The Mendes Bros on Self Defense [Video]

[brendan raedy]

When are the many times we've seen someone pounded out from 50/50? All the strongest muscles in your body are pointed directly at your opponents hip, and you can break his knee with minmal effort.

I can think of Pe De Pano vs Arlovski off the top of my head.

 

[Balto]

http://instagram.com/p/yqwan0Cths

Nice

 

[SBJ]

 

[randomg1t]

Or you stay alive, win, and write a whole document called The Constitution for your new country called America.

It is extremely clear historically that the main idea behind the Second Amendment was to create a militia that was not under central government control. It was included because the existence of such militias was a major reason the American Revolution was won in the first place.

This reality was, of course, very fresh in the minds of the Framers who had just fought this war a couple years before they wrote the Bill of Rights.

yeah, in 1780. i'm talking about right now. what happens if your government does something that is clearly an act of tyranny, and you take your gun and start shooting at officials?

let's see. you get shot by a sniper and the media talks about what a lunatic you were for 5 weeks straight. you, clearly the good guy with the gun, are suddenly a terrorist bad guy.

Randomgt1, does your government clip your testicles at birth? Or, is it an outpatient procedure later on?

eat a buffet of dicks.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO STAND UP TO A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

I will let the Declaration of Independence say it for me

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This takes guns. We wouldn't be a country right now if the average citizen did not own a gun. When the British tried to take those guns, that is how the American Revolution began.

so, the NSA listens to every word you say on your phone, logs every message you send online, keeps track of every search you've ever entered into google. they do this indiscriminately, and mostly use this information so that they have leverage over anyone, at any time. that's seems very much like tyranny to me.

why aren't you using your gun and your bigass knife to storm their headquarters as we speak? what outcome would you expect if you did?

all of you claiming you keep your weapons to protect yourselves of your government are full of shit. this is 2015. raising your arms against a "democratic" government will result in smearing of your name by the media and a bullet delivered directly into your brain. or maybe you'll just be locked up in a bay in cuba.

yes, guns came in handy 3 centuries ago when you fought for your independence. no, that does not mean it makes sense for every man woman and child to be armed to the teeth in the 21st.

 

[randomg1t]

Self defense is acting like a mature, productive member of society and not fighting unless you have exhausted all options at conflict avoidance and you have absolutely, positively no choice but to defend yourself or your loved ones.

surely you have girly parts or live in a magical land where people aren't raped and murdered by the thousands every day! self defense means carrying a large caliber gun, a knife, a baseball bat and a grenade - and using all of them when someone grabs your sandwich, looks at your wife, or steps on your property.

also, tyranny and independence.

 

[brendan raedy]

surely you have girly parts or live in a magical land where people aren't raped and murdered by the thousands every day! self defense means carrying a large caliber gun, a knife, a baseball bat and a grenade - and using all of them when someone grabs your sandwich, looks at your wife, or steps on your property.

also, tyranny and independence.

I don't need BJJ to be a tank for me, because I own an actual tank.

 

[Balto]

yeah, in 1780. i'm talking about right now. what happens if your government does something that is clearly an act of tyranny, and you take your gun and start shooting at officials?

let's see. you get shot by a sniper and the media talks about what a lunatic you were for 5 weeks straight. you, clearly the good guy with the gun, are suddenly a terrorist bad guy.

The success of the American Revolution was just as improbable in 1776 as what you are suggesting now. The colonists were a small isolated group. Great Britain had the most powerful army in the world. The media said they were lunatics. There was no chance the colonists could actually win. Yet somehow they did, against all odds.

In fact, many of the most important things in history were also against all odds. What were the odds of 300 Spartans stalling long enough at a pass to beat back the hopelessly massive Persian army? What were the odds of Henry V winning at Agincourt against elite French knights 5x the size of his army?

These highly improbable (often times claimed impossible) events shape most of history. This particular one in discussion shaped the outcome of the American Revolution, the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the history of the world from then on.

What was the chance of ISIS doing what it did? Be honest now. Nobody saw this coming. Until it happened. Now everyone acts like it was just so obvious all along. But it was not obvious.

