I want to know your thought on what Marc 'Animal' MacYoung said about grappling ...

33Breeze

Orange Belt
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
0
I just want to know some of your thoughts about what Marc 'Animal' Macyoung says about grappling in a self defense situation:

I have four basic standards about groundfighting:
1) Submission fighting is to be used only on people who you want to
control and *NOT* injure (e.g. a drunk friend OR someone you are
trying to arrest).
2) Those circumstances are NOT self-defense scenarios
3) If you end up on the ground against someone trying to seriously hurt
you, you've either screwed up or he got the drop on you
4) Get up immediately

Those are based on a lot of experience with violence where you ARE trying to maim the other person -- and he's going for the same. In short, real-life violence. I'm not talking about the safety of a ring or under the auspices of sports fighting, but in places where multiple opponents and weapons were very much how violence happened.

Does this mean I am against grappling?

Does it mean I don't think it's worth learning?

Does this mean I am inexperienced on the ground?

No.

G
 
part 2
grappling is a fine tool. It is, in fact, a GREAT tool -- for certain jobs. And for those jobs there is absolutely NO better tool.

However, grappling is NOT the ultimate tool. Nor is it a wunder-tool that works for every situation.

Those statements should be self-evident. But, when I talk about the limits of grappling, that's when -- instead of explaining why I'm wrong about what I'm saying -- the personal attacks start up. What is especially common is the false 'proof' that, because I do not step into the ring with professional and semi-professional athletes, what I say about the limitations of grappling OUTSIDE the ring is wrong.

Isn't it curious that they want to prove me wrong about 'grappling outside the ring' by having me step into the ring? That's what's called 'circular reasoning' (1).

Regardless of their one-sided proofs (like I said, they conveniently ignore nobody wanting to step into an alley with me and five friends) that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of experience with ground fighting and using grappling to control someone. I do have a lot of experience with ground fighting. That is why I DON'T dismiss the value of grappling ... I just say there are limits.

Those experiences -- including watching a guy get "stomped" by upwards of twenty people while on the ground -- makes me a little leery about the myth of universal applicability of grappling in so-called "real" fights. And yes, my attitudes about grappling are backed up by my personal groundfighting experiences. A MMA shoot/tackle is warm and fuzzy in comparison to some of the nasty stuff I've had pulled (and pulled) on the way to the ground in conflicts. Conflicts where the goal was to physically injure someone. These include numerous times on the ground where eye gouges, head butts, biting, knees and elbows -- by both sides -- ended the grappling part of the fight.

When you gouge out someone's eyeball, they aren't real hot-and-bothered to say wrapped up with you. And yes, I have been kicked by an on-looker while trying to restrain someone. While I have missed the having a chair smashed over my head while down there, I have seen it happen. This damage is over and above if something wasn't broken, cracked or crushed on landing -- which experienced streetfighters attempt to develop on the way to the ground.

The simple fact is that I'm NOT against grappling. I cannot say this enough though because some Kool-Aid drinker will STILL be convinced that I'm badmouthing grappling because I'm talk about where you shouldn't try to use it. Like I said, it's a GREAT tool for the proper circumstances. And in those circumstances there is nothing better.

What I am against is the marketing and advertising that tells people it is applicable in every kind of violence.

If you buy into this propaganda, if you believe that you can handle any kind of violent situation because you've been trained to fight at multiple ranges ... then you WILL get killed or injured the first time you mix up with someone who ISN'T there to fight you.

But that isn't what this page is about, what it is about is: Should you cross train?

The answer is "Yes." Here is why...

Why IS grappling effective?
In his book The High Crusade Poul Anderson speculated on what would happen if an advanced alien species attempted to conquer earth immediately after the Crusades. The premise of the book was that these aliens had become extremely adept at long-range, artillery-type warfare. They were shocked and confused when the knights, instead of hanging back and attempting to do battle at a distance, charged them and over-ran their positions. This simple, savage strategy worked only because the aliens had lost the ability to effectively fight at close quarters.

