
Quote:
As for what Cord was saying, I agree entirely about the kind of stuff that goes on in the places mentioned. I live in a town called Dartford just on the outside of London. It's would be described as a suburb, but it's full of Londoner wanabees all out to prove something. If you want to eat after about 10.30pm in my town, you order a delivery or face the consequences. If you want a cab, you have to phone one or face the consequences.
Yep. I understand. Those places are everywhere. Go to ANY major city ANYWHERE and you'll find pretty much the same thing.
Most of us just move. It's a little easier.
Quote:
Sometimes though, it is unavoidable and to get in a fight in these places, especially a drawn out ground fight, wouldn't be pleasant.
Any fight would be unpleasant don't you think? I personally don't think a ground fight is all that unpleasant - but then again, that is a big part of what I train - wrestling and jiu-jitsu. The beautiful part of all of that is the complete and total dominance you can bring to bear against an opponent rather than just "going for it" toe to toe, and trading - particularly against someone bigger, with a longer reach who can get just as lucky as you and land that one shot that puts you away. That's the way that I look at it.
Quote:
The number of times I've seen a crowd gather round 2 guys on the floor and just start taking swipes at both guys you wouldn't believe.
I've seen the exact opposite happen. I've seen them MAKE ROOM for the guys and stand around watch, drinking beer. Just my views.
-John
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 10:17 PM
Its always funny how so many people see the best "counter" for Brazilian jiu-jitsu is having an army of "friends" to jump out of the bushes or from around the corner as soon as the fight hits the ground. (Or, the hope that a LOT OF NEEDLES are going to be scattered around all over the place. Ridiculous).
What martial art style is THAT, lol? The style of "A Hundred Friends".
With a horde of friends travelling around with you, you don't really NEED martial arts training do you?
-John
Posted by: Meanstreak
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/21/05 11:09 PM
JKogas,
Just wanted to say you've put forward some of the best points on this argument that ive read (and this must be one of the most overdone threads on the net) youve made some great points that ive not fully considered before.
Take care
Meanstreak
Posted by: Cord
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/22/05 01:17 AM
JK,
Again let me re-iterate that we are not in disagreement over the value of ground skills, however your points on the simplicity of avoiding dangerous 'areas' in the UK are sadly not possible. 'Just moving' does not solve the problem as the problem will be present where you move to. Avoiding town centres late at night is by far the best answer, but then sometimes you do want to go out socialising and have a life outside your home, and when you choose to do this, the problems attached can often come and find you no matter how carefull you try and be. Like I said, different country, different culture, different set of problems.
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/22/05 02:47 AM
The types of problems associated with the "bad" parts of town are found in any city, anywhere. Redding is something that doesn't even register on most peoples maps, yet we have over 100,000 people living in the "I5 Corridor", and there are areas that are known for trouble. If you like living, you avoid these areas at all costs. Of course, as stated, if you want to go out for a few drinks or something, that can't always be avoided. I've taken to spending more time at the bars on the west side of town, as there are fewer problems involving violence on the street, but there are still trouble spots scattered throughout the area. We also have a fairly high rate of crack and meth use here, as the outer parts of the county are completely rural, with the central corridor being more urbanized, creating the perfect breeding groung for hardcore drug culture.
Back to Topic...on the street you get an armbar you snap it plain and simple...you get a choke you knock them out..once again plain and simple...you get a figure four you dislocate the shoulder.....need i say anymore, your not going to see someone come back at your who has just had their arm snapped are you, and also police look alot higher upon someone using grappling to apprehend an attacker rather than pounding them. One more point id like to make, if you cant control the situation how will you throw strikes with any power, truth is you try punch someone in control on the ground ur only going to get them angry...and alot more punches with alot more power coming down at you!
FWIW - maybe a lil off topic though...catch guys
jim
Posted by: Neko456
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 12:28 PM
I'd say it depends on the skill of the practictioner. BJJ works at all ranges but 1 of the ideas they teach is its safer in close, and like to work from the clinch in is sorta a basic concept IMO. A weak BJJ guy can get his lunch brought because of this close range fighting mind set, if the guys raining accurate short strikes and pushing out of the clinch making hard contact, or jumping back upper cutting on the shoots. A person not very skilled will take a beaten. Just like I've seen some high school wrestlers take trying and missing a take down, getting stomped out or punched out. Working inside has its advantages and disadvantages one is thats its not much room for mistakes or escape. And there are alot weapons to look out for, headbutts, knees, elbows, short punches, throws, takedowns gouging and spitting.
A skilled BJJ just like a skilled Kung-fu guy could handled himself well in a streetfight and could end the fight at long range and in the clinch without a take down or using a take down. I still would perfer strikes on a downed person rather then rolling on concrete. But if you gotta roll, knowing how will save your bacon until you can get up.
I'd advise always get up quickly if you can or do your damage without rolling!!!
Good Question McSensei, a weak BJJ guy could get hurt bad.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 03:40 PM
For what Neko said, I agree entirely. The other observation this brings out...is that it is the person who brings the game, not the other way around.
-B
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 05:58 PM
As a weak fighter in any dicipline could get hurt bad.
Am I just paranoid or do I see that some of these comments as veiled attempts to "cut BJJ down to size" by putting it into a box. I am staying off this thread from now on because it is rather irritating. These questions have been asked and answered ad nauseum.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 06:20 PM
Perhaps Fletch is right. I hadn't considered the argument about generalities while caught up on the technical merits of what folk have been posting.
