Anti Grappling or Learn Jujitsu?

[Tempest]

See, I was trying not be quite this direct with it, but yeah, really what he said ^. Even if you learn the techniques, you really cannot gain the skill to apply them without actually doing it.

[bushido_man96]

Having been a stand up guy for years, and then moved to jiu jitsu pretty much full time, I've seen both sides of this discussion. For my money, the most effective way to counter grappling is to actually learn to grapple.

I agree with tallgeese. Spending some time grappling is important, because if you ever do end up on your back, you'll need to know how to improve position from there. It doesn't mean you have to become a full-time grappler, but spending the time to learn these things will pay huge dividends.

[TJ-Jitsu]

1#. Is anti grappling techniques a waste of time for stand up styles to learn?

2#. Should a stand up fighter just cross train in a Jujitsu ground fighting style to be an all round fighter?

Damaged Vertebraes in my neck are not going to stand up very long to chokes and head lock techniques, so what would an experienced grappler recommend in my situation 1# or 2# ?

Anything thats labeled as "anti-grappling" is usually good for humor, but not much else.

Those who can best avoid grappling are those that are themselves accomplished grapplers. Everyone's recommending a quality school to train, so we all seem to be on the same page. The next thing frankly is finding a quality instructor. Watch a few classes of where ever you might train, preferably one that has a good mix of various body types (big vs small, young vs old, strong vs weak, etc). See how the instructor handles the situation when you have young athletic guys that want to roll hard vs older/weaker/ less "gung hoe" type students. If its a fight club style school, I think you'd agree its not in your best interests. If on the other hand the instructor is able to cater to advanced and novice, big and small, and young and old throughout the class and most importantly during the live sparring- you'll have found a quality instructor with whom you'd probably enjoy working with.

One way I might recommend judging an instructors demeanor is by watching him teach a kids class if he has one. See how hard he pushes those that are less enthused about it. Is he and everyone else smiling? Are the children having a good time and less emphasis on TRAIN! If so you've got a patient coach that knows not everyone can be pushed in the same way. The irony of this suggestion is that I dont teach childrens classes because I cant stand them..... but I'd consider myself a good instructor

When it comes down to it, you're going to have to be choked and armlocked, you're going to have to be thrown and you're going to have to fight a little to learn these things. If this is done to you in a technical way you will have much fewer injuries, as opposed to a young college wrestler that wants to pry your head off.

[Nidan Melbourne]

Personally I feel like it is always important to have some training in both areas; especially if you are a stand-up fighter. Because from my experience most fights tend to end up on the ground, so you would want to know what to do there.

But at the same time it is important to know how to be a stand up fighter. As you can get the best of both worlds.

in my eyes jujitsu is great for learning how to get out of those situations that require various escapes and how to move.

[aazaaazaaazaaaza]

In my opinion, there's a difference between fighting and self-defense. A fight is a confrontation that both parties decide to engage in. Self-defense is when you're attacked against your will and you have no choice but to react violently. A fight can last a long time. A self-defense situation will usually last a few seconds.

What's your goal? If your goal is to fight people, then of course groundfighting technique is great to have. But if your goal is self-defense...well, you'll do a lot better knowing lethal striking techniques than how to grapple. A woman who's cornered in an elevator by a rapist isn't going to find BJJ useful; a series of open-hand strikes to vulnerable regions like the throat and the temple are far more realistic.

PS

There are many good techniques against tackling:

[TJ-Jitsu]

In my opinion, there's a difference between fighting and self-defense. A fight is a confrontation that both parties decide to engage in. Self-defense is when you're attacked against your will and you have no choice but to react violently. A fight can last a long time. A self-defense situation will usually last a few seconds.

What's your goal? If your goal is to fight people, then of course groundfighting technique is great to have. But if your goal is self-defense...well, you'll do a lot better knowing lethal striking techniques than how to grapple. A woman who's cornered in an elevator by a rapist isn't going to find BJJ useful; a series of open-hand strikes to vulnerable regions like the throat and the temple are far more realistic.

PS

There are many good techniques against tackling:

Thanks for stating your opinion! Thats always what gets conversations started, but allow me to explain where you're wrong.

I much agree with you on self defense vs fighting, in regards to how long either may last at least. So lets address your statement that "lethal" striking is better than learning how to grapple.