The success of grappling in the early Ultimate Fighting Championships is due, in a large part, to the failure of sports-based martial arts in the West. Ever since the introduction of gloved boxing, sport fighting has moved away from the old "bare knuckle/London rules" form. That kind of pugilism was designed to prevent clinches, headbutts, purring and a whole host of other vicious in-close tricks associated with their version of grappling. The addition of padded gloves prevented many of these moves. And in time, sport fighting became a "sniping" game. Opponents do not rush each other, but hang back and exchanged blows and kicks from a distance.

And in doing so, they forgot that an opponent could charge in and take them down.

Wrestling and grappling are very popular sporting events in South America, however. "Brazilian" Jujitsu matches are events. These fighters hadn't forgotten about charging in -- but it was still a sport. And that means it had events, rules, weight division, safety equipment and organizations to give ranks, belts and titles.

In the first Ultimate Fighting Championship, Northern Hemisphere fighters were just run over. Like the aliens in Anderson's book, they had forgotten that this kind of fighting even existed. And if you've forgotten something exists you won't have the vaguest idea how to counter it.

People flocked to the Gracie Jujitsu Academy(s), other so-called "Brazilian" Jujitsu schools and Val Tudo institutes to fill this hole in their training. And this is a good thing, as knowing how to grapple is a useful skill.

You will notice, however, their reputation made, the Gracies withdrew from the later UFC events. We can safely assume that by that time, Northern Hemisphere fighters had begun to watch tapes, study their moves to discover ways to counter ... what had, at first, flummoxed them. A point proven by the fact that later UFC champs had names like Shamrock and Severson instead of Gracie.

In short, both the shock -- and the new -- had worn off and people once again remembered that grappling was an issue to be dealt with.
 
who is marc macyoung and why should i care what he thinks?

(i really dont know who he is)
 
part 3

This is not to disparage the Gracies, they are fine athletes and, in their time, they ruled the ring. But, as they introduced a new and evolutionary change to sports fighting, other people have continued to evolve and introduce new developments -- including ways to counter their changes. Thus is the cycle of the martial arts, they is always changing and evolving to meet "new" influences. And thus were 'born' mixed martial arts.

It is never static, it is always changing. And sometimes what is "new" is something that is actually old, but left behind because people had found a counter way back then. Often until the counter is "rediscovered" this will create the latest fad in martial arts training.

What we are basically saying here is that grappling is extremely effective in a sport competition. It is tailor made to function in an environment where death or crippling of your opponent is NOT the goal.
Return to top of page

Where doesn't submission fighting work?
While it is important to know how to keep your head when you go to the ground, let's start by saying that if groundfighting was all that effective, armies would lie down when they fought. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't carry weapons, instead they'd use submission holds and mounting positions to defeat the other army's soldiers.

Since that is not the case, we must assume that grappling is not as universally effective as its proponents would claim.(2)

To truly understand where submission fighting doesn't work, we must understand where it does work. (And I will admit works spectacularly).

1) In a one-on-one confrontation
2) In an open, but limited, space
3) On padded, clear surfaces
4) Without weapons
5) With rules
6) When people aren't trying to kill each other

In other words, in a sporting event.

We can also say that it works under *very* limited conditions in a so-called 'real' fight. But it has to be a very specific kind of confrontation. In fact, the term 'submission fighting' IS a perfect choice of words. Grappling is GREAT for when your goals in a conflict are
a) to not injure your opponent
b) to restrain and control someone from further misconduct.
Are these good goals for most violent incidents? You betcha! That's because most incidents of violence are NOT about self-defense, they are instead about establishing social order. But you can't rely on ALL altercations being of this self-limiting, non-destructive type.

Unfortunately, although less so these days, a huge part of the marketing of grappling is to promote its usability in all kinds of violence. This is not only just not true, but it is a dangerous misconception.

So let's look at the elements, or more specifically the issues that *will* undermine submission fighting's effectiveness.