I did not/ do not like to be comparmentalized by the martial art(s) I practice, I neither wish to nor hope to participate in something that does that to others or their arts. Especially where hypotheticals are exploited...not as a point of evaluating techniques, but as a way to load the game to marginalize others or highlight statements by detractors.
In any case...there were some interesting posts. Kudos to John.
-B
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 10:15 PM
I also have some agreement with Fletch. Someone may have already stated that BJJ has shown us much of its potential in the MMA competition ring. This isn't the time to cut BJJ "down to size", although some of its practitioners need such. It is good to put BJJ through the same ringer that every other style has had to go through.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 10:21 PM
That "ringer" you speak of isn't mere "words" (debate and simple talk - of the sort that is currently happeing here). That RINGER is intense competition. Trial by fire.
And they (BJJ guys) go through that ringer CONSTANTLY, and that's exactly WHY they are so good and so tough. They are simply used to resistance and used to fighting. Their very technique is BORN out of that resistance and that fighting. It is NOT culled from lackadaisacal "demonstrations" against half-hearted slackeys.
-John
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 10:27 PM
John, which is why BJJ practitioners have such a tenable position from which to defend their style against doubt. But there are people who use such arguments and debate to try and cut down other MA styles, so that ringer isn't used to cut down BJJ so much as to check those that cut down other styles.
Other than that, I do agree, the competitors who get into a ring for a full contact/NHB competition have my respect for showing just what they are capable of dealing with.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/23/05 10:48 PM
Thanks for all the replies guys. Its also stayed (mostly) civil although I agree with Fletch as well, having seen shades of trying to (as he says) "put BJJ into a box". That is to completely dehumanize the entire art.
Please note that no disrespect was intended on my part (if anyone felt disrespected). Lets keep it on the right side here guys. I have NO problems with questioning martial arts.
It always helps to bear in mind that martial arts are often more about "strategies" than they are about "techniques".
Ciao!
-John
Posted by: Neko456
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/24/05 11:20 AM
I agree but please keep my entire reply in context as I stated.
A skilled BJJ just like a skilled Kung-fu guy could handled himself well in a streetfight and could end the fight at long range and in the clinch without a take down or using a take down. I still would perfer strikes on a downed person rather then rolling on concrete. But if you gotta roll, knowing how will save your bacon until you can get up.
Are we upset that I mentioned another art being just as good as Bjj. I don't aplogize for that its just my oppinon, yours may be different I respect that.
And I agree that any weak practiontioner or strong begininger could get wasted if he fought in the street and didn't already know how to fight.
Posted by: kickcatcher
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/24/05 08:55 PM
Quote:
It's a question that has been asked of nearly every other kind of MA, so now it's the turn of BJJ.
How effective is BJJ on the street?
I have my own views on this and will air them soon enough, but first, I would like to hear from others.
PS
Let's at least try to keep this polite.
Taking SD training very seriously, I’ve come to the conclusion that BJJ is VERY relevant as part of a whole, with the Vale Tudo end being moreso than the ‘pure’ BJJ. Simply put, groundfighting skills are a necessary contingency as part of a balanced and credible SD syllabus.
All this rubbish about not taking a fight to the grounds is missing the point.
Like Judo and wrestling, BJJ needs adaption, or broader worldliness at the very least, to transfer it to the street –unless you choose to leave it to chance. But that hardly makes it invalid. I also think that there are alternatives to pick up grappling-orientated groundfighting than BJJ, such as MMA (which is afterall nearly always BJJ influenced).
Irrational evaluation:
I don’t like doing grappling and/or groundfighting so I’ll rationalize why it is flawed and use that as an excuse to avoid it.
Rational evaluation:
A person with 6 months of BJJ (/MMA etc) is more likely to avoid groundfighting and/or survive better if forced into groundfighting, than someone with 6 months of mainstream punch-kick MA. All those hypothetical arguments about blades, glass, lava etc, apply equally if not moreso to mainstream quasi-traditional stand-up arts. Therefore, BJJ, or rather credible groundfighting, is relevant to SD.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/24/05 09:33 PM
Excellent post, KC. Summed that up very well.
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/24/05 10:43 PM
Quote:
Rational evaluation:
A person with 6 months of BJJ (/MMA etc) is more likely to avoid groundfighting and/or survive better if forced into groundfighting, than someone with 6 months of mainstream punch-kick MA. All those hypothetical arguments about blades, glass, lava etc, apply equally if not moreso to mainstream quasi-traditional stand-up arts. Therefore, BJJ, or rather credible groundfighting, is relevant to SD.
I for the most part agree with that, KK. My only point of contention (and I don't actually want to argue with it), is what would you call "mainstream". Let's just leave the semantics out of it and agree on what the main point is.
Posted by: MAGr
Re: BJJ reality check - 08/31/05 08:33 AM
I apologise from now because I havent read all the response just two pages of them.
This discussion has been approached many times and that is why I didnt really bother reading your answers, most of you guys I know your opinions and they are sensible and correct.
The only thing that I can think of that plays a role in the question is delivery system. A MA such as karate or wing chun has a well established well refined delivery system and theory behind its principles and its fighting applications. You can take those principles and learn BJJ and use them effectively. It would be ignorant for someone to say they will never use grappling or I will never use that move or I dont need this and that. Fact is that you never know. I dont want to end up on the floor for whatever reason and not know how to deal with it and rely on me thrashing about like an imbacile. I would be very embarassed and ashamed of myself, if I got into a fight, slipped on the icy road and after years of dedicated training tried to beat my opponent by convulsing like an idiot and throwing wild kicks. I want to learn EVERYTHING. I knoe that is impossible so I will try to learn as much as I can.