First I need to add the disclaimer that many people take to certain styles as opposed to others- I've known people that take to striking better than grappling, better to thai than boxing, and better to wrestling than jiu jitsu. As it pertains to self defense though, the one option available thats not available in a fight is to run away. In this sense, the only way that someone can keep you from running is to grab and attempt to restrain you- this becomes a grappling situation. Knowing how to grapple is of utmost importance in said situation, moreso than striking. If you're mentality is that your striking is so devestating that someone cant grab you, then you havent seen how modern fighting competitions have destroyed what were preconceived notions regarding martial arts over the past few decades. Theres nothing wrong with striking styles, but you suggest "lethal" striking as if to suggest its a better option. Once again the whole "deadly" thing was dispelled quite convincingly over the past few decades. Interestingly enough you present a scenario where, if there were ever a need or argument for grappling this would be it and yet you argue the opposite. Im going to guess that you havent trained in grappling, because the elevator scenario is one where you're pretty much guarenteed to have a grappling situation no matter who you put in there, and we're back to grappling. The other reason Im guessing you havent trained (at all) in grappling is because of the videos you posted.... let us analyze!

So videos 1 and 3 are two guys that have no idea what they're doing. Check that- 4 guys that have no idea what they're doing.

Heres the first problem- they've both go untrained unorthodox people who are attempting to do something that they themselves (from the looks of it) have NEVER done before in their lives. I.E. They're demonstrating against someone who has no idea what they're doing. They are both attempting to attack an opponent who has your hips and therefore has control. Hips are everything in grappling and for that matter everything in striking and fighting in general. Because someone has your hips, any strikes you attempt to throw will not have sufficient power to be of any use whatsoever. Its not your choice of attack thats the flaw, its the position you're choosing to attack from- something you learn very soon in jiu jitsu. I should also note the guy in the third video is grabbing with the wrong hand when hes doing a guillotine...

Now conveniently you posted the second video which I can use to qualify what Im saying and I dont need to go searching for others. In this video you see the only correct response to a shot/tackle/double leg- a sprawl. Notice the thai fighter sprawls successfully. This is the first and only thing that needs to be done so as to defend your hips. Once his hips are successfully defended, he then transfers to his own grappling clinch and gets control of his opponents posture (notice his opponents hips are far away...). Now he starts delivering his shots. This happens again and again you'll notice the thai fighter sprawling first and after defending the takedown is able to go on the offensive.

Sprawling is one of the first things you learn in grappling. Notice those not particularly familiar with grappling arent showing it, because they havent learned it. Because they havent learned it they're doomed to failure unless they fight against the most incapable of opponents. The concludes the point that there is no such thing as "anti-grappling." Anti grappling is grappling, so the very phrase is nonsensical. Again the problem here isnt that hes using the wrong strikes or that hes hitting the wrong areas- the problem is that hes doing it from a poor position.

[aazaaazaaazaaaza]

In my opinion, there's a difference between fighting and self-defense. A fight is a confrontation that both parties decide to engage in. Self-defense is when you're attacked against your will and you have no choice but to react violently. A fight can last a long time. A self-defense situation will usually last a few seconds.

What's your goal? If your goal is to fight people, then of course groundfighting technique is great to have. But if your goal is self-defense...well, you'll do a lot better knowing lethal striking techniques than how to grapple. A woman who's cornered in an elevator by a rapist isn't going to find BJJ useful; a series of open-hand strikes to vulnerable regions like the throat and the temple are far more realistic.

PS

There are many good techniques against tackling:

Thanks for stating your opinion! Thats always what gets conversations started, but allow me to explain where you're wrong.

I much agree with you on self defense vs fighting, in regards to how long either may last at least. So lets address your statement that "lethal" striking is better than learning how to grapple.

First I need to add the disclaimer that many people take to certain styles as opposed to others- I've known people that take to striking better than grappling, better to thai than boxing, and better to wrestling than jiu jitsu. As it pertains to self defense though, the one option available thats not available in a fight is to run away. In this sense, the only way that someone can keep you from running is to grab and attempt to restrain you- this becomes a grappling situation. Knowing how to grapple is of utmost importance in said situation, moreso than striking. If you're mentality is that your striking is so devestating that someone cant grab you, then you havent seen how modern fighting competitions have destroyed what were preconceived notions regarding martial arts over the past few decades. Theres nothing wrong with striking styles, but you suggest "lethal" striking as if to suggest its a better option. Once again the whole "deadly" thing was dispelled quite convincingly over the past few decades. Interestingly enough you present a scenario where, if there were ever a need or argument for grappling this would be it and yet you argue the opposite. Im going to guess that you havent trained in grappling, because the elevator scenario is one where you're pretty much guarenteed to have a grappling situation no matter who you put in there, and we're back to grappling. The other reason Im guessing you havent trained (at all) in grappling is because of the videos you posted.... let us analyze!

