If you were just learning to drive, and you wanted advice,
would you turn to someone who has never driven a car before? Would you ask
their opinion of driving in rush hour traffic, or on a high speed freeway if
they have spent their entire life living in a small rural area where everyone
walked or rode horses to get around? The answer is of course not. If they have
never been in that position, what could they say that would help? Anything they
say would be based on speculation, or a vague hope that things would work a
certain way.
It is a goofy question, but it is pertinent, because this is
all too often how we ask advice or seek knowledge when it comes to self-defense
matters. If someone has never used, handled, or carried a gun – for example, if
they lived in a country like Australia or Japan where gun ownership is tightly
controlled, and a thing like concealed carry for a private citizen is completely
unheard of, and they have never been in the military or law enforcement, what
could they possibly say about firearms use? It certainly could not be based on
logic or familiarity. At best, it would be a “best guess”. That is not the most
intelligent way to base a technique or strategy to survive a violent criminal
assault.
Similarly, a great deal of self-defense “experts” will
pontificate about how to deal with grappling attacks, but they themselves have
little to zero actual grappling experience! How can they believe that they have
a reasonable approach if they have never done it, and if they have never truly
pressure tested it? The answer is they shouldn’t believe, and moreover, they
should not talk about it. If they were honorable, they would direct people to
look at those who have real experience in grappling to seek answers in how to
deal with such a scenario.
In the following video, I try to show how in just one single instance – in this case a rear naked choke – how the typical non-grappler advice in how to counter this technique is based on massive logical flaws. Hopefully, it will help guide people to see with better eyes and deeper critical thinking the next time they run across a non-grappler talk about “counter grappling”.
Most likely everyone has heard the acronym CYA at some
point. Undoubtedly it is most commonly read as “Cover Your A**”, but I prefer a
different usage. Massad Ayoob, the legendary firearms trainer and expert in
understanding the legal ramifications of self-defense uses it to mean “Can You
Articulate”.
Essentially, it refers to the concept that whatever actions
you take to defend yourself, or what equipment you may use, can you reasonably
explain to a regular person why you did it and why it was necessary. When an
opposing lawyer tries to get a jury to believe you are a gun nut because you
had new sights put on your pistol, you need to be able to tell them that you
were so concerned that you would hit the attacker only and not risk a bullet
going anywhere else that you made the effort to get different and better sights
even though it cost you more money, time, and effort, but it is worth it to
ensure that you are responsible in your self-defense actions. That makes you intelligent
and thoughtful, not a crazy nut. If you
can articulate that, then the lawyer’s attack will fail. If you can’t, then
that jury may very well see you as someone who did not use a gun only to defend
yourself, but someone that deserves to be behind bars.
It is not a difficult thing to do, but it does require
thought beforehand. You have to have it figured out before you need it.
I like to use the same phrase and apply it to people’s choices
in gear or training. I often tell folks that I am not the tactical Gestapo. I
am not interested in judging what you are carrying, or what classes you take,
or what battle plans you have made to deal with your own personal violence
defense. It is not up to me, and frankly it does not affect me one bit. That is
why I find it odd that so many people spend so much time and energy doing
exactly that – criticizing other people’s choices.
What I prefer to spend my time and energy on is to make sure
that all the choices that I make FOR MYSELF are ones that I can articulate out
loud to someone who is not privy to my thoughts, and ensure that my reasons can
stand up to that outer scrutiny. If I can achieve that, then most likely my
tactics, techniques, procedures, and gear are a good choice for me. Am I
putting the right amount of time into my jiu-jitsu practice? Am I doing too
much? Am I focusing enough on my strength and conditioning, or my gun handling?
Can I put my time to better use doing something else, or something more? With
my lifestyle and the challenges I face, am I doing everything that I logically
can to ensure I am covering the plausible and reasonable contingencies? If I
can answer in the affirmative all the time, then I am doing the right things,
even if those things don’t align with someone else’s needs and priorities.
That last point is fairly important. It may make all the
sense in the world for me to carry a snubby revolver in an ankle holster at specific
times during the week, and it is irrelevant if someone else thinks that would
not work for them. I am focused on my needs, not anyone else. If they think
that a Glock 19 fills all their requirements and there is no reason for them to
not carry it, then awesome! More power to them. But that does not mean their
reality applies to me in any way. I may decide that carrying a spare magazine
is not a need, and someone else may think that they should always have one.