Multiple opponents - Trouble most often runs in packs. If you don't plan to face multiple opponents, you are not really training for self defense. Seldom will a friend watch another friend be defeated without making at least a token effort to join help. That is human nature, and ignoring it is a dangerous mistake -- especially since a friend's help can often be in the form of a bottle or a rock. Since you are involved on the ground in a one-on-one contest with all your limbs engaged and limited mobility you are vulnerable to a second attack from above. There is also the issue -- in less reputable locations -- of spectators joining in and kicking you both ... just for the fun of it.

In a not so open space, e.g. furniture, curbs and other people - While the floor work itself may not take a lot of room, going down usually does. Objects such as tables, chairs and bystanders pose chances of serious injury if you fall onto them -- especially if you have someone else's body weight driving you there.

In a truly open space - Since "grappling" made it's name in the UFC, we need to look at the circumstances of that event. You will see in many of the take downs that the "victim" had run out of room when it came to backing up. He was trapped against the "ropes." It's amazing how hard it is to catch someone, much less take them down, who has lots of room to backpedal or dodge.

Asphalt, rocks, bottles, etc. - Many "going to the ground" techniques are designed to work on pads, mats and smooth floors. Seldom do these conditions exist outside the dojo. A slap fall on asphalt will not only tear up your hand, but it can result in a shattered bones. Hitting concrete with another person landing on top of you is a painful -- often fight stopping -- experience. Now you may think "that is the idea," but that is assuming that you are controlling the fall. A cagey fighter might not let you land on top of him, and that makes it as much your problem as his. Then there is the issue of bottles and glasses that you might land on. While you might at first think, "there aren't glasses/bottles/etc laying on the floor of the bar," that's under normal conditions, but if someone tackles you and you run into another person or tip over a table, those items can and will be knocked to the ground at the same speed as you.

Without weapons - This is even more dangerous misconception than assuming that you will only be fighting one person at a time. Once weapons come into play, it is no longer fighting, it's combat. The ground is the absolute *last* place you want to be with an armed opponent. Under those circumstances, all your so-called "advantage" turns against you because you cannot escape or avoid a weapon attack fast enough when you are on the ground.

Rules - Although the UFC was touted as "no rules," or more specifically "no holds barred," many of the more nasty and brutal moves were banned. Until you have endured these moves, it is easy to assume that you can "tough them out." Experience proves differently. Many of these techniques are so savage that people don't believe others would stoop so low -- and are therefore unprepared to handle them. This utterly undermines the assertion of many grapplers that "Well, we can do them too!"
 
ok after i posted i saw your second post - so the weakness of grappling is that you can't fend off multiple attackers? show me a martial art that can!

thats not exactly a bold statement. In a one on one situation, grappling is the best self-defense to have. in a multiple attacker situation, a great pair of running shoes is the best defense.
 
ok after i posted i saw your second post - so the weakness of grappling is that you can't fend off multiple attackers? show me a martial art that can!

thats not exactly a bold statement. In a one on one situation, grappling is the best self-defense to have. in a multiple attacker situation, a great pair of running shoes is the best defense.

He also says grappling isn't good when the attacker has a knife.
 
i think he is a RBSD fan, with little to no understanding of grappling/mma and poorly reasoned arguments, i ahve never heard of him either btw
 
Again, who is this guy and why should I care what he thinks?

If the guy has a knife and you can grab his wrist and then kimura him I think that would work well.

If his main point is that grappling has limited application to real life situations, then my question is: what kind of grappling?

BJJ today is not about self-defense. Its a sport, whether in itself or as a supplement for MMA. But the bottom line is the very way its trained is what separates it from the supposedly "effective" self-defense systems.

Only by training full speed can you really learn how to use techniques in an adrenaline rushed, threatening situation. No matter how many times you drill your knife disarming techniques, unless you are training it full speed it won't help you.

But - if I was in a one on one fight I would rather be trained in BJJ than anything else. Maybe Judo or wrestling - basically some type of grappling. Thats my opinion at least.
 
