TJ-Jitsu

Anything thats labeled as "anti-grappling" is usually good for humor, but not much else. Those who can best avoid grappling are those that are themselves accomplished grapplers. Everyone's recommending a quality school to train, so we all seem to be on the same page. The next thing frankly is finding a quality instructor. Watch a few classes of where ever you might train, preferably one that has a good mix of various body types (big vs small, young vs old, strong vs weak, etc). See how the instructor handles the situation when you have young athletic guys that want to roll hard vs older/weaker/ less "gung hoe" type students. If its a fight club style school, I think you'd agree its not in your best interests. If on the other hand the instructor is able to cater to advanced and novice, big and small, and young and old throughout the class and most importantly during the live sparring- you'll have found a quality instructor with whom you'd probably enjoy working with. One way I might recommend judging an instructors demeanor is by watching him teach a kids class if he has one. See how hard he pushes those that are less enthused about it. Is he and everyone else smiling? Are the children having a good time and less emphasis on TRAIN! If so you've got a patient coach that knows not everyone can be pushed in the same way. The irony of this suggestion is that I dont teach childrens classes because I cant stand them..... but I'd consider myself a good instructor When it comes down to it, you're going to have to be choked and armlocked, you're going to have to be thrown and you're going to have to fight a little to learn these things. If this is done to you in a technical way you will have much fewer injuries, as opposed to a young college wrestler that wants to pry your head off.

I used to do both of those, and still in fact teach both. My personal strategy is slightly different though. Follow the logic.... In order to mount, one needs to have control of both their opponents hips (near and far side). As it stands I almost always attack with knee in the belly prior to going to full mount. This claims the near side hip and leaves roughly 3 options for the person on bottom: 1: They turn towards you to attempt to hip escape, giving the mounted position in the process (along with any other array of arm/choke attacks) 2: They turn away, protecting the far hip and preventing mount at the expense of giving armbar, choke, and rear mount options 3: They do nothing, leaving shooters choice.

The traditional Gracie Jiu Jitsu curriculum doesn't have people doing free sparring until they're blue belts. Ever wonder why schools have "white belt" and "blue belt" classes but never any "purple, brown, and black" classes? It refers to the techniques being shown. In Gracie Jiu Jitsu, all white belt classes were your basic self defense- everything you'll see in Helios book, Royler, Renzo, etc. In this sense if you did do live rolling, you did so from a positional sense (i.e. escape a headlock, mount/cross side positions, etc.). Once a student was able to shown they could proficiently perform all of the self defense curriculum, they were promoted to blue belt. What we regard as a "normal" BJJ class are actually the blue belt classes, where technique is practiced from any number of positions and then live rolling at the end (you're practicing jiu jitsu vs jiu jitsu if you will). As competitions grew to become popular, many schools disregarded the self defense part of the white belt class and just brought people right in the door and had them rolling from the get go. I like this myself (I think most of us do) but the other approach tends to be good for people who actually want to learn the self defense aspect of BJJ That approach wouldn't be too good for business these days. People want to start rolling right away and I think that is good because it weeds out the ego maniacs from the jump. Meh, yes and no. A good business approach is to offer both. There are people that are a little too timid and shy to jump right in and start training- and they tend to feel pressured being the only person that sits out during training. A self defense class is a perfect starter set for them. Likewise a guy that really wants to jump in with both feet is going to like a more modern approach.

The traditional Gracie Jiu Jitsu curriculum doesn't have people doing free sparring until they're blue belts. Ever wonder why schools have "white belt" and "blue belt" classes but never any "purple, brown, and black" classes? It refers to the techniques being shown. In Gracie Jiu Jitsu, all white belt classes were your basic self defense- everything you'll see in Helios book, Royler, Renzo, etc. In this sense if you did do live rolling, you did so from a positional sense (i.e. escape a headlock, mount/cross side positions, etc.). Once a student was able to shown they could proficiently perform all of the self defense curriculum, they were promoted to blue belt. What we regard as a "normal" BJJ class are actually the blue belt classes, where technique is practiced from any number of positions and then live rolling at the end (you're practicing jiu jitsu vs jiu jitsu if you will). As competitions grew to become popular, many schools disregarded the self defense part of the white belt class and just brought people right in the door and had them rolling from the get go. I like this myself (I think most of us do) but the other approach tends to be good for people who actually want to learn the self defense aspect of BJJ