The guys who wrote the Second Amendment did so because they wanted the conditions necessary for the success of the American Revolution to persist indefinitely.

 

[randomg1t]

The success of the American Revolution was just as improbable in 1776 as what you are suggesting now. The colonists were a small isolated group. Great Britain had the most powerful army in the world. The media said they were lunatics. There was no chance the colonists could actually win. Yet somehow they did, against all odds.

are you seriously comparing the media and it's power of 1776 to that of 2015?

In fact, many of the most important things in history were also against all odds. What were the odds of 300 Spartans stalling long enough at a pass to beat back the hopelessly massive Persian army? What were the odds of Henry V winning at Agincourt against elite French knights 5x the size of his army?

and how many times in history did the larger aggressor actually beat the shit out of their opponent? and none of that has anything to do with my point, anyway.

These highly improbable (often times claimed impossible) events shape most of history. This particular one in discussion shaped the outcome of the American Revolution, the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the history of the world from then on.

yeah, so? if something made sense 300 years ago and worked then, does that mean it works now?

What was the chance of ISIS doing what it did? Be honest now. Nobody saw this coming. Until it happened. Now everyone acts like it was just so obvious all along. But it was not obvious.

what chance does ISIS have of actually winning in the end? this may take months, or years. but in the end ISIS will fall apart. how are they a success story, they're fucked as we speak.

The guys who wrote the Second Amendment did so because they wanted the conditions necessary for the success of the American Revolution to persist indefinitely.

yeah, and now those conditions have been rendered obsolete by the progress of our society. the nations of the western world will lose their liberties inch by inch for decades to come, and there will not be an armed revolution in the US. it simply will not happen, ever in our lifetimes.

 

[jcandoitbig]

I don't need BJJ to be a tank for me, because I own an actual tank.

how much did that cost ya?

 

[Balto]

Of course the media is different in 2015 than 1776. We still apply the First Amendment to the internet though, right? Even though surely no Founding Father could have conceived of such a thing?

Of course things change throughout history. But a lot of things also stay the same. That's the point of studying history.

When the 300 Spartans fought, steel did not exist yet. So that makes things very different. King Henry did not have firearms. Again, very different. The colonists did not have an air force. Again, very different.

But there is something connecting all of these things, yes?

It is very easy to say never if you don't study history. History is literally full of people saying something will never, ever happen in modern society. Only for it to happen literally a couple of days later.

Check what was printed in the papers a few days before WWI broke out! They were declaring all war over forever because technology and peace had triumphed in modern society. This example was less than 100 years ago! (Correction: It's like 101 years right now; I am getting old)

My only point in the initial reply is that is a very inconvenient historical fact, but a historical fact nonetheless, that the very reason America exists is because the colonists privately kept the means to organize into a militia. Then they did so, against the most powerful army in the world. And somehow they won.

If such a thing were truly impossible, there would be no United States of America at all.

 

[deadlizard]

From: Henry Akins

Regarding:

Did anyone read this and sense TMA? Or is it just me?

 

[Balto]

I don't really want to get into the politics at all. It's just one of those historical facts that always sticks out to me in these arguments.

Everything in history is completely different yet exactly the same. Hitler invading Russia in WWII was in many ways totally different than Napoleon doing it. What tanks and machine guns did Napoleon have?

But yet it was exactly the same, right? History has a way of repeating itself.

I just find it ironic that so many people argue that the basic idea of the Second Amendment could never work in reality when the very fact that the Second Amendment even exists is because the idea worked once before.

That is my view as a guy who likes history. I don't like to say things that have already happened in history could never happen again. Mostly because so much of recorded history involves people saying such things only to be proven wrong.

 

[Balto]

Did anyone read this and sense TMA? Or is it just me?

It's down now for me.

 

[Ice 9 Cobra]

Balto, I'm not a history expert but it seems like the arms that were used against the British army had less of a discrepancy of force (can't think how to say it) than our current civilian arms vs our military.

Also I find it funny that the founding fathers wrote provisions to allow militias and uprisings to form, then promptly squashed the whiskey rebellion.

 

[deadlizard]

It's down now for me.