Coolio. That is great, but my needs are my needs. As long as I can articulate
the whys and wherefores of my choices, then it does not matter what others do.
As far as someone else’s choices, all I ask is that they can
articulate the whys of their choices to the same level. If they can, then I
cannot criticize it, even if their choices don’t match mine. Their fight is not
mine, and my fight is not theirs, so I need to leave it alone. Conversely, if
they cannot do so in a logical manner, and I can express some thoughts that are
contrary to theirs, and they cannot dispute my points without resorting to
name-calling, or creating a strawman, then I submit that their choices don’t
hold up.
We have the responsibility to the outside world to be able
to CYA. Too many people want to take our ability to protect ourselves away.
Let’s not give them any extra ammunition to do so. Make good informed choices
that you pressure test to ensure you are correct, and you can stand up to
whatever the world throws your way.
I did a new podcast with the Spotterup folks. This was a particularly fun interview. John, the host, is fully immersed himself in working the same ideas, so it was great to throw ideas back and forth.
Here is a video tutorial on using fundamental jiujitsu concepts and moves in a self-defense context when the criminal attacker is on top and raining down strikes. How do we apply our skills, and what are the most essential things to do?
I also talk about why in training we should not always rely on having “handles” and making our training harder than reality.
There are a lot of people that read my posts that are fairly
new to jiu-jitsu. They are in the early days of trying to figure this complex
art out, and I can tell you from experience that doing so is a tough road. BJJ
is very deep and chaotic, and truly only time served is what allows you to
really grasp the essence.
The problem is, with the Covid19 situation, a number of academies
are closing for a time and even for those who may remain open, and it may not
be easy for people to get to them. At least two good friends of mine are
subject to a lockdown by their employer should they do something like go to a
large gathering of people, so training in a group is out of the cards for the
next couple of weeks.
I thought I would take a moment to give some tips on getting
through such a situation while still helping people start to understand
jiu-jitsu.
The thing that truly separates BJJ from almost all other
martial arts and self-defense oriented activities is that it is NOT dependent on
techniques. Every other fighting system is all about the technique that will be
so devastating and unstoppable. The typical and classic self-defense training paradigm
is “he does this, you do that”. That is great if the plan all goes your way.
Unfortunately in the real world almost nothing goes your way, ever. And if your
fighting template is geared for the “I will pre-emptively hit him with a palm
strike and then I will use my cycling hammerfists of death to finish him”, when
that fails (which it will more often than not), and you are not prepared, that
will be a bad day.
In jiu-jistu, because we know that our best intentions are
generally countered by a resisting opponent who wants to win and has the
freedom to do that in whatever manner he sees fit, there is never a set game
plan. That is where most noobs have the hardest time. It is difficult to work a
new move when you may not even get the chance to start it all due to the
actions of our opponent. So then they get frustrated and think they are not
getting better.
The way to get over this is to realize that jiu-jitsu is
focused on the underlying framework, principles, physical body movements, and
concepts that drive the art and the application. All techniques are, are a
temporary way to physically express those principles in the moment, all based
on the context and what exactly your opponent is doing – his pressure, his
position, his base, his posture, what his limbs are doing, etc. – not on a
pre-planned attack. The difference between a white belt and a black belt is not
really in the number of techniques, or even how well the black belt physically does
the technique, but rather in understanding what technique is appropriate in the
moment, and is also just as ready to alter that based on he changes his opponent
makes.
That is the reason why the majority of BJJ training has to
be with a partner. So much of what you are going to do is based on those varied
and unscripted actions by another that you cannot replicate that solo. Even a
grappling dummy does not fill that gap in any meaningful way. So what are we
left with?
Well, as I wrote above, one of the foundations of jiu-jitsu
is the actual body movements. Not prescribed movements in the sense of “do this
technique” but rather the actions your body has to do to accomplish techniques.
Think for example of playing the guitar. You can play an almost infinite amount
of songs with specific actions, but all the actions are going to be powered by
your arm, hand, and finger movements at the core. Playing a line from “Stairway
to Heaven” is done in essentially the same manner as a line from a jazz song. Similarly,
in jiu-jitsu, a fundamental movement like a technical stand up can be just a
stand up, or it can be a sweep, or it can be an escape from a bottom position,
but the movement is the same. All the opponent provides is the context in which
that movement needs to be applied.
