bjj for self defense

[aznkarateboi]

ok as you might know by now I am considering going to a bjj/mt/kali school that is close to my area. however, from the looks of it bjj is purely fighting on the ground. can bjj be used when standing up? i.e. someone grabs/bearhugs you, puts you in a headlock, grabs your shirt, grabs your wrist, etc.

[Anzie]

I've never tried out BJJ, but I believe it has alot of self defence standing against grapplingmoves like bearhugs and chokes. As always, it depends on the school and the best and only(?) way to find out is to call the club and ask. (BTW, I've read Royce Gracie and Charles Gracie + Kid Peligro's book about self defence. I reckon there are some techniques dere equal to BJJ's, and they are highly effective most of them)

[Treebranch]

Sure BJJ can be used for self defense, but it's mostly a ground fighting MA. So if there's no ground you're out of luck. Just joking. I think there are other MA's out there better suited for self defense. But BJJ would be a good addition to any fighting style.

[Kirves]

BJJ does have standup defences and throws, but because of sport focus, often most of the training is done on the ground. Depends a little on the instructor's preference too.

 

MT is good for stand-up game, BJJ complements this by being good on the ground. Kali is good when dealing with weapons.

 

I wish all women knew BJJ, then rapists would have hard time finding easy victims...

[JohnnyS]

BJJ does have good standing techniques, but it depends on the instructor. A lot of people, especially the advanced guys, won't want to go over it. If there's a beginner class at the school then they might, but you can always ask the instructor. If he knows people are interested in it then he'll probably have no problem teaching it to you.

[Martial_Artist]

Not alone, but coupled with something can add to effectiveness.

[JohnnyS]

Martial_Artist, what's your basis for your statement ?

[SBN Doug]

Don't let BJJ's dominance on the ground make you think it can't be used standing up, because it can.

 

Besides, as already stated, it's probably the reason this school teached MT as well, to make up for any weaknesses in the standing techniques. Combine them both, and you'll be well equiped.

[Martial_Artist]

The basis for my statement is that it is a solitary art with a primary focus that limits the fighter. While it may bring in other ranges to the fight, that is not its primary function. Thus, it is good, but not by itself. It, IMO, must be coupled with other arts in order to achieve a balance necessary for self-defense. We are talking outside the ring where the possibilty for random change in circumstance is high. In the ring, you will face only one opponent at a time and that opponent will not be armed. Outside, there is no certainty.

 

Taking an opponent to the ground, or otherwise restraining them, also restrains you. While you have them in an armbar, your hands are also busy and you are left susceptible to external attack from an outside source. Same for taking the fight to the ground. While you are in the guard, what's to stop someone from hitting you in the back of the head with a iron bar while you are busy contending with the guy on the ground? Also, being on the ground is not the best defendable position, tactically. You cannot manuever as quickly as you can on your feet, i.e. change position, direction, or distance. (I've seen Tito Oritz 'crawl' after an opponent in the ring, reaching out with one arm to try and save a missed take down. His opponent just kept backing up.) It is faster to move on your feet than crawl.

 

Being on the ground in a self-defense situation just isn't sound. Why would you want to take an opponent to the ground when, while busy with him, you are completely susceptible to outside attack: you are on the ground. You are facing down, your hands are busy, you cannot manuever as quickly as when you were standing, &c. Even simpl placing a choke hold, armbar, or other restraining hold on an opponent leaves you just as vulnerable. Because you cannot define the uncertain. And in a self-defense situation you are doing all you can to control the uncertain and survive.

 

Again, though some other techniques are taught or even worked on besides grappling the primary function and focus of BJJ (or any other grappling art) to grab. Grabbing, while can be effective at times, also does one thing negative in a random fight situation: entangles your hands as well. That's why BJJ is a grappling art. That's its most center core. While some schools and teachers teach the striking, teach the standing, that's not what BJJ is about. The core of its effectiveness is grappling. If not, if would be classified as a striking art, not known world wide as a grappling art.

 

So, BJJ, can be a good addition to a self-defense program. But alone, IMO, it is lacking and needs to be supplemented. Because, limitation is detrimental to the martial artist seeking ability in a self-defense situation. Any form of limitation to knowledge might cost you your life. And self-defense is the topic here. I won't argue BJJ effectiveness in the ring, because, well, it has won in the ring. But the ring is not the outside world.

 

That's my basis for stating: "not alone, but coupled with something..."

[RAZOR]

I have to say i agree with Martial AstistI think he is spot on and the stand up fight usually happens before the ground bit so its best to know good stand up as well.