So even if I do plan to start grappling, who says that I will have learnt it by the time I get into a fight that ends up on the floor. What if I fall on my butt tomorow? What if a grappler that has intentions to learn but currently doesnt know how to throw a punch gets into a fight with a wing chun dude?
What if you have never trained against roundhouse kicks because you think they are inefective and someone throws a roundhouse?
The quest in MAs is to learn as much as possible, and you will certainly not do that by limiting yourself due to egoistic prejudices.
Posted by: monji112000
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/01/05 12:04 AM
too many responses.. lol
MAGr.. JMO but you are 100% correct.
being able to adapt to any situation is the best plan.
the most important skill in a fight is not ground fighting or striking.. its timing and reflexes. JMO the nature of BJJ forces you to learn these two skills.
One point..
every position/skill has pro or con ..
in a self defense situation the main concern is to protect. Get yourself in a position were you are safe and get out (ie run).
Lumping every application ( arena ) for a fighting art can be very misleading.
JMO
Posted by: IronBones
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/09/05 01:02 PM
Bjj has saved my life on the street more than once and I'd say in my opinion it is the Most effective style
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 08:07 AM
Quote:
too many responses.. lol
MAGr.. JMO but you are 100% correct.
being able to adapt to any situation is the best plan.
That's absolutely correct. That's why BJJ is a HUGE part of my JKD (being a long time JKD guy). I began studying BJJ relatively late (been doing it about 9 years now) because I realized how poor my prior training methods were and how vulnerable I was against a good grappler.
I also realized that when you put on some decent protective gear, and have your partner fight you as hard as possible (either trying to knock you out or take you down), it's very difficult to remain standing for any length of time - particularly if he's good at takedowns.
BJJ fills a HUGE gap in the fight game.
Quote:
the most important skill in a fight is not ground fighting or striking.. its timing and reflexes. JMO the nature of BJJ forces you to learn these two skills.
True. Boxing and clinch wrestling also force you to develop timing and reflexes. This is especially true when clinching, takedowns and ground fighting (wrestling to submission) are all allowed within your boxing training.
Quote:
One point..
every position/skill has pro or con ..
in a self defense situation the main concern is to protect. Get yourself in a position were you are safe and get out (ie run).
Couldn't agree more. This is especially true if you're a civilian. Your first priority is to "survive" - not "win". BJJ training goes a LONG way toward developing your ability to survive in a most hostile scenario (being on your back, on the ground in a street fight).
-John
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 08:19 AM
Quote by MAGr -
Quote:
The quest in MAs is to learn as much as possible, and you will certainly not do that by limiting yourself due to egoistic prejudices
I think that says it all.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 03:17 PM
i just wonder if bjj guys will deliberatly,as their primary response to knowing they will be attacked or are being attacked ,take it to the ground.in which case i personnaly dont agree.
i think everyone should know what they will do if faced by someone and work and work and work it....just one thing.i dont mean one techinique ...i mean one response.
then secondary response and more to fall back on..
the primary ones should be strikes or locks/takedowns to put THEM on the floor ....then run.
has any bjj people used it on the street ...anyone been to the floor ?...in all mine i havnt ,,,iv tryed to be taken there....though escaped..minus a shirt.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 08:48 PM
Quote:
has any bjj people used it on the street ...anyone been to the floor ?...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Funniest post EVER!
Posted by: matxtx
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 09:05 PM
funniest question..?
its a proper question...to anyone ....whos been on the floor and what happened.?just like iv seen people asking who's kicked,,who's locked,,etc.
not a sarcastic question or put down ,a proper one.
id like to know.
sigh
Posted by: ta_kuan_dao
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 09:53 PM
I have nothing much more to add. IMHO i agree with MAGr a 100%. If your are just training in one area, whether it be grappling, groundfighting, kicks and punches, or defense, you are doing something wrong. in a real fight, anything can happen and u can hit anywhere and anyway. U can't be the best in every area but just knowing the rudiments of an area can help u. No sytle of fighting or way of fighting is the best. Many ppl think that grapplers can take on strikers anyday. But if a striker even knows some of the rudimentary of grappling, he has a good chance of defending against grappling. Case in point, a while back, Royler of Royce Gracie was defeated by a shootboxer named Yamashita. Yamashita is not a very good grappler, but he knew enough to stay on his feet and he knocked out a Gracie(don't remember which)
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/10/05 10:21 PM
Anonymous,
Again....folk trying to pigeon hole other folk. Look, there is as much a chance for a grappler to do what he wants than not. Don't casually dismiss what a BJJ player might or might not know with respect to any other range of fighting.
Just as I don't like folk making blanket statements about other practioners and arts, its hard to fathom where some folk can't see the results of BJJ with respect to any type of fighting one can think of.
Sure, the fights in the player, but noting the background of BJJ and its use in a multitude of hard, sporting arenas, and the education it can give per ground fighting, statements and questions like this make absolutely no sense.
-B
Posted by: paradoxbox
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 03:53 AM
The thing that so many people forget is that it's extremely unlikely you are going to encounter another trained martial artist in a fight out on the streets. What crack head is going to have enough MA experience to do anything to you? So it just turns into a pissing contest.
I've said it before, I don't think going to the ground on sidewalk or a street is a smart thing at all. I won't give the stupid excuse of needles and broken glass (come on) but for one thing hitting concrete hurts like hell and when you are pumped with adrenaline it is possible you will hurt yourself when you go to the ground. All it takes is a small thump of your head on the concrete and it's lights out for you.