So videos 1 and 3 are two guys that have no idea what they're doing. Check that- 4 guys that have no idea what they're doing.

Heres the first problem- they've both go untrained unorthodox people who are attempting to do something that they themselves (from the looks of it) have NEVER done before in their lives. I.E. They're demonstrating against someone who has no idea what they're doing. They are both attempting to attack an opponent who has your hips and therefore has control. Hips are everything in grappling and for that matter everything in striking and fighting in general. Because someone has your hips, any strikes you attempt to throw will not have sufficient power to be of any use whatsoever. Its not your choice of attack thats the flaw, its the position you're choosing to attack from- something you learn very soon in jiu jitsu. I should also note the guy in the third video is grabbing with the wrong hand when hes doing a guillotine...

Now conveniently you posted the second video which I can use to qualify what Im saying and I dont need to go searching for others. In this video you see the only correct response to a shot/tackle/double leg- a sprawl. Notice the thai fighter sprawls successfully. This is the first and only thing that needs to be done so as to defend your hips. Once his hips are successfully defended, he then transfers to his own grappling clinch and gets control of his opponents posture (notice his opponents hips are far away...). Now he starts delivering his shots. This happens again and again you'll notice the thai fighter sprawling first and after defending the takedown is able to go on the offensive.

Sprawling is one of the first things you learn in grappling. Notice those not particularly familiar with grappling arent showing it, because they havent learned it. Because they havent learned it they're doomed to failure unless they fight against the most incapable of opponents. The concludes the point that there is no such thing as "anti-grappling." Anti grappling is grappling, so the very phrase is nonsensical. Again the problem here isnt that hes using the wrong strikes or that hes hitting the wrong areas- the problem is that hes doing it from a poor position.

I'm only speaking from personal experience. I've been in three self-defense situations in my life, and each of those three times I successfully neutralized my attacker. Two of those times I used open-hand strikes (the precise details elude me because they were high-stress situations and memory isn't too great in those moments), and in one I used an open-hand strike to the throat followed by o-soto-gari, if my memory is accurate.

Here's my belief. The average violent assailant is more likely to be armed than he is to be a BJJ grandmaster. He's also more likely to target weaker individuals, like women and the elderly. These people need realistic self-defense. I've done a lot of research on self-defense situations, and it's so exceedingly rare for an attacker to randomly tackle a victim. Most of the time, the attacker is looking for a quick hit and run; maybe the creep wants to feel up your sister, or maybe he wants to mug your grandpa. Maybe he's high on angel dust and decides to break into your home at 2am, armed and high out of his mind.

My take is that wrestling is common in street fights but rare to non-existent in self-defense scenarios. It's also about the law of probabilities. Sure, that guy mugging you might have a black belt in BJJ, but maybe you'll be walking down the street and some lunatic will decide to do a drive-by on you. Does the fact that it "might" happen warrant wearing a bulletproof vest 24/7? Or studying BJJ for a decade?

And let's say you wrestle your attacker to the ground. Ok, cool. Now what? The moment you let him go he's gonna hurt you. Maybe he has a nice switchblade or a tazer.

Plus, I always carry a concealed pistol these days. Much more reliable for self-defense.

EDIT:

I know all about sprawling. I work out with some buddies and we often practice takedown techniques in addition to sparring. It's not that I have zero experience with grappling. I just don't see it as a magic bullet.

[TJ-Jitsu]

I'm only speaking from personal experience. I've been in three self-defense situations in my life, and each of those three times I successfully neutralized my attacker. Two of those times I used open-hand strikes (the precise details elude me because they were high-stress situations and memory isn't too great in those moments), and in one I used an open-hand strike to the throat followed by o-soto-gari, if my memory is accurate.

Sure- sounds effective enough, but just because what you do was effective doesnt negate all other options either, nor does it mean it would have been equally effective in all situations either.

Here's my belief. The average violent assailant is more likely to be armed than he is to be a BJJ grandmaster. He's also more likely to target weaker individuals, like women and the elderly. These people need realistic self-defense. I've done a lot of research on self-defense situations, and it's so exceedingly rare for an attacker to randomly tackle a victim. Most of the time, the attacker is looking for a quick hit and run; maybe the creep wants to feel up your sister, or maybe he wants to mug your grandpa. Maybe he's high on angel dust and decides to break into your home at 2am, armed and high out of his mind.