Not the link, but Henry Akin's comments on the situation.

QUOTE:
Thank you Darren Branch for sharing this video, apparently the guy in this video is a purple belt in Jiu-Jitsu, which means he's been training anywhere from 3-6 years. Its a demonstration of the sad state BJJ has regressed to.

Apparently people are using this video to justify that sport BJJ is effective for self defense, which what I see is the exact opposite.

READ BELOW FOR MY BREAKDOWN

here we go...

There is a point where threats start being exchanged "ill whoop your ass" and you can see the situation is escalating and there is a very high possibility that the situation is going to get physical and the BJJ practioner is standing within striking distance WITH HIS HANDS DOWN... instead of hands up in case a punch is thrown.

He's very lucky that punch didn't connect or else that would have been the end of the video. THEN he clinches and has absolutely no idea of BASE... he falls backwards against a completely untrained opponent who's not even trying to take him down into a non-dominate position...half guard!???

So he either pulled half guard or fell into half guard instead of initiating a take down himself or at least pulling guard.

Now he does manage to take the back and escape a headlock on the way to taking the back!!!

But then has absolutely no idea how to maintain that position and loses it into an open guard... when he had both hooks in and an arm around the neck... how on earth as a purple belt or even a blue belt does he not know how to maintain and finish against a completely untrained opponent pretty much equal size??

He goes for the arm with absolutely no control and loses it, I realize guys were stepping in at this point to try to break it up but he didn't even have the leg over the head when he started to try to apply the armlock.

He almost gets pile-drived into the ground when the guy pulls up out of the armlock, then transitions to 50/50 guard which again is NOT a dominate position (how many times have you seen people getting punched in the face from this position) and goes for the heal hook.

So basically for the duration of the fight there was only about 4 or 5 seconds where he actually had a dominate position. He was in a significant amount of danger for most of the fight. He never had control of the fight, this is a guy who has been training for 3-6 years against an equal sized opponent with zero training.

It pretty much was a giant scramble with a couple submission attepts thrown in. I know it's easy to criticize from the sidelines but that's not my intention. As an Instructor that belives in BJJ being the most effective form of self defense my intention here is to help people see the mistakes that were made and hopefully have people learn from this situation that this is what YOU DO NOT WANT TO DO, instead of praising his performance and giving students the completely wrong idea.

Another point i'd like to make is his actions and effort did not keep him safe at all. Even though he did not get beat up he was not "SAFE".

Example, imagine you are in a warzone and people with machine guns are shooting at you and you run out into the open. Even if you do not get shot are you SAFE? Now imagine you are in a tank out in the open and people are shooting at you with machine guns. Do you feel safe? BJJ can be a TANK for you if used properly!

 

[Balto]

Balto, I'm not a history expert but it seems like the arms that were used against the British army had less of a discrepancy of force (can't think how to say it) than our current civilian arms vs our military.

Also I find it funny that the founding fathers wrote provisions to allow militias and uprisings to form, then promptly squashed the whiskey rebellion.

On the first point, I don't think it is really quite as big as it seems.

The arms that the colonists were keeping were small arms of the time, basically muskets and rifles. I don't think they were keeping cannons in their homes. Those had to be captured or manufactured later.

Also, the big technology advantage of Britain was its superior navy. The Americans did not have any navy whatsoever when things first started. Britain had the best navy in the world. And the navy was expected to be a huge impact given the fact that America was far from Europe and could be cut off from supplies with a blockade.

What ended up happening was the Americans started up a small navy that was far more effective than was thought possible, and other established navies in Europe decided to intervene to help the American side some too.

Throughout the whole war, the Americans never even built one ship of the line. The British Navy had 100+ ships of the line. It was lunacy to think that somehow we were going to win this war when the British Navy could just cut us off easily. But somehow the lunacy won.

For a more modern example, I remember when the Iraq War just started. Some veterans told me that this would be over in a month just like the Gulf War. Saddam has no way of stopping our air power, and his own people will turn on him quickly. We'll be in and out in no time.

Ten years later, that really didn't happen.