I also don't think BJJ gives a good enough base for weapons disarming by itself to be considered really useful in situations where weapons are involved. Used in combination with disarming techniques from another art however, in the right circumstances BJJ would be as good as any other martial art for disabling an opponent.
In my view Brazillian Ju Jutsu was designed as a SPORT first and foremost. People who train in it should not forget that. Don't try to take a BMW and use it as a dump truck! BJJ works extremely well within certain rules and situations.
However it was not developed to deal with the realities you are most likely to face if someone tries to mug you, rob you at an ATM, steal your purse/wallet, or break into your house.
It was developed for a certain kind of competition and in recent years some people are trying to pawn it off as a pure self defense system. The way BJJ goes about combat is totally unsafe for dealing with armed opponents, as far as I know it teaches no weapons. Forget about it! It's not a purely self defense oriented system!
My opinion is that it's a good art for self defense if there is only one unarmed attacker, or you plan on performing the techniques standing (breaking their bones and dropping the person) or you are able to perform a technique extremely rapidly and stand back up again.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 07:28 AM
im mr anonymous,i dont know why it came up with that name.
anyhow...ill repeat,im just asking has anyone been on the floor and what happened .for real.its not dissing bjj or art bashing.
ill take it most havnt.
if its a no then how the hell can people comment.
im not going to listen to knife tactics ,strike tactics OR grappling tactics to people who havnt been there ...simple.
wheres reality...iv talked about reality before then people say there in it for the training....then these same people offer there say when it comes to reality talks....eh?
ill repeat, im not art bashing..
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 12:43 PM
Para and Matax,
While I agree with you on certain points, especially the idea that you will probably not confront a trained martial artist as an antagonist, you are never the less trying to place a structure around the education of all BJJ practioners. This is similar to what some grapplers do when they confront karate or aikido folk. I know one particular Aikidoka who had practiced with the Gracies and is a good grappler, who also trained in boxing, Tang Soo Do, and kickboxing. He currently teaches law enforcement and Aikido. He has dan ranks in several arts and has been training martial arts for over 50 years.
What I am trying to say is that just because he considers himself and Aikidoka doesn't take away from what he knows or has put into his practical experience using his art. One does a disservice to any martial artist when you try to limit his study from outside his personal experience. You just don't know how a particular individual trains all that he knows, despite primarily calling himself a particular stylist. There are variations in training, including within the BJJ ranks and their different schools.
The emphasis in BJJ is competition, much like Judo, for the reason that this is considered the primary form of reinforcing usable technique in a safe environment. It is a training paradigm that can be measured. And in this measurement, one can more accurately gauge performance compared with other arts that may have other criteria for advancement.
The other situation is that if a confrontation does go to the ground...isn't it better to be able to have knowledge and skill to remove one from that range. Don't think that if three guys come at a BJJer his immediate reaction is to go to the ground, but if taken there...my bet he would understand better how to get back up.
-B
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 01:00 PM
yea i agree...grappling has got to be done to round it all off.
i know that in the knife fighting art they start with knifes and only do open hand stuff alot later....strikers move to grappling and locks and takedowns later too.....maybe bjj goes to striking later on too,,at high grade level....?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 01:42 PM
Quote:
The thing that so many people forget is that it's extremely unlikely you are going to encounter another trained martial artist in a fight out on the streets. What crack head is going to have enough MA experience to do anything to you? So it just turns into a pissing contest.
paradoxbox:
Its an assumption that you're going to encounter another martial artist on the street. It's also an assumption that you won't. It's still another assumption that the person you may encounter won't be able to fight. It's yet another assumption that the person won't be tough or will just quit and have no heart. Plus, there are a lot of former (and current) wrestlers out there as well. Just because someone isn't a "martial artist" doesn't mean that they can't be tough or formidable.
Quote:
I've said it before, I don't think going to the ground on sidewalk or a street is a smart thing at all. I won't give the stupid excuse of needles and broken glass (come on) but for one thing hitting concrete hurts like hell and when you are pumped with adrenaline it is possible you will hurt yourself when you go to the ground. All it takes is a small thump of your head on the concrete and it's lights out for you.
A skilled grappler isn't going to be the one with his back against the surface of the asphalt or concrete. It's going to be the guy who has no grappling skill.
Quote:
I also don't think BJJ gives a good enough base for weapons disarming by itself to be considered really useful in situations where weapons are involved.
I'm of the opinion that NO martial art addresses this subject. Please don't tell me that you think otherwise.
Quote:
Used in combination with disarming techniques from another art however, in the right circumstances BJJ would be as good as any other martial art for disabling an opponent.
I know of no martial art that is functional when addressing weapons disarms (when empty handed).
Quote:
In my view Brazillian Ju Jutsu was designed as a SPORT first and foremost. People who train in it should not forget that. Don't try to take a BMW and use it as a dump truck! BJJ works extremely well within certain rules and situations.
You're plain wrong. It's an "ART" first and foremost. It's obvious that you know NOTHING about BJJ. Come back when you have been "educated" (by a good BJJ guy as well).
People confuse an art/delivery system with a sport all the time. Thinking through it a little more will generally (if you're reasonably intelligent) show you what the differences are. It will show why functional delivery systems can be competed as a sport AND as a fighting art. Functional delivery systems aren't one diminsional - in the way so many traditional or "Combat" systems ARE.
And by the way, people who train in those arts should remember that!
Quote:
However it was not developed to deal with the realities you are most likely to face if someone tries to mug you, rob you at an ATM, steal your purse/wallet, or break into your house.
No, it was developed to deal with people who are fighting you for "real". Not pretend. Real resistance.