So you can focus on the foundational physical actions, and
most of them can be done solo. If you myelinate the neural pathways and make a
given movement subconscious and automatic, when you need it, your brain is only
processing the need and when to do it, and not wasting cognitive power on how
to execute it. In this way, solo practice, especially as a lower belt, can be
incredibly productive and helps build the foundation for when you do get to go
against a partner. This is how we can get through the next few weeks without
much diminishment of our jiu-jitsu.
I have done a number of videos illustrating some of these essential motions.
Also, a terrific resource, if you are lucky enough to have it available, is Andre Galvao’s book Drill to Win. Unfortunately, it has been out of print for a while now and is harder to come by. But if you do have access to it, he even gives you a partial training template to use the drills in it.
There are other video resources. Here is one I particularly think it s a good one:
If you do a search for “solo BJJ drills”, you will find a great deal of free info out there. In fact, just last night, I saw where John Danaher, one of the most innovative instructors around, filmed a video over the weekend and will be offering it for free very soon. So keep an eye out for that.
Also, feel free to ask me for other tips or advice. I am happy to help.
I recently finished the book “Good to Go” by Christie
Aschwanden. My son-in-law, who is a Major League Baseball strength and
conditioning coach, gave it to me for Christmas. The book is an in-depth look
at recovery methods after physical exertion and exercise and which ones are
documented to work and which ones are essentially snake oil.
The author is a long distance athlete (semi-professional for a few years) doing things like ultra marathons, and has a firsthand desire to look at recovery methods. Part of her work in the book are accounts of her actually going through some of these methods and what she felt before, during, and after. Keep in mind that an anecdote is in no way a definitive result, but it does provide an interesting addition to what otherwise could have been too dry and scholarly.
She covers pretty much anything and everything that may
conceivably be in use by athletes today, from supplements to cryotherapy. She
goes out of her way to find places that are experienced in whatever methodology
she is looking at, as well as looking deep into all the authentic research.
What I found most fascinating was how much bullshit and poorly designed tests are accepted as “scientific research” in so many cases. She makes a very good case that most of what is used to “prove” the efficacy of a given method is completely antithetical to true scientific study. In some instances – mostly and not surprisingly on the supplement side – it is out and out snake oil.
As an aside – the only verifiable recovery method that
worked equally well for everyone is getting enough sleep.
I do find a bit of fault in that she focused mostly on extreme cardio sports like marathons and cycling. While she checks in on a couple of other sports like basketball, she ignores other categories of activities. She almost completely fails to mention any of the power or strength based pursuits, and she completely leaves out combat sports or martial arts. So while her findings are a good start, I don’t think they are 100% universal at this point and there are still some things to research in this regard.
I did find it a good read with a lot of good stuff to think
about. I recommend it with some minor reservations.
I posted this a couple
of years ago, but I want to revisit it because it is a topic that unfortunately
keeps coming up. For some reason, there are a number of folks in the jiujitsu
community who are obsessed with the idea that only losers and lazy people pull
guard, and if you do it, you are violating the spirit of what Helio Gracie
built. This is the BJJ-centric version of “if you go to the ground in the
street, you will get killed” and just like that insipid phrase, has as much
real world usefulness.
This current mantra
being circulated in BJJ circles essentially tries to demonize someone for
pulling guard. The thought goes that if you are just pulling guard, you are
missing a substantial part of Jiu-Jitsu and are taking the lazy path. Now,
don’t misunderstand me. I come from an academy where we ALWAYS start on our
feet, and we spend a substantial amount of time working to understand throws and
takedowns, especially ones from a judo perspective. I am all for working the
takedown and being on top and I absolutely despise the current trend
(especially in the lighter weight divisions) of someone just dropping their
butt to the ground to start the match. I think being on top is an optimal place
to be, whether in competition or for self-defense. However, and this is the key
part to understand, optimal does not mean “100% of the time”. There are
extremely good reasons to at times pull guard, and I go over them in the
following re-posted article. Please try to keep in mind that context is king
(as I regularly try to get across), and ignoring that concept potentially puts
you in a situation of using improper tactics when you absolutely cannot afford to
do so.