That's a rather broad sweeping generalisation. There is Japanese jujutsu and there is Japanese jujutsu. Most of the stuff I see displayed under the banner of JJJ is no more than poorly practiced Judo. If however you are fortunate enough to be exposed to some of the koryu systems - you might revise your thinking. Some of the ground work found in Araki-ryu for example is devastatingly effective. It's sole purpose is to arrest or seriously maim / kill someone. In many systems (Takenuchi-ryu, Araki-ryu and Sosuishi-ryu) hand to hand Jujutsu is practiced but the core of their grappling is done so using a 'sho-to' or short blade (this sort of grappling is referred to as Kogusoku). K. It may be a broad generalization but it's also an accurate one. I've been exposed to a few jjj systems and all have been less than impressive with underwhelming instructors. Most of the problem lies in their lack of live rolling and full contact. In my experience a blue belt in bjj tends to submit a jjj Black belt several times in a single training session. There may be exceptions. It they're far from the rule In regards to "deadly" techniques that's a bogus argument as well- all techniques are deadly if followed through on. A choke hold is about as deadly as they come- and ironically as safe as they come too. It's just a question of time. It'd be less appropriate to label jjj techniques as deadly and more appropriately to label them as "exotic" Have you trained in Araki-ryu? I haven't, so its still labeled as "generic JJJ" in my mind. I quick google-fu reinforced that. Have any videos you could link or demonstrations or techniques?

That's a rather broad sweeping generalisation. There is Japanese jujutsu and there is Japanese jujutsu. Most of the stuff I see displayed under the banner of JJJ is no more than poorly practiced Judo. If however you are fortunate enough to be exposed to some of the koryu systems - you might revise your thinking. Some of the ground work found in Araki-ryu for example is devastatingly effective. It's sole purpose is to arrest or seriously maim / kill someone. In many systems (Takenuchi-ryu, Araki-ryu and Sosuishi-ryu) hand to hand Jujutsu is practiced but the core of their grappling is done so using a 'sho-to' or short blade (this sort of grappling is referred to as Kogusoku). K. It may be a broad generalization but it's also an accurate one. I've been exposed to a few jjj systems and all have been less than impressive with underwhelming instructors. Most of the problem lies in their lack of live rolling and full contact. In my experience a blue belt in bjj tends to submit a jjj Black belt several times in a single training session. There may be exceptions. It they're far from the rule In regards to "deadly" techniques that's a bogus argument as well- all techniques are deadly if followed through on. A choke hold is about as deadly as they come- and ironically as safe as they come too. It's just a question of time. It'd be less appropriate to label jjj techniques as deadly and more appropriately to label them as "exotic"

Sure! I mean I think for the most part we're in agreement here, it just becomes a matter of degree. It's of no use to get a takedown if ignoring lands you in a guillotine for example. Likewise to only attempt a takedown when you're absolutely sure it lands in a great position greatly limits your options. Some of us are a little to the left and some of use are a little to the right

This begs the question then, have you ever trained in Judo or Greco Roman wrestling?Because in those systems, controlling how and where your opponent lands is paramount to what you do, and I wonder whether or not it would be valuable to many practitioners of BJJ to incorporate a strong takedown game so that they don't have to fight as hard for a dominant position. Indeed I do train Judo and I'm quite successful with it- particularly (and ironically I suppose?) in no gi. The theory sounds good- the idea that you're going to control your opponent, but the reality is different. One must control their opponent virtually 100% to be able to completely dictate whether they end up in guard, half, or cross side. Many takedowns are accomplished with much less than 100% control- you just take whats given your way. This is even exhibited in Judo itself when you see judoka throw and land in a kesa gatami (headlock) position- one that's not particularly effective at finishing, but only at pinning. If one had a choice, landing with an underhook is much more desirable. You also take into account the concept of "overthrowing" your opponent as it happens in judo. Both of these things occur precisely because one doesn't have complete control of their opponent. To draw an analogy, its like someone that wants to pass the guard straight to full mount. Can it be done? Sure. Is it practical? Well, lots have done it so sure. On the other hand, is it a good strategy? This is where is it not. There are plenty of other opportunities to pass to the cross side when a full mount is not possible. You allow yourself to be successful "more often" if that makes sense. One is asking for too much if you want to only pass to full mount, and one is asking for too much only asking to have absolute control when they throw. In short, I just want the takedown period. I don't really care which position we end up in so long as I've landed a takedown. Whatever position you land in well, that's why we've got jiu jitsu.