Quote:
It was developed for a certain kind of competition and in recent years some people are trying to pawn it off as a pure self defense system. The way BJJ goes about combat is totally unsafe for dealing with armed opponents, as far as I know it teaches no weapons. Forget about it! It's not a purely self defense oriented system!
Stop trolling. If you want to post something again, you'd better log in. You're just an another TMA guy with an agenda.
Quote:
My opinion is that it's a good art for self defense if there is only one unarmed attacker, or you plan on performing the techniques standing (breaking their bones and dropping the person) or you are able to perform a technique extremely rapidly and stand back up again.
You must believe in the myths that "traditional" martial arts can turn you into Superman or something. Let me guess, you're a white belt in a TMA McDojo???
-John
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 01:48 PM
Quote by paradoxbox -
Quote:
In my view Brazillian Ju Jutsu was designed as a SPORT first and foremost
Your view is quite wrong, sir. If you knew anything about the history of BJJ, you would know that it started out as a street fighting art for challenge matches in Brazil. Let's not make assumptions about things we know little about.
I agree that modern BJJ is competition oriented, but the techniques and concepts (for the most part) work the same way in sport as they would on the street.
You say the chance of running into a trained fighter is small. I agree. However, most of the fights I have ever seen or been in have in fact been one-on-one with no weapons, so your worries are equally unfounded.
And yes, I have had fights that ended up on the ground - intentionally or by accident. It is much more common than you might think.
Posted by: trevek
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 01:50 PM
Surely whether are not you are going to meet a trained martial artist in a situation depends what kind of company you keep and where you choose to have a fight. Are we to believe it is only non-trained idiots who go looking for a fight? I've heard of plenty of incidents where MAists have tried their skill on a local doorman at a pub/club. Another question, could an American Football player or a Rugby player take somedown easily?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 02:02 PM
Quote:
Surely whether are not you are going to meet a trained martial artist in a situation depends what kind of company you keep and where you choose to have a fight.
I'm of the opinion that whether a person is a martial artist or not is irrelevent. There are plenty of martial artists that can't fight. There are also non-martial artists that can. It really all comes down to whether or not one's training is athletic in nature (read, "sportive"). The training a person does HAS to be sportive in nature - though this has NOTHING to do with "rules". It's more of a quality. BJJ has that alive quality. Thats why those guys are KNOWN to kick ass! No "theory" about that. It's proven.
Quote:
Are we to believe it is only non-trained idiots who go looking for a fight? I've heard of plenty of incidents where MAists have tried their skill on a local doorman at a pub/club.
PEOPLE start fights. Trained or NOT trained has no relevence.
Quote:
Another question, could an American Football player or a Rugby player take somedown easily?
You better believe it!
-John
Posted by: Gula
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 02:09 PM
I mean with no offence but thease kinda "reality topics" are kinda the waste of time that will not lead to nowhere.
If you people want to know is bjj "realistic" just take some lessons and you will see what ever it is you will see.
For my self I have seen that solely the position gaming in bjj gives preparedness to destroy your opponent if he has less experience in ground fighting.
You will learn in bjj to
shift your weight and get a good base (this is not as easy as it sounds) in the gronund and once your in position you can launch a consentrated flurry of fists at the opponent.
Posted by: paradoxbox
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 02:49 PM
Hello, please don't call me a troll. I stated my honest opinion. I don't know why you asked me to sign in, I was signed in and my name is displayed clearly in the box to the top left of my post.
Please do name one technique from the BJJ curiculum that deals with disarming a knife or stick weilding an attacker.
While it's obviously extremely dangerous to do so while unarmed, as far as I know there is NO techniques that deal with this in BJJ. There are many other arts out there that do contain disarming techniques.
There is always danger, sometimes you simply do not have anything you can use as a weapon on you. So having knowledge and experience in those types of techniques is a hell of a lot better than nothing if you have no other options left.
There are more than 30 Japanese martial arts that I can think of that have muto dori techniques (disarming attacker while unarmed). And I'm sure there are hundreds of other styles of martial arts that include similar techniques.
If knife/sword/gun/stick disarms were so useless they would never have been developed and certainly wouldn't still be taught today.
Please do not turn this into a BJJ versus Traditional arts pissing match. That horse is dead and beaten to glue. I am not interested.
>A skilled grappler isn't going to be the one with his back against the surface of the asphalt or concrete. It's going to be the guy who has no grappling skill. <
This is an assumption you've made, one paragraph after criticizing me for making a more realistic assumption. There is no way you expect me to believe anyone can fully control what an attacker is or is not going to do. Especially an armed attacker. In my mind an ATM robbery is probably one of the most likely scenarios a martial artist will face should they have an armed opponent encounter.
Please tell me how in the world anyone with no disarming experience whatsoever is going to get an attacker with a knife against the wall in such a situation. That's just rediculous. You cannot expect to wing it with no previous muto dori experience and survive. You're going to get stabbed!
The real issue I have with BJJ is the attitudes of so many practicioners. The style of training encourages strong competition, which is ok. But it encourages ARROGANCE, confidence in ones abilities even if they do not have such abilities. I posted earlier, BJJ works GREAT in certain situations. It works GREAT in sport matches where there are rules on what can and cannot be done. It also works GREAT when you are dealing with one unarmed attacker, or where you have the ability to regain your footing quickly in the case of multiple opponents.
It does NOT work great outside of these situations. You cannot convince me or anyone else that it does. Don't be overconfident.
By the way, I did not mean BJJ is not an art, but it feel it's more of a sport art than a self defense art. If this weren't the case we wouldn't see it so often in sporting art events.