Here is the original
article:
Recently, on the Strenuous
Life Podcast by Stephen Kesting,
Kesting talked about a question that often is argued
in BJJ circles – should you pull guard in competition? He and his guest spent a
bit of time on it and covered a few things pretty well (though the guest really
needs to get some depth of experience with realistic self-defense because he
missed the mark there), but I think they completely skipped over the single
most pertinent answer to that question. And that leaves me to give it a shot.
Should you pull guard
in competition? Of course you should, IF THE CONTEXT SAYS IT IS THE BEST
RESPONSE. That goes for street oriented self-preservation tactics as well. So
what is that context that we should concern ourselves with?
Simply put, if pulling
guard gives you a more optimal way to win, then that is the correct context. It
is a simple mantra, yet one that seems to be overlooked most of the time the
idea is brought up, but it is the only real reason to have any particular move
in your arsenal. No move of any kind, standing or ground, works every time, so
we need to make sure that the move we choose has the best chance to lead us to
victory.
What are examples of
the context? The most obvious is when you are sure your opponent is
substantially better at takedowns that you are. If you are facing someone who
is superior there, why would you try to match his strength? Just because some
fighting expert said we should always look to execute the takedown and end up
in control? Great idea, but against someone better than that, what is the
chance it will work for us?
Check out this video
compilation of a person going up against superior Judo players and using a
guard pull strategy to negate their advantages:
Here is a personal case
in point. A couple of years ago at the IBJJF Pan-Ams, in my semi-final match, I
was going up against a guy who I found out was once a member of an Eastern
European Olympic Judo Team. Now, I think I have some decent takedown skills
that have worked for me, and I certainly train them on a constant basis in
order to get even better at them, but come on! What were my chances of ending
up in a good position if I fought an Olympic level judoka for a throw? The
answer is slim to none, and slim already left town. Most likely I would have
ended up at least two points down and in an inferior bottom position. Instead
of wasting time, and/or getting thrown by fighting him on his strengths, I took
another path. I got both good initial grips, and pulled him hard into my closed
guard where I was immediately was able to get an overhook on one arm and grab
part of his far collar with the overhooking hand. I went straight into an
excellent position and ended up winning the match (I lost later in the finals,
but that is a sad story for another day). I am still waiting for someone to say
that was a poor strategy. I won, in a solid and convincing way, so where is the
problem? I have also won matches by getting the takedown. Both approaches work,
in the correct situation.
Think about it with a
good critical eye. Jiu-jitsu is about using your opponent’s strengths and
attacks against him. Going head to head in opposition to his strengths is the
exact opposite of that mindset. It makes zero sense.
What about in a
self-defense context? Exactly the same focus! If pulling guard can lead
to a faster and surer way to win (i.e. survive and prevail against a violent
attacker). Then that is what we should do. For example, if you are being
attacked by a bigger, stronger criminal and you are on ground that is unstable
or slippery such as rain or snow slick surfaces, are you really going to be
able to turn into your pet koshi-guruma without ending up falling over with
your feet coming up from under you? What if you knew with almost absolute
certainty that your attacker knew almost nothing about the ground? How well is
he going to be able to defend when you pull him into your guard and then
immediately transition into an armbar? In actual fact, my own coach did that
when he was assaulted once on the street about 1997. He did essentially a
version of a guard pull that resembled a failed yoko-tomoe-nage and as soon as
they hit the ground he shifted to a straight armbar and destroyed the
attacker’s elbow. Guess who stopped fighting at that moment? I will give you
three guesses, and all three should be gimmes. That assault ended in a couple
of seconds and my Professor walked away unscathed which seems like a pretty
good justification for that particular guard pull.
Why not exactly “street”, here is a guard pull in an MMA context where the grappler negated the striker’s superiority by taking him a different part of the pool:
Skip to the :50 second mark to see the guard pull, and note how after that position change, the grappler had the edge in controlling what was going on. The striker was completely out of his element, and was trying to figure out how to change his game plan to deal with it, and was failing badly. That most certainly would not have been the case if the grappler had stayed standing against the striker.
Make no mistake about what I am saying and please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not advocating guard pulls 100% of the time. I am advocating having the skill set and experience to be able to choose in the moment what is the path that gives you the best chance of success.