Again, who is this guy and why should I care what he thinks?

If the guy has a knife and you can grab his wrist and then kimura him I think that would work well.

If his main point is that grappling has limited application to real life situations, then my question is: what kind of grappling?

BJJ today is not about self-defense. Its a sport, whether in itself or as a supplement for MMA. But the bottom line is the very way its trained is what separates it from the supposedly "effective" self-defense systems.

Only by training full speed can you really learn how to use techniques in an adrenaline rushed, threatening situation. No matter how many times you drill your knife disarming techniques, unless you are training it full speed it won't help you.

But - if I was in a one on one fight I would rather be trained in BJJ than anything else. Maybe Judo or wrestling - basically some type of grappling. Thats my opinion at least.

He is an author of several self defense books and he claims to have been in a lot of street fights. here is a link:Who is Marc Animal MacYoung?

I think he believes learning the grappling is valuable, but that we should be oriented toward striking in self defense situations because you are more likely to escape on your feet and if someone has a knife you need distance and an opportunity to escape.
 
Some interesting points there. I'm been a long time practitioner of jiu-jitsu/grappling and until some point MMA and while I respect and love BJJ, I have to blame the Gracies for this.

When BJJ was first introduced in U.S. due to UFC, the Gracies did a magnificent marketing campaign to present BJJ like the ultimate form of self-defense. Beat any opponent regardless of weight using ground fighting.

Forward 10 years since the first UFC and I highly doubt there is any new instructor out there telling their students that BJJ is the ultimate self-defense form. In fact, a fair example is my old instructor, a new BB from Gracie Barra. I used to discuss with him the same topic and this was basically the answer and conclusion we came upon: Jiu-Jitsu doesn`t teach you how to win fights but it teach you how to survive fights".

The reason being, in any street confrontation, there are many X-factor involved. Flash KO, multiple opponents, weapons, environments, etc. It`s not ideal under common sense to pretend you`re going to jump guard and work some DLR sweep in some street fight, when someone use a weapon, etc.

My old instructor also has a good knowledge of self-defense moves, disarming opponents with weapons, etc from the Gracie self-defense methods and Krav-maga. He also teach these methods to everybody under him.

Now, I was wondering why waste time teaching something that might not be effective. He told me he never recommended or advocate students to jump in front of someone with a weapon and try to disarm them but the reason behind teach self defense was to give students something to rely on when there is no other way to avoid confrontation.
 
Some interesting points there. I'm been a long time practitioner of jiu-jitsu/grappling and until some point MMA and while I respect and love BJJ, I have to blame the Gracies for this.

When BJJ was first introduced in U.S. due to UFC, the Gracies did a magnificent marketing campaign to present BJJ like the ultimate form of self-defense. Beat any opponent regardless of weight using ground fighting.

Forward 10 years since the first UFC and I highly doubt there is any new instructor out there telling their students that BJJ is the ultimate self-defense form. In fact, a fair example is my old instructor, a new BB from Gracie Barra. I used to discuss with him the same topic and this was basically the answer and conclusion we came upon: Jiu-Jitsu doesn`t teach you how to win fights but it teach you how to survive fights".

The reason being, in any street confrontation, there are many X-factor involved. Flash KO, multiple opponents, weapons, environments, etc. It`s not ideal under common sense to pretend you`re going to jump guard and work some DLR sweep in some street fight, when someone use a weapon, etc.

My old instructor also has a good knowledge of self-defense moves, disarming opponents with weapons, etc from the Gracie self-defense methods and Krav-maga. He also teach these methods to everybody under him.

Now, I was wondering why waste time teaching something that might not be effective. He told me he never recommended or advocate students to jump in front of someone with a weapon and try to disarm them but the reason behind teach self defense was to give students something to rely on when there is no other way to avoid confrontation.

That's a great point.
 
"including watching a guy get "stomped" by upwards of twenty people while on the ground --"

I stopped reading there.