BJJ is NOT the end-all be-all martial art. To treat it as such is EXTREMELY dangerous, and I don't understand why you defend it like it is.
>The training a person does HAS to be sportive in nature - though this has NOTHING to do with "rules".<
The 'real resistance' argument is so old and tiresome. I don't know what arts you are comparing to, but every art I've studied has 'real resistance' as part of the training, in the form of randori. I'm sorry if you think the resistance is fake. I can suggest you find a better dojo or train harder.
You have with this statement, re-written several thousand years of documented warriorship history. I was never aware that real fighters were only good solely based on their sporting, athletic natures, throughout all history and even today. I am sure someone like Unsui Manaka would be interested in hearing why you think so.
I am not another TMA guy with an agenda. But judging from posts I've seen from you over the years I'd say you have an unhealthy beef with non-bjj arts. And with the statement I quoted from you above, it looks like you're taking it way too far. Knock it off and get back to reality. There is more to the martial arts world than brazilian jujutsu.
I find it unfortunate you resulted to personal attacks by the end of your post, are you not familiar with the rules of this forum? Please learn to check your temper.
By the way, I don't know all -that- much about bjj, but I was under the impression that it was developed primarily from kodokan judo. Does that not automatically put it into the sport art category?
Some instructors may teach it differently, in a more self defense oriented way, I don't know.
That's all for now..
Posted by: paradoxbox
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 02:59 PM
Just to sumarize for those people who don't like reading my encyclopaedia length post,
I think that BJJ is a great art for your average run of the mill 1 on 1 fight with no weapons and friends involved.
I don't think it's a great art when there is a weapon involved (even if you are armed too, BJJ doesn't teach how to use it properly, so you won't be much better off than the bad guy). I don't think it's great if there is a chance more people could attack you.
I also stick to my belief that it's somewhat unsafe to physically hit hard ground while taking someone down. It's easy to pawn this off but take downs don't always go perfect and the possibility to hurt yourself is amplified if you hit something on concrete. Land on your knee the wrong way and your kneecap is shattered. It doesn't take much for that to happen. Land on your shoulder and your AC could tear.
For some situations it's a great solution. For others, it clearly is not, and I find it silly that people try to defend it as the ultimate solution to almost all violent encounters.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 03:24 PM
Quote by Paradoxbox -
Quote:
Please do name one technique from the BJJ curiculum that deals with disarming a knife or stick weilding an attacker.
Check the Gracie Jujitsu basics DVD. They do a (short) section on dealing with club attacks from different ranges.
Quote:
While it's obviously extremely dangerous to do so while unarmed, as far as I know there is NO techniques that deal with this in BJJ. There are many other arts out there that do contain disarming techniques.
Again, you are WRONG. See above. Please do not make assumptions about an art that you know NOTHING about.
Quote:
There is always danger, sometimes you simply do not have anything you can use as a weapon on you. So having knowledge and experience in those types of techniques is a hell of a lot better than nothing if you have no other options left.
Sounds like a good reason in favor of learning BJJ.
Quote:
There are more than 30 Japanese martial arts that I can think of that have muto dori techniques (disarming attacker while unarmed). And I'm sure there are hundreds of other styles of martial arts that include similar techniques.
If knife/sword/gun/stick disarms were so useless they would never have been developed and certainly wouldn't still be taught today.
You have got to be kidding me. Sword disarms? You question the need for groundfighting (which happens all the time), but emphasize the need for SWORD disarms?
??????????????????????
>A skilled grappler isn't going to be the one with his back against the surface of the asphalt or concrete. It's going to be the guy who has no grappling skill. <
Quote:
his is an assumption you've made, one paragraph after criticizing me for making a more realistic assumption. There is no way you expect me to believe anyone can fully control what an attacker is or is not going to do. Especially an armed attacker. In my mind an ATM robbery is probably one of the most likely scenarios a martial artist will face should they have an armed opponent encounter.
Now YOU are making assumptions. Again, your argument is actually in favor of groundfighting training. The more you know, the better chance you have of "fully controlling an attacker".
Quote:
Please tell me how in the world anyone with no disarming experience whatsoever is going to get an attacker with a knife against the wall in such a situation. That's just rediculous. You cannot expect to wing it with no previous muto dori experience and survive. You're going to get stabbed!
I hate to break it to you....but even with all your disarm training, it is VERY likely you WILL GET STABBED ANYWAY. Most long term MA are aware of this.
Quote:
The real issue I have with BJJ is the attitudes of so many practicioners. The style of training encourages strong competition, which is ok. But it encourages ARROGANCE, confidence in ones abilities even if they do not have such abilities. I posted earlier, BJJ works GREAT in certain situations. It works GREAT in sport matches where there are rules on what can and cannot be done. It also works GREAT when you are dealing with one unarmed attacker, or where you have the ability to regain your footing quickly in the case of multiple opponents.
Ahhh....the truth finally comes out. You have a personal dislike for BJJ people, and you are allowing that to cloud your judgement about the effectiveness of the art. Why don't you actually LEARN some BJJ and let us know what you think of it then?
Quote:
It does NOT work great outside of these situations. You cannot convince me or anyone else that it does. Don't be overconfident.
Wow! Who is assuming or being over-confident now? You have how much training in BJJ to say it does or does not work?
Quote:
By the way, I did not mean BJJ is not an art, but it feel it's more of a sport art than a self defense art. If this weren't the case we wouldn't see it so often in sporting art events.
You are not getting that the delivery system of BJJ is the SAME either way. An armbar on the street will be just as efective in the ring - and vice versa.
Quote:
BJJ is NOT the end-all be-all martial art. To treat it as such is EXTREMELY dangerous, and I don't understand why you defend it like it is.
Who are you refering to? No one has said BJJ is the ultimate anything. All we have said is that it is a very efective art - which it is.
Quote:
By the way, I don't know all -that- much about bjj,
Truest thing you have said yet so far in this thread.
Quote:
but I was under the impression that it was developed primarily from kodokan judo. Does that not automatically put it into the sport art category?
Another veiled attempt to equate "sport" with "ineffective for SD". Equally tired argument.
Quote:
Some instructors may teach it differently, in a more self defense oriented way, I don't know.
Why don't you find out instead of blathering on about it when you don't know?
Posted by: trevek
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 03:48 PM
Sorry, but if kodokan ju-jitsu/judo, whatever you call it was being used by the Japanese police force in the early half of 20th century then how could it be called a 'sport art'? Therefore if BJJ developed from it (developed into what? A harder form, perhaps?) why does this automatically categorise it as a sport?
Incidentally, if I study sport swimming, does this mean I won't be able to swim in a real-life situation?
Posted by: paradoxbox
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 03:53 PM
Yawn. Mud slinging.
Anyways, I'm done with this thread, you are not capable of having thought out discussion without bringing it to personal attacks.
For an example of why sword disarms are still useful take a look in some newspaper archives. In the last few years there have been dozens of sword attacks, most of them fatal. Swords can also include machetes, and the movements of a sword can be likened to the movements of a baseball bat and crowbar.
Since personal attacks seem to be the way of this thread, I guess you guys just couldn't figure it out because your narrow track minds are unopen to anything other than BJJ.
Have fun fellas.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 03:59 PM
Ditto what Matt and John said. What I don't get is that both Matt and I are more karate trained than anything else, but instead of making these silly statements...we actually joined grappling schools.
I mean honestly, if someone is going to make a comment about another art, at least try it..explore it...and then come back with your appreciation or lack there of for your experience.
When comments like this get batted about, you kind of think of a movie critic bashing a film he has never seen.
-B
Posted by: JKogas
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 04:13 PM
Quote:
Hello, please don't call me a troll. I stated my honest opinion. I don't know why you asked me to sign in, I was signed in and my name is displayed clearly in the box to the top left of my post.
I was stating my opinion as well.
Quote:
Please do name one technique from the BJJ curiculum that deals with disarming a knife or stick weilding an attacker.
The Russian two-on-one that I have integrated (from wrestling) into the curriculum that I have. From the two on one, you can hyperextend the arm (pain, damage, etc.). That's one.
Quote:
While it's obviously extremely dangerous to do so while unarmed, as far as I know there is NO techniques that deal with this in BJJ. There are many other arts out there that do contain disarming techniques.
I'm betting that they're none that actually work.
Quote:
There is always danger, sometimes you simply do not have anything you can use as a weapon on you. So having knowledge and experience in those types of techniques is a hell of a lot better than nothing if you have no other options left.
You're wanting to believe in those techniques. Those techniques are usually trained with complete compliance on the part of the training partners and will NEVER work against a real attacker with a weapon. You're delusional if you believe otherwise.
Quote:
There are more than 30 Japanese martial arts that I can think of that have muto dori techniques (disarming attacker while unarmed). And I'm sure there are hundreds of other styles of martial arts that include similar techniques.
And those techniques are all practiced in the way I previously described. They won't work when the pressure is on. Plain and simple.
Quote:
If knife/sword/gun/stick disarms were so useless they would never have been developed and certainly wouldn't still be taught today.
Sure they would. They're taught because they're passing on some 'art'. Doesn't mean they work! There's a difference between demo martial arts and functional martial arts. Don't confuse the two.
Quote:
Please do not turn this into a BJJ versus Traditional arts pissing match. That horse is dead and beaten to glue. I am not interested.
You're MORE than interested. That's what you're doing by coming here and bashing BJJ. Er....I meant "giving your 'opinion'".
Quote:
>A skilled grappler isn't going to be the one with his back against the surface of the asphalt or concrete. It's going to be the guy who has no grappling skill. <
This is an assumption you've made, one paragraph after criticizing me for making a more realistic assumption. There is no way you expect me to believe anyone can fully control what an attacker is or is not going to do. Especially an armed attacker. In my mind an ATM robbery is probably one of the most likely scenarios a martial artist will face should they have an armed opponent encounter.
First: A person without grappling skill is (99% of the time) going to be outclassed by a competent grappler when a fight goes into a grapple. Believe whatever the hell you want. It's no skin off MY ass.
Second, I'm not going to be FIGHTING ANYONE WITH A WEAPON - I'm going to be RUNNING! There is NO martial art (unless you're delusional and believe otherwise) that effectively deals with weapons. Life isn't Remo Williams.
Quote:
Please tell me how in the world anyone with no disarming experience whatsoever is going to get an attacker with a knife against the wall in such a situation. That's just rediculous. You cannot expect to wing it with no previous muto dori experience and survive. You're going to get stabbed!
First of all, disarms aren't anything I personally believe in. They're not realistic. The correct choice is to escape, run away, or whatever. Fighting someone with a knife (who uses knives these days when guns are available??) is suicide.
Quote:
The real issue I have with BJJ is the attitudes of so many practicioners.
Like YOUR attitude?
Most BJJ guys I know are cool as hell. I don't see ANY attitude from the majority of them that I know and have trained with. They're only interested in reality training over theoretical, compliant training from compliant training partners. They're interested in pursuing the truth in combat - not what someone THINKS is the truth or SAYS is the truth.
