Category: Grappling

Brawl and movement tactics

This clip (courtesy of World Star Hip Hop, of course), illustrates several concepts I’ve covered in detail in a previous article and video, which you can find at the bottom of this post.

In the video we’re looking at today, a topless black male in blue jeans performs exceptionally well in terms of managing multiple opponents.

After knocking down his first opponent, he sees another male stepping forward and crossing the line of bystanders. He identifies this as someone who intends to intervene in the fight.

Typically, the plan of the bystander is to attack from the side while their target is focused on someone else.

Our main character immediately target switches. Target switching is a key component of fighting multiple opponents. He hasn’t completely taken the first man out of the fight, but he now has to prioritise the man who is moving forward because that is now the most serious threat.

As he approaches the second man he takes a wide angle, keeping the rest of the crowd in his peripheral vision. This avoids having the crowd behind him, completely out of sight.

At this moment, a third man approaches, but he’s on the side of our main character, and they form a line standing roughly shoulder to shoulder.

Main character sees his first opponent coming back to attempt a flank while he’s focused on the second man.

Main character correctly switches back to him, prioritising the opponent who is approaching from a dangerous angle.

This is exactly what I talked about in my multiple opponents video. An excellent demonstration of target switching.

The second man then crosses the line, which is often a big mistake because it exposes the flank, but main character was not in a position to take advantage of it.

It then becomes two individual fights which is a very common occurrence in a brawl.

While you’re dealing with your own problem however, you should try to remain aware of what the others are doing, because one of them is going to transfer over to your side when their problem is dealt with.

Which is what main character does. When he gets the chance, he transfers to the hoodie and blindsides him in exactly the same way they were attempting earlier but didn’t have the skill to pull it off.

And here you have the contrast between one man who could remain situationally aware enough to target switch, and another man who could not.

The other failure is wearing a hoodie in a fight, which can be for control in grappling.

This is why I advocate for spending at least some time grappling and sparring in a gi. People do wear jackets and other clothes that can be gripped in a fight.

Another video I’ve made which is relevant to this is about issues around bystanders, you can also find that below.

How to fight multiple opponents
Bystanders: the critical aspect of self defense and policing we don’t talk enough about

What is proportionate self defence?

Street fights and self defence scenarios are often discussed in the most extreme terms, which leads us to the most extreme conclusions, such as:

There are no rules in a street fight, therefore I will use every method which is commonly banned in sports such as eye gouging, biting, groin strikes, weapons; I will never take the fight to the ground because I will get stomped by several people, and there are needles and glass and lava on the ground; I will maim and kill and rip and tear.

In reality, violence and confrontation run the gamut from imposing body language to nuclear weapons, and then there’s everything in between.

When we are defending ourselves, the laws in most places expect that you will use a proportionate level of force if you need to defend yourself.

If you’re a strong young man, and a 75-year-old woman tries to slap you, it might be considered reasonable and proportionate to hold her wrist to stop the slap. Biting her nose off would be considered disproportionate in most places.

So much conversation around self defence lacks nuance; here’s an example of a situation that might help us think about it.

This man was eating at a restaurant and another man has tried to steal his phone. But the victim trains jiu jitsu (this has been confirmed), and he resisted, held onto the phone and they end up in a short grappling match before the victim throws him on the ground, and then that’s it. The offender realises he’s outmatched, he submits, and just walks away.

You hear people say ridiculous things like never grapple in a street fight. Never take someone to the ground because 10 of their friends are going to appear and stomp you. If someone attacks me I’m going to bite and eye gouge and hit em with furniture and stab them etc., etc.

There might be times when those things are reasonable, but they’re often not. Maybe you can put them on the ground and it resolves without any injury at all.

If your local laws permit, maybe you can consider a citizens arrest if you can be bothered going through the process of holding him there until police arrive and providing a statement, showing up at court and so on.

You might want to check them for weapons before you let them up. And once they leave the area, you should probably leave also, in case they decide to return with a weapon. Those are things to consider.

Self defence laws usually revolve around a proportionate level of force to protect yourself and your property. Using more force than is reasonably necessary to get the job done could be considered excessive, and this is where people get into trouble.

With this scenario where I live, if the victim had done exactly the same thing and the offender is on the ground not moving and saying OK I give up I’m sorry, then the victim kicks the man in the head, he’d probably get charged with assault.

Think about what it would achieve in terms of the objective of self defence. Yes, he tried to steal your phone but he’s not any more. He’s not attacking you, or threatening you, he’s stationary on the ground in the moment. Using force was reasonable while he was trying to take the phone but that stopped.

“He deserves it, there should be revenge, he needs to learn a lesson, he should be punished,” these are not justifications of self defence, these are excuses to assault someone after a self defence situation has already resolved.

There would be other circumstances where a head stomp would be reasonable, for example he sees the man pull out a knife while he’s laying on his back there, it might be reasonable to kick him, knock him out. These situations are fluid and change moment to moment, and you have to react to what is in front of you.

If you use force, you will later have to explain why. To what end? What was your objective, was it reasonable, was it necessary? Because if you could have used a lower level of force, or done anything else to protect yourself, then it wasn’t necessary.

It’s all fine in hindsight, yes, but that’s why I’m using the term “reasonable” so often. Would most reasonable people in the same situation believe that your actions were reasonable, and necessary, and proportionate?

A rule of thumb is that when the threat stops, you stop.

Learn about the laws in your area and what is considered self defence, you might be allowed to do a lot more than what I’ve described, but you need to understand what you can and can’t do legally. Otherwise, you might start as the victim and end up being the one who goes to jail.

Man taken to ground in street fight, brutal armbar follows

According to the source of the video on Reddit, this fight started after the drunken older man had been arguing with a group for about 10 minutes and was given many chances to leave.

