BJJ vs multiple attackers

Discussion in 'Brazilian Jiu Jitsu' started by Theidiot, Oct 20, 2016.

  1. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    They also give the impression that anyone can strike effectively, so just stick your punching stuff here, you don't need instruction on striking because any idiot can do it.

    Also, there were only 4 UFC's. Pure BJJ won them all and that's the end of it.
  2. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Sure you WANT that. In a self-defense context, BJJ's ground approach is for those times you don't get what you want. And at no time is that more likely than when you're beset by multiple opponents.

    So the usual anti-BJJ argument goes "if you go to the ground, his friends are going to give you a kicking." My counterargument is that you're likely to end up there whether you like it or not. And when you do, it would be nice to have the skills to disengage from one guy and regain your feet before that kicking comes. And BJJ trains the escapes you're going to need to do it.

    I say that as someone who didn't enjoy BJJ in the slightest in the brief time I trained it. So I'm not much of a fan. But it only makes sense. Multiple opponents will be exponentially better able to impose their game plan on you and prevent you from imposing yours on them. So escapes are a pretty essential Plan B if you're to have any hope of returning to "stick and move."
  3. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    No-one with half a brain would argue about defending takedowns and being able to get up again.

    However, I don't agree that multiple opponents are exponentially better at imposing their game plan on you. That is only true if they have a game plan. Otherwise, and this is true of the overwhelming majority of cases unless you're fighting the police or security teams, multiple opponents will be exponentially worse at imposing a game plan, because they are acting as individual agents getting in each others' way rather than as a coordinated unit.
  4. bigreddog

    bigreddog Valued Member

    I would prefer to strike and stay mobile against multiple opponents. But lots of reasons to include BJJ -

    1. You can't beat multiple opponents if you can't defeat one opponent - and often it is one on one until the crowd joins in - the value of BJJ one on one is clear
    2. As stated earlier, your chances of ending up on the floor are increased against multiples, so gotta have those skills
    3. If you do go to the floor, you've got to move quickly, so ground mobility, sweeps and getting to a position like knee-on belly are critical
    4. You may need to move opponents to act as a shield for you - judo or MT might be better choices for this, but good grappling skills will help
    5. On the floor using one of them as a shield might minimise the damage you take until help arrives
  5. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    How coordinated do they need to be? Put a bunch of people in a field and identify one. Tell the rest that that one needs to be on the ground. How long is that going to take? Decades of backyard pickup football games suggest "not very long."
  6. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    And they don't need much more of a gameplan beyond "hit that one".
  7. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    You're right, they don't need to be very coordinated at all, and a simple common goal to control a person is all it takes really.

    I'd turn to someone like jwt for stats, but group confrontations I've seen or been involved with predominantly feature punches and sometimes kicks as the primary attacks, until someone falls over, gets knocked down or a clinch ends up on the floor. It is chaotic, and people get in each others' way more than they act together as force multipliers.

    If they have a common goal, as in your example, how is BJJ going to prevent you being bundled and controlled by three or four people?
  8. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    So what are we debating about? My use of the term "game plan"? Because you can mentally remove that bit if you like.

    But the guy ends up on the floor, whether the attack is chaotic or coordinated, yes?

    It may not. Being dogpiled by multiple committed opponents is a bad scenario.
  9. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    It can help in a number of ways...

    They will be mesmerised by your multiple gi patches and while they stare agog you can make off.
    Most of the week you'll be aching and recovering from training so you'll be sat at home watching Marcelo Garcia videos on Youtube rather than out and about grappling with ruffians in the street.
    More than likely if you are out and about you'll be with some of your BJJ mates so they can pile in when things get a bit "punchy".
    Your attackers will be put off by your tattoos, cauli ears and smell of acai berries.
  10. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Here's my take on it

    With multiple opponents there's a high chance that at some point your butt is going to be on the floor. If the environment is cluttered &/or there's an uneven surface then the probability of ending up on the floor is increased

    So if you end up on the floor and there are multiple opponents then:

    Plan A is to take one with you and cleanly throw them as you either get back onto your feet or end in a position where you can strike them effectively before quickly disengaging

    Plan B is to roll back onto your feet taking distance. Being able to roll from a variety of positions/falls and chose/change your direction to cope with obstacles & multiple opponents is a good idea (as is being able to strike as you roll & finishing rolls in a good defensive position)

    Plan C is to strike to create distance &/or cause damage before performing a technical stand up

    Plan D is to control one of your attackers from the floor and sweep them, ideally causing damage

    Plan E is to escape from your opponent’s controlling position if they have been able to establish one as you fell. Ideally you cause damage on the way back to mobility

    In my view BJJ has great answers to C - E with small adaptions for self defence. It provides some answers to A & B also
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  11. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    My point is that having a game plan makes the world of difference. Three people who are poor at fighting individually can control one expert fighter with a fair rate of success, if they have a coordinated plan. Their odds of success are exponentially reduced if they do not.

    Like you said, the plan does not have to be sophisticated or technical, but thankfully it is rare outside of professional circles for people to take the time to discuss tactics before having a scrap.

    Not necessarily. It depends how good they are at keeping mobile while striking and tactical manoeuvring, also environmental factors that may help or hinder this.

    If the group have a plan, then chances are you will end up on the floor regardless, but no art will help you in that circumstance anyway.
  12. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Small edit for you
  13. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I'm in no way trying to argue against BJJ's utility or effectiveness. It's just that I've yet to see any tactics for multiple opponents come out of it as a system.

    In fact, Vunak's old video is the closest I've seen to a systematic way of approaching training for multiples from any system.
  14. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    David, I feel like this discussion is going the way it so often does between us. You're raising finer points of word use or technical nuance that don't actually have any bearing on the point I'm making. The question was what benefit BJJ holds against multiple attackers.

    Now, whether it's an unruly mob who chaotically trip over one another and take you down in the process OR a well-coordinated team of grappling shock troops, the point is that knowing some escapes is better than not knowing them once you hit the ground. Either because you're going to be contending with some skilled ground-fighting or because you're trying to pry yourself out from underneath some guy who's inexpertly fallen on you.

    Either way, your odds are better if you're not a stranger to grappling than you would be otherwise.
  15. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Even then, you'd have to be very good.

    Giving each member of the group an objective not only makes things much simpler, but it also enhances intent. Without that specific objective you get a lot of probing and social dynamics at play, as well as people getting in each others' way which causes hesitation. As soon as you say to someone: "this is your job, don't think about anything else" they become very hard to stop.
  16. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I think that's a fair point

    My point is that BJJ offers some important parts of the required tool kit to cope with that kind of situation
    Albeit with some adaptions
  17. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter


    My point is that weapons provide ways to even up the odds
  18. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Absolutely, as I said in my first reply to you.

    My original point, that you've been replying to, was raised because of a nuanced point of language, but I raised it because of the greater implications to multiple opponents.

    So it wasn't so much that I disagreed with your point, but rather your point contained within it the kernel of a critical factor to do with the subject at hand.

    Sorry if that was frustrating for you, it was't meant to be :)
  19. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Oh I'm not frustrated. It's just the internet. Nothing to get riled over. I just like to be clear about what I've actually said.
  20. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    The Gracie video I mentioned above was still fresh in my mind too, so I think I was partly arguing against that using your points as a surrogate, so sorry about that! :)

Share This Page