I really don't see how your attitude is any different. The way you come across is nothing but hateful (read, FEARFUL) of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Maybe if you'd own up to the fact that you're pushing an agenda, we could get somewhere. Right now the only thing you're trying to do is place ALL BJJ practitioners into a box. That won't cut it around here pal.
It might be helpful for you to understand the differences between an "sport" and a "delivery system" -- and the human beings that practice them.
Quote:
The style of training encourages strong competition, which is ok. But it encourages ARROGANCE, confidence in ones abilities even if they do not have such abilities.
I disagree. Arrogance does NOT come from any art where you get your ass handed to you on a daily basis - as is the case within BJJ. Within that art, you get beat CONSTANTLY by the higher skilled practitioners. How does that create arrogance? You're still trying to lump all BJJ practitioners into a "group". What about the arrogant TMA practitioners?? Are you suggesting here that there are none?
Quote:
I posted earlier, BJJ works GREAT in certain situations. It works GREAT in sport matches where there are rules on what can and cannot be done. It also works GREAT when you are dealing with one unarmed attacker, or where you have the ability to regain your footing quickly in the case of multiple opponents.
BJJ works as the individual works and decides to work. You are saying, "BJJ works when......"
That is implying that a "style" does the fighting for the individual. Free thinking individuals are the one's who are doing the fighting. They make decisions based on circumstances just like everyone else. I'm a BJJ guy who would never be stupid enough to fight an armed attacker or a gang. Who in their "right minds" WOULD be stupid enough? You?
Quote:
It does NOT work great outside of these situations. You cannot convince me or anyone else that it does. Don't be overconfident.
I think that YOU are the one overconfident! YOU are the one believing the "mystical powers" of martial arts enabling you to defeat armed attackers and gangs. You're not really that delusional are you? Tell me you aren't so I won't feel I'm wasting my time debating with an idiot.
Quote:
By the way, I did not mean BJJ is not an art, but it feel it's more of a sport art than a self defense art. If this weren't the case we wouldn't see it so often in sporting art events.
Well, you're wrong. An art is an art. I train the art outside of a rules parameter. Please tell me how that is sport oriented?
And the reason you SEE it in sporting events is because it is FUNCTIONAL! Make no mistake about it. It's used because it............................................works.
Quote:
BJJ is NOT the end-all be-all martial art. To treat it as such is EXTREMELY dangerous, and I don't understand why you defend it like it is.
I defend my art against ridiculous statements and ill-informed opinions - such are your's are.
Quote:
>The training a person does HAS to be sportive in nature - though this has NOTHING to do with "rules".<
The 'real resistance' argument is so old and tiresome. I don't know what arts you are comparing to, but every art I've studied has 'real resistance' as part of the training, in the form of randori. I'm sorry if you think the resistance is fake. I can suggest you find a better dojo or train harder.
I'm not saying the resistance is fake at every school. It is at many. However, the resistance at ALL BJJ schools is completely for real and there are no exceptions.
Quote:
You have with this statement, re-written several thousand years of documented warriorship history. I was never aware that real fighters were only good solely based on their sporting, athletic natures, throughout all history and even today. I am sure someone like Unsui Manaka would be interested in hearing why you think so.
Tell ya what....if your demi god (small g) "Unsui Manaka" didn't train athletically, he wouldn't be functional and a WHITE belt in BJJ could kick his ass and tap him out like a baby.
Quote:
I am not another TMA guy with an agenda. But judging from posts I've seen from you over the years I'd say you have an unhealthy beef with non-bjj arts. And with the statement I quoted from you above, it looks like you're taking it way too far. Knock it off and get back to reality. There is more to the martial arts world than brazilian jujutsu.
I have a "beef" with any art that isn't trained alive. WHY? Because I'm tired of seeing people sold bullshit. I'm tired of people being told something is effective training and it IS not. Alive martial art, I have NO beef with. Sounds to me like you're defending a dead martial art or an art that isn't trained in an alive manner. If that isn't the case, then I have no beef with that.
But you DO have an agenda. That much is obvious.
Quote:
I find it unfortunate you resulted to personal attacks by the end of your post, are you not familiar with the rules of this forum? Please learn to check your temper.
Pal, at the end of my post, I asked a question. Here is that question again:
Quote:
Let me guess, you're a white belt in a TMA McDojo???
So....you take that as a personal attack? Whatever.
Quote:
By the way, I don't know all -that- much about bjj
You didn't have to tell me that -- it's obvious.
Quote:
...but I was under the impression that it was developed primarily from kodokan judo. Does that not automatically put it into the sport art category?
There you go again proving my point. Obviously you aren't aware at how JUDO has changed over the years. You also can't (for some reason) understand the differences between a "sport" and a "delivery system". BJJ isn't really a great deal like judo, anymore than one striking art is different from another striking art. Techniques are all the same. We only have two arms and two legs. There are only so many ways you can hit, kick and grapple another human being.
Quote:
Some instructors may teach it differently, in a more self defense oriented way, I don't know.
That's all for now..
Good. Come on back.....I'll be eagerly waiting for you.
-John
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: BJJ reality check - 09/11/05 04:57 PM
I won't comment. JKogas and others have addressed this as comprehensively as I could have hoped to. I really think this thread has come to it's ultimate conclusion. I am locking it down. The myopic tendency of some people to conveniently place BJJ in a box when it suits them, is simply annoying at this point.
If someone has a good reason to open it back up, PM me.