Meh, I don't think it's very practical to think that far ahead. Any takedown should have a full commitment which means you don't have anything "extra" to plan something else. You have to deal with whatever position you end up in. The position you end up in usually depends on how your opponent defends. Sometimes you end up in full guard and sometimes you get cross side. To have a set of criteria for the results of a takedown (i.e. I have to land in cross side) is asking too much

I'll call shenanigans on that analogy. Like it or not, mixed martial arts are the proving ground for what works. It does not cater towards or against any style (unarmed, that is). In fact, over time all of the rules that have been implemented have helped strikers and hampered grapplers- I say that for reference to all those that claim their "deadly" techniques will work well if not for the rules.... Finally, no one really cares if techniques from "style X" work in "the street" or not. I've fought in this mythical setting several hundred times..... its a joke. ANYTHING can work in the street because you're fighting bums who don't know what they're doing. On the other hand, if you're fighting people who are also trained fighters, are themselves training daily, and are watching videos of how to best you at your worst game, and you're STILL able to make your techniques work..... you're pretty solid. Martial arts tend to be treated like religion, where its disrespectful to question anything. MMA has allowed people to come out and call out the charlatans. This is a good thing, because for hundreds (and some thousands) it wasn't allowed. This has allowed thing to evolve. MMA fighters are in actual fights every day, and they're doing it against other fighters as well. This isn't theory. This is reality. This is making it work. Too many in the martial arts world live in the world of theory. That's all MMA is- making the cross to reality. There are no more excuses. Now, what have these MMA competitions taught us over the years? Its taught us that its a physical skill, like every other "sport" that there is. Its also taught us that the world is full of people who claim to train "for real" and for "the street!" and these guys tend to get absolutely and utterly obliterated against even a modestly trained fighter. Why does this happen? Because every time that I choke someone, I kill them (or could have just as well) I just hold longer..... The same is said after you catch a jointlock, whatever it may be. You're combat ineffective. Same thing applies to a knockout. You've just potentially killed a guy. Your opponent is unconscious, and his fate is entirely in your hands at this point. So you're thinking "Oh, so its BJJ and thai boxing for the win, right.?" Not necessarily.... The reason why the best fighters came from your classic MMA styles is because of HOW they practiced, which is FULL contact. This keeps things as real as possible. When you practice like this, you'll get results. That is perhaps the most important facet of the game. It doesn't matter what you call your style (or what you don't...) you have to train against resisting opponents. The more you do, the better you'll become either through technical refinement, or outright technical replacements. Fighting isn't rocket science, (but it is a science). Lots of things can work, but most people aren't concerned about possibilities, they're concerned about probabilities. So for unarmed fighting, MMA-esque training is the best you will get.

I'm on my phone, so bear with me I'll try to tackle this one at a time. Do I think one must spar full contact to be a martial artist? Well I suppose it depends on your definition of martial artist, so I'll just say you have to spar full contact on a semi regular basis if you want to learn how to fight.... In regards to the topic of kicking again I stand by my previous statements. Depends on the level of skill if he people involved. I'm also not talking exclusively of kicking either....

Bruce Lee was way ahead of his time, but he wasnt perfect. He thought Muay thai wasnt a very practical fighting style, but its beaten every striking style there is since his time. Ronda (and everyone else for that matter) getting knocked out just shows the effectiveness of a head kick. Of course, what most people are missing most are the relative questions that will determine if a head kick is a good idea: -can you throw one (well?) -how skilled is the person you're throwing it against? When talking self defense, we're typically talking you're regular joe street fighter. Basically an untrained person, a scrub. If you're a trained fighter you can pretty much do whatever you want, headkicks included, while you crack jokes, and update your facebook status at the same time. The closer the skill level of the two examples above, the more difficult and perhaps less practical an attempted head kick becomes. I disagree with your point that a street fighter is on the losing end easily in your scenerio. People are people so it's always up in the air but I'm going to be completely honest, many martial artists I have seen wouldn't hardly mop the floor with guys from my neighborