what do you think of this statement?

Question

i read a statement that bjj is designed to fight of multiple armed opponents.i done jj for about 3 years and bjj of and on for about 5,i'm no expert on it by any means.but i find it hard to believe that you could fight of an armed opponent never lone multiple ones from the ground.does anyone think this is possible and if so how?to my way of thinking if you had a weapon why would you be on the ground anyway especially if theres more than one of you?

to a certain point i agree with you phillip but you dont always get the opportunity to run away,stand up you have a chance on the ground?

judoka-i do understand all that and i do know quite a lot of the higher ranked stuff through my freestyle karate training but that still doesnt answer my question.

most ma that do real training can take a weapon of most ppl quite easily.especialy a large one like a bat and most ma will then use it on that person.

you may be right stg the statement was'nt mine.i'd like to think i know a little bit more about ma than that?

i dont think war is a good example it involved guns for?? hundred years and just remember the japanese lost the last one.

in case some answerers havn't read any of my posts before iv'e been training and teaching for 37 years and have done many different styles and have many students my main is free style karate(which will never change)not that i know everything i was just explaining so you dont think i thought that this statement had any element of truth in it i just wanted to hear other ppls thoughts.

Answer 1

If your on the ground against mutiple attackers, you are very likely to get a boot to the head. If the attackers were armed, that would just make it worse.

Answer 2

I guess the smart thing to do would be to remember the limitations of the art you study and of you personally. Not all martial arts are designed to be used against multiple attackers. Not every person can be cool enough to handle situations like that. Just because a person studies a martial art it doesn't make them 10 feet tall and bulletproof. If you live in a city that has that kind of atmosphere (armed attacks, muggings, etc.) then you should study a reality based art. For instance, Jim Wagner's.

Personally, I study Tae Kwon Do. But I am in no way foolish enough to think that I can handle multiple attackers all of the time. Every situation is different. I have studied different arts to include Aikido, Hapkido and a small amount of Jujitsu. With all of this the first thing I would do is either try to escape or try to even the odds. Mainly try to find a weapon myself. A stick or pipe or something. Even break off a radio antenna from a car.

I think the last thing I would want to do would be go to the ground.

Answer 3

I have been in instructor for almost 30 years and I can say from years of experience that no matter how effective ground fighting techniques may be (and many are) they are not very effective against multiple opponents armed or unarmed. I have seen the demonstrations of bjj and nothing I have seen indicated that the techniques would work very well against multiple oponents, and in fact I cannot recall ever having seen a demonstration where multiple opponents were used. I know that part of bjj is taking your opponent off his feet and while that would work well agains a single opponent, I doesn't seem to be a strategy that would work agains multiple attackers. But then most styles have their uses and thei vulnerabilities. That is why it is always good to study multiple styles.

Answer 4

Jujitsu teaches alot of weapons defence techniques. The only problem is that they wait until you are higher ranked until they start to teach it to you. Or you can only learn it in Kata.

Judo is the same way, thats why when Jigoro Kano invented it as a spin off of Jujitsu he added throws and take downs to help with those issues you speak of. Alot of the techniques are similar to Aikido but again not enphasized on.
I was doing Kata Sunday morning and I was watching my sensei and his son who is a sensei at the same dojo both 6th degree black belts or rokudan. They were working on weapons defence and take down techniques. A lot of what they were doing I have already learned through a few on and off training sessions in a defence style taught to Prison guards and police/militarty. I asked a 1st degree black belt (shodan) why they didn't teach this to younger students as I found it more useful to my Judo having those skills. He didn't have an answer for me.

The best way I can describe the techniques as far as Judo goes is look at Aikido but incorperate some of the Judo throws.

Get a technique book for Jujitsu and you will see all the different techniques that they aren't teaching you or won't untl you are a higher rank.
All Martial arts have alot of hidden techniques that most people don't know about or get to learn. For example Karate has a lot of submissions and take downs as well but most dojos focus on the strikes...
Also Traditional JJ is much different from BJJ which mainly focusses on the submissions. Where JJ has throws and takedowns

Answer 5

I have been learning Martial Arts for years, about 15 years to be exact. I have never seen any evidence supporting that statement by the BJJ. I am still studying Imperial Bagua Zhang. I have witnessed and have been a part of demonstrations of defending against multiple attackers with weapons. So it is possible. However, I find it hard to believe that BJJ has the same defense principles as our school of Martial Arts.

Answer 6

I say its crap and designed to entice new students. armed opponents are dangerous, and multiple is crazy. when an art like BJJ is designed as a grappling/submission style, that excludes multiple attackers straight away. you cant armbar 3 people at the same time. you may use 1 as a shield while having them in a choke, but I think the statement is deceiving to the untrained and impressionable.

Answer 7

I'm not a BJJ practitioner, but from what I do know, It is a grappling style that emphasizes ground fighting. Grappling in general & ground fighting in particular are not well suited for use against multiple attackers.

Answer 8

THIS APPLIES TO ANYONE, ANY STYLE:

Fighting multiple opponents with weapons is FOOLISH (that's an understatement). You should be in survival mode, not fight to win mode. Get away, get cover, call the police. I don't give a **** if your sensei said a crescent kick will disarm an opponent. Bat vs leg = broken leg and unable to run. You aren't going to get in close enough to poke em in the eye, kick em in the nuts or use you 5 point deadly chi powered pressure attack. This applies doubly for shooting for a takedown and setting an armlock or choke, because the other 4 guys aren't going to wait for you to finish.

Answer 9

I agree with Philp and Judoka.

Yupachage should quit preach about multi attackers. It doesn't matter what you do, in the end if you're going against more than one opponent armed with weapons, your best bet is to RUN!!!

Answer 10

Ju-jitsu was the unarmed style of the samarias, but was modified after samarias became extinct and this modification took away almost all of the unarmed defence against weapons and multiple attackers. Jujitsu was very good against multiple attackers example...WAR.