The man wearing the ADCC hoodie (Abu Dhabi Combat Club, a prestigious submission grappling tournament) kicked off his footwear shortly before the video starts. Then:

Strikes -> clinch -> takedown -> mount -> armbar -> head stomps from armbar -> mount -> elbows.

Bystanders offered to call an ambulance for the older man following the fight, however he refused and kept saying that a bunch of “homeless guys” had attacked him.

As I’ve explained in a previous post, the standing vs ground debate is a red herring. Sometimes going to the ground is the optimal strategy, sometimes it’s not. In all cases, grappling skills are necessary whether you want to stay standing or not.

Saying “never go to the ground in a street fight” is idiotic, and at best a misguided oversimplification.

In this instance, the man who performed the armbar was not jumped by a group, was not stabbed, there was no glass and AIDS needles and lava on the ground.

It also starkly illustrates the effectiveness of join locks. This is not a submission, he did not wait for his victim to tap. He just destroyed that arm.

None of this is to say that his behaviour was justified, that’s up for you to decide. Where I live, it would be considered excessive and serious charges would follow. Make sure you understand local laws before using force.

The standing vs ground debate in martial arts

Eye gouges, groin strikes, bites, scratches, throat strikes, hair pulling: why “fighting dirty” is not enough in reality

Click to watch video on Youtube

Reddit discussion and video

Groin strikes, eye gouges, and other “dirty” street fighting techniques are often overestimated in their effectiveness, and are not reliable substitutes for fundamental fighting skills.

The key issue with these techniques is that they rely on pain to influence behavior, rather than directly incapacitating or controlling an opponent. Real fighting scenarios (see videos) show that people can endure severe injuries, including serious maiming, and still continue to fight. This resilience is especially true when the stakes are high.

Gaining a controlling position increases the effectiveness of any technique, including those banned in sports. Without a dominant position, attempts at “dirty” tactics are more likely to fail.

Consideration must also be given to what happens when these tactics fail. In a fight, once a certain level of violence is introduced, it can be reciprocated, potentially leading to more severe consequences.

Real-life examples illustrate these points. Fighters have continued to compete even after sustaining significant injuries like broken limbs or blindness. The effectiveness of these tactics is unpredictable and can vary greatly depending on the situation and the individuals involved.

While “dirty” techniques can be part of a fighting strategy, they are not reliable or decisive. Effective fighting requires a combination of skills, including striking, grappling, and a strategic approach to positioning and control. Simply relying on pain-inducing tactics is insufficient for real combat scenarios.

Here we have a man arguing with police, and he throws a knee to the groin. You can see the officer’s hips move back as the energy from the strike transfers to his body. The officer responds with a punch which knocks the man unconscious. This is a stark illustration of the difference between doing something that simply hurts a lot, and something that takes away your capacity to fight completely.
A jeweller is stabbed and attempts to stop the attacker by using groin strikes and eye gouges, which have no effect. Neither man is able to clearly dominate the fight before the stabber eventually gives up and walks away.
This man entered an MMA gym and challenged them to a fight. When he gets caught in a guillotine choke, he attempts to eye gouge his opponent, who continues to choke the man unconscious.
In Japan 1995, 5’7 Yuki Nakai fought 6’5 Gerard Gordeau in an MMA bout. Gerard illegally eye gouged Yuki, which left him permanently blind in his right eye. Yuki continued to fight with one eye, and won by heel hook in the fourth round. He never let officials know that he’d been blinded.
Full fight where a man’s ear is bitten off, and the biter loses by submission when he is unable to escape from a bad position, demonstrating the importance of basic grappling skills no matter the rule set.
A man’s lower lip is bitten off in a street fight; however, by the end of the video he is keen to continue fighting, while it is the biter who walks away.
Man has his ear bitten off in a street fight and does not stop – by the end of the video he is in a dominant position and continues to fight without issue.
A man who is allegedly a pedophile according to onlookers, attempts to bite and eye gouge while underneath the mount of his opponent, which fails. His opponent – the man in a controlling position – eye gouges and blinds the other man, demonstrating the importance of positional control no matter what rules of lack thereof.
Two men are fighting on the ground, one has his eye gouged out – however, he continued to fight and at the end of the video, he is in a controlling position and is now gouging the eyes of the other man.
Multiple unanswered strikes to the groin which appear to have no effect
Source of video thumbnail – by MMA photographer Esther Lin
“After the fight, Werdum said the poke didn’t hurt or affect him – and even if it had hurt, he might have lied to the ringside physician and said he was fine out of concern the bout would be stopped. Werdum, who won a unanimous decision, says he thinks some fighters embellish the severity of a poke to get out of the fight and that offends him to some degree.”

https://www.espn.com.au/mma/story/_/id/27850706/danger-mma-problem-eye-pokes

German police use wrist locks on protester

Click image or click here to watch video

The German police have employed wrist locks on a protester, promising to release him if he stands and walks. However, the protester is engaging in passive resistance; he’s neither attacking nor attempting to flee, but simply refusing to comply by staying down and using his body weight to resist. Despite the intense pain from the double wrist lock, the man remains unfazed and has even wet his pants, likely from being in the situation for an extended period. His commitment to his cause appears to outweigh any physical discomfort.

This scenario highlights the limitations of pain compliance techniques, which aim to induce compliance through inflicted pain. Such methods can be ineffective against individuals who are either highly committed or in an emotionally heightened state, as they may choose to endure the pain. The police could have opted for dragging the protester away, achieving the same result without causing pain. This suggests that a more effective approach for law enforcement would be to focus on mastering basic, fundamental grappling skills rather than relying solely on pain compliance techniques.