Why Krav Maga is Garbage, and Wrestling/BJJ/Boxing isn't so bad

[Thaijitsu612]

Yes, JJ is great for subduing suspects. But there's a difference betweem a cop submitting a suspect and a guy defending himself, or a girl fending off a rapist. As a cop, you're more likely to be respected anyway.

Here's what it boils down to. Suppose a thug corners you at an ATM. Let's say you, being a BJJ man, throw a low kick to distract him and then tackle him, amd then let's say you put into an armbar.

Ok. Now what? Soon as you let him free, he's going to attack. You'll have to injure him before you let him go.

The two guys in my videos used karate in legitimate self-defense and it worked exactly as it was meant to.

Why would I use a low kick to armbar combo? Why not choke him out? Why not GnP? Or why not break his arm if I do use an armbar?

I have been doing muay thai and boxing for as long as I have been grappling. By my training partners accounts I am a better striker then grappler. I am very confident in my striking. But in a street fight I believe grappling is superior unless I'm outnumbered.

And no, people who fight me on the job do not respect cops.

 

[kamalayka]

Agree that best self defense would be joining military or learning how to use gun and being a good runner, and just using common sense to avoid dangerous situations.

Out of all martial arts systems/philosophies/etc, non military, i.e. the martial arts for the masses, training for and competing in MMA is hands down does the best job preparing one for self defense. The fact that there are rules is not a good counter argument. Karate has rules. Penjak silat has rules. Boxing has rules. They all have rules.

Just because a system does choreographed routines or no contact repetitions of "deadly techniques", does not mean they don't have rules and that their practitioners can just go to town on each other. You can only judge a system based on whatever it trains live.

How is this still a discussion in 2017.

But the problem with MMA is the assumption that grappling someone always ends with the guy either tapping you or the round ending.

In a real fight, using BJJ will inevitably bring you to a place where your attacker will need to tap out, which leads to one of three scenarios: (a) you let him go and he attacks once more, (b) you don't let him go and it's a dangerous stalemate, or (c) you injure him before releasing him, which might get you into trouble with the law.

Jujitsu was developed by samurai as a means of fighting armored opponents. Subduing the opponent was the first half of the equation; pulling out your small sword and finishing him was the second. Of course, you can't go around stabbing people, so jujitsu is very much neutered as a self-defense system. What makes BJJ worse is that many BJJ guys seem to totally ignore throws and other stand-up techniques.

Look at any YouTube video of BJJ winning a street fight. Almost all of them end with the BJJ holding the other guy, afraid to let him go, until the spectators break up the fight. One example that comes to mind is when Gracie fought the bodybuilder. The fight ended with an armbar, but it took several people to intervene before Gracie felt safe enough to let go.

That's why I don't care for BJJ as a self-defense system. Unless you're prepared to take a technique all the way home, you're going to get wailed on the moment you let go (or intercept his new attack and go back to where you were a moment ago).

That's not to say you shouldn't have ground skills. It's just that you shouldn't go there if you can avoid it, and BJJ, from what I've seen, has a peculiar habit of seeking the ground first.

 

[kamalayka]

Why would I use a low kick to armbar combo? Why not choke him out? Why not GnP? Or why not break his arm if I do use an armbar?

I have been doing muay thai and boxing for as long as I have been grappling. By my training partners accounts I am a better striker then grappler. I am very confident in my striking. But in a street fight I believe grappling is superior unless I'm outnumbered.

And no, people who fight me on the job do not respect cops.

But if you grapple your attacker, then what? That's the problem.

 

[Thaijitsu612]

But if you grapple your attacker, then what? That's the problem.

Uh..I pound him out with elbows or choke him unconscious then get in my car and leave?

 

[j123]

Of course, you can't go around stabbing people...

Sure you can

 

[BJJ_Rage]

But the problem with MMA is the assumption that grappling someone always ends with the guy either tapping you or the round ending.

In a real fight, using BJJ will inevitably bring you to a place where your attacker will need to tap out, which leads to one of three scenarios: (a) you let him go and he attacks once more, (b) you don't let him go and it's a dangerous stalemate, or (c) you injure him before releasing him, which might get you into trouble with the law.

Jujitsu was developed by samurai as a means of fighting armored opponents. Subduing the opponent was the first half of the equation; pulling out your small sword and finishing him was the second. Of course, you can't go around stabbing people, so jujitsu is very much neutered as a self-defense system. What makes BJJ worse is that many BJJ guys seem to totally ignore throws and other stand-up techniques.

Look at any YouTube video of BJJ winning a street fight. Almost all of them end with the BJJ holding the other guy, afraid to let him go, until the spectators break up the fight. One example that comes to mind is when Gracie fought the bodybuilder. The fight ended with an armbar, but it took several people to intervene before Gracie felt safe enough to let go.

That's why I don't care for BJJ as a self-defense system. Unless you're prepared to take a technique all the way home, you're going to get wailed on the moment you let go (or intercept his new attack and go back to where you were a moment ago).

That's not to say you shouldn't have ground skills. It's just that you shouldn't go there if you can avoid it, and BJJ, from what I've seen, has a peculiar habit of seeking the ground first.

jesus fucking christ.... you do realize I can choke you in 100 different ways, get up and leave or beat the living shit out of you while you sleeping? AFRAID to let go? lmfao why the fuck would anyone be afraid to let go? where do you get all this shit from? oh I know.. your ass...

you must be trolling, no one can be this silly.

 

[kamalayka]

jesus fucking christ.... you do realize I can choke you in 100 different ways, get up and leave or beat the living shit out of you while you sleeping? AFRAID to let go? lmfao why the fuck would anyone be afraid to let go? where do you get all this shit from? oh I know.. your ass...

you must be trolling, no one can be this silly.

Maybe you didn't read my entire post. Honestly, I don't care. This is just going in circles and I see no point in prolonging it.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Maybe you didn't read my entire post. Honestly, I don't care. This is just going in circles and I see no point in prolonging it.

Of course i did it, the stupid shit you wrote it's impossible to pass by...

 

[Thycidides]

What's funny is that dirty tactics are very common in BJJ especially if you roll with new people white belts etc.

I wear swim goggles sometimes to avoid getting poked in the eye and a cup in tournaments to avoid getting hit in the groin.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Since the topic of a knife fight was brought up..I want to put my theory to the test..

I actually think a person with a knife against either someone with a boxing or MT background is actually more at a disadvantage..more than likely, the guy holding the knife (in his right hand for example) is not going to try and throw a jab at you or kick you..so you really only have one threat to watch out for..the boxer, you have 2 weapons in your arsenal, the MT guy has 8..so it's really all about controlling the distance..

Thoughts?

There's a reason that knives aren't allowed in boxing or MT, and its not because the person who is given the knife is going to be at a disadvantage against the guy who doesn't have the knife.