My take is that wrestling is common in street fights but rare to non-existent in self-defense scenarios. It's also about the law of probabilities. Sure, that guy mugging you might have a black belt in BJJ, but maybe you'll be walking down the street and some lunatic will decide to do a drive-by on you. Does the fact that it "might" happen warrant wearing a bulletproof vest 24/7? Or studying BJJ for a decade?

Whether someone may or may not do "technique X" is hypothetical, so Im going to start with what I highlighted in your response. STRENGTH. They're looking for weaker targets. A 120lb woman is going to have quite a difficult time attempting to knock out a 180lb man. Thats a significant weight advantage there, and strength advantage to go with it. On the other hand, it takes only 5lbs of pressure to collapse the caratoid arteries and cause unconciousness. The chances are good that:

-people confronted tend to avoid conflict and attempt to flee

-the only way to prevent said escape is by grabbing someone, thereby grappling.

In short, if you can punch or kick, you can also run. We're talking self defense here, not fighting- so running would always take precedence. People also grapple significantly more often that you're taking into account- when you ask when and why you'll see it even with the best of strikers. Consider:

-many untrained (and trained for that matter) prefer to initiate fights with punches.

-one inevitably gets the better of the exchange

-knockdowns are more common that knock outs

-solid strikes are more common than knock downs.

-knockdowns from strikes are more often from a combination of multiple strikes rather than a single strike

So what happens when the fight starts with punches and one gets the better? The other instinctively grapples. Happens all the time you dont even need to be taught it. Watch a boxing match and look at what the referees primary job is- to keep two individuals who spend their entire lives throwing strikes from grabbing each other

And let's say you wrestle your attacker to the ground. Ok, cool. Now what? The moment you let him go he's gonna hurt you. Maybe he has a nice switchblade or a tazer.

The takedown is the most difficult part of the grappling game (usually) but is the beginning of a download slope. Once someone is down the next thing that happens is you choke them unconcious... No need to worry about what they might do then.

If they do have a switchblade or tazer, the chances are quite nil they're going to get their hands on it once they're grabbed. They also wouldnt win criminal of the year award if they waited until after the situation started to brandish a weapon. Once the weapon is out and in his hand, well thats a whole different discussion and unarmed combat be it grappling or striking is at a significant disdadvantage at this point.

Plus, I always carry a concealed pistol these days. Much more reliable for self-defense.

Depends if you consider the outcome. Problem is a gun is lethal force only or none at all. Many self defense situations arent what you see in self defense videos where a masked rapist armed with a knife charges you from 21 feet away. They tend to be much more subtle. No doubt a firearm is the ultimate means of protecting yourself from an attacker, but maybe you're dealing with an intoxicated friend who things you're macking it with his girlfriend, or some guy complaining that you cut in front of him at the supermarket. I mean, sure a gun will solve both of those problems, but that doesnt mean there may not be a better alternative yeah?

I know all about sprawling. I work out with some buddies and we often practice takedown techniques in addition to sparring. It's not that I have zero experience with grappling. I just don't see it as a magic bullet.

You have to understand that grappling (or martial arts even, I should say) isnt like reading a book of facts and saying "Oh, ok- I know that now." Its not unlike striking in that sense. Theres someone who practices fighting twice a week. A hobbyist. Much different than a competitor who himself is much different than a professional competitor and to be a pro doesnt necessitate one is world class either. In short, its not whether you know it or not but how well you know it and how well you can execute it.

[Alan Armstrong]

For martial arts self defence to be practiced realistically, in fact it isn't realistic.

Places people need to defend themselves in are on trains and buses, elevators and public staircases, parking lots and in their own car, or in an office or a public washroom; parkways and crossing bridges.

Places and environments that are very un-dojo like do need to be considered as potential places of danger.

Dojos are a safe place to train in and are most likely the place that being attacked in will never happen!

[TJ-Jitsu]

For martial arts self defence to be practiced realistically, in fact it isn't realistic.

Places people need to defend themselves in are on trains and buses, elevators and public staircases, parking lots and in their own car, or in an office or a public washroom; parkways and crossing bridges.

Places and environments that are very un-dojo like do need to be considered as potential places of danger.

Dojos are a safe place to train in and are most likely the place that being attacked in will never happen!

I disagree- what ever environment you're in your opponent is also in too, therefore both of you are back to neutral as it were. For example, I've been in fights in bars, bathrooms, sidewalks, city streets, basements, parking lots, and so forth. The altercation doesnt suddenly change because the environment did and no one was more difficult than the other. In short, it sounds like a strawman argument to me...