To your second point, that is yet another one of those facts of history. All governments want to hold their power, no matter how they got it. And yes, the Whiskey Rebellion is an ironic example of it.

 

[Balto]

Not the link, but Henry Akin's comments on the situation.

QUOTE:
Thank you Darren Branch for sharing this video, apparently the guy in this video is a purple belt in Jiu-Jitsu, which means he's been training anywhere from 3-6 years. Its a demonstration of the sad state BJJ has regressed to.

Apparently people are using this video to justify that sport BJJ is effective for self defense, which what I see is the exact opposite.

READ BELOW FOR MY BREAKDOWN

here we go...

There is a point where threats start being exchanged "ill whoop your ass" and you can see the situation is escalating and there is a very high possibility that the situation is going to get physical and the BJJ practioner is standing within striking distance WITH HIS HANDS DOWN... instead of hands up in case a punch is thrown.

He's very lucky that punch didn't connect or else that would have been the end of the video. THEN he clinches and has absolutely no idea of BASE... he falls backwards against a completely untrained opponent who's not even trying to take him down into a non-dominate position...half guard!???

So he either pulled half guard or fell into half guard instead of initiating a take down himself or at least pulling guard.

Now he does manage to take the back and escape a headlock on the way to taking the back!!!

But then has absolutely no idea how to maintain that position and loses it into an open guard... when he had both hooks in and an arm around the neck... how on earth as a purple belt or even a blue belt does he not know how to maintain and finish against a completely untrained opponent pretty much equal size??

He goes for the arm with absolutely no control and loses it, I realize guys were stepping in at this point to try to break it up but he didn't even have the leg over the head when he started to try to apply the armlock.

He almost gets pile-drived into the ground when the guy pulls up out of the armlock, then transitions to 50/50 guard which again is NOT a dominate position (how many times have you seen people getting punched in the face from this position) and goes for the heal hook.

So basically for the duration of the fight there was only about 4 or 5 seconds where he actually had a dominate position. He was in a significant amount of danger for most of the fight. He never had control of the fight, this is a guy who has been training for 3-6 years against an equal sized opponent with zero training.

It pretty much was a giant scramble with a couple submission attepts thrown in. I know it's easy to criticize from the sidelines but that's not my intention. As an Instructor that belives in BJJ being the most effective form of self defense my intention here is to help people see the mistakes that were made and hopefully have people learn from this situation that this is what YOU DO NOT WANT TO DO, instead of praising his performance and giving students the completely wrong idea.

Another point i'd like to make is his actions and effort did not keep him safe at all. Even though he did not get beat up he was not "SAFE".

Example, imagine you are in a warzone and people with machine guns are shooting at you and you run out into the open. Even if you do not get shot are you SAFE? Now imagine you are in a tank out in the open and people are shooting at you with machine guns. Do you feel safe? BJJ can be a TANK for you if used properly!

Hmm yeah the tone there is not the best.

I mean I sort of get where he is coming from, but at the same time, sometimes shit just happens in reality. It's unpredictable.

It's bad form to armchair quarterback it too much.

 

[Darkslide632]

I'd rather train than not train, but over the years I've also heard a lot of "If you don't train against a resisting opponent..." from people who hate TMA's... and yet, not training against guys trying to punch you in the mouth seems to be valid in BJJ. I find it a bit hypocritical.

That's not to say that BJJ isn't effective, just that there is some hypocrisy involved.

 

[deadlizard]

I'd rather train than not train, but over the years I've also heard a lot of "If you don't train against a resisting opponent..." from people who hate TMA's... and yet, not training against guys trying to punch you in the mouth seems to be valid in BJJ. I find it a bit hypocritical.

That's not to say that BJJ isn't effective, just that there is some hypocrisy involved.

As with anything in life.

You were probably told that if you study hard and go to college, you'd be guaranteed a good job for the rest of your life.

Didn't turn out that way for a lot of people.

 

[yetanother]

Did anyone read this and sense TMA? Or is it just me?

Yes, Henry Akins is a TMA dude. He sucks and won no competitions (and is to big of a coward to even try) so he is just trying to leach of the Rickson myth in a traditional TMA bullshit manner.