Clearly it was grappling that lost this fight. Had they guy stayed standing, those 20 dudes were screwed.


If im grappling in a fight its because I want top position. If im on my back, playing my guard, its because I got put there, and im trying to get out.

But if I take it to the ground, and I have top position, I can get up whenever I needbe, and control the fight until then.
 
He is an author of several self defense books and he claims to have been in a lot of street fights. here is a link:Who is Marc Animal MacYoung?

I think he believes learning the grappling is valuable, but that we should be oriented toward striking in self defense situations because you are more likely to escape on your feet and if someone has a knife you need distance and an opportunity to escape.

Marc MacYoung is a typical condescending know-it-all. Anyone who reads anything that is written by him constantly reminded of how he grew up in the streets and was so bad ass he had contracts on his head, and survived numerous attempts on his life, how much more violence than any self-defense instructor, blah blah blah. He seems to think that "street-fighters" have some kind of magic power that negates all "traditional martial arts". Not to mention all these "street-fighters" roam in packs now days - so self-defense is pretty much useless.

Also, this is the same guy who was peddling some bent wrist rabbit punch - quiet possible the most retarded things I've ever seen.
 
Grappling isn't the be all and end all of self defence but it's obviously useful to know.

To cause death or crippling injury is the purpose of submission holds so he's simply wrong there. Just because we release holds in training doesn't mean they can't be applied on the street.

Judo or wrestling throws are also likely to cause serious injury or death when applied without restraint. Far from only being effective in competition, they are even more deadly outside without mats.

He also seems to think we all have a Get in my Guard mentality. I don't think that's true. Judging from the weapons and tactics forum the average Sherdogger packs all kinds of weaponry.
 
how come in these multiple attacker scenarios its always one grappler vs 5 or more street fighters or strikers?

What if 5 jiu jitsu black belts jumped a single 'insert made up style name here' practitioner?

One BB to tear him up and 4 to stand around and watch?
 
In a cage you do not have to worry about someone gouging your eye out. You do not have to worry about someone sticking a knife in you.

If you are fighting and facing several people it is always a mistake to give to much attention to one person. Arm bar. Great move. You have someone standing over you while you do it you are wide open to attack. If you are facing several people you have to have quick brutal attacks.

There are attacks that can be used against a grappler with little or no skill involved. Five on two (grab the balls and squeeze), eye gouge, rip their ear off. Grappling is great but best when things are one on one.

Being in alot of street fights is fine but most street fights are not very serious. You break a nose and most guys will back off. Life and death fights are different. And yes, I know this through experience.
 
Agree- Grappling is not applicable 1-to-1 on the streets for reasons he mentioned (Nothing is!!!)

Agree- The mindest of the attacker and defender are CRUCIAL in a real fight. If one is there to kill and you are just trying to use some BJJ to take it easy on the guy, you have a serious problem

Disagree- BJJ is now being countered by everyone in MMA, because they have learned about the style and how to counter it (Yeah sure, Demian Maia anyone?)

Disagree- Grappling is good if you don't want to seriously harm someone (Sure, like breaking someone's arm in 2 places or choking someone out and then heelhooking him like Bas Rutten)

Disagree- Biting etc. negates grappling in a real fight. Yes you need to be aware of these things, If you train strictly sport, they will throw you off. But how about a biting, scratching and elbowing grappler (like Roy Harris), what is worse? If you end up on the ground your BJJ instincts will help you, even if they start biting.

... etc.
 
He also listed the reasons where grappling is effective...his summary..in a sporting event.

I feel this is QUITE convenient since he would never have to back his claims in competition.

He already has a disclaimer, "hey I said grappling was good in a sporting event."
 
He is an author of several self defense books and he claims to have been in a lot of street fights. here is a link:Who is Marc Animal MacYoung?

I think he believes learning the grappling is valuable, but that we should be oriented toward striking in self defense situations because you are more likely to escape on your feet and if someone has a knife you need distance and an opportunity to escape.

so his credentials are being in street fights?
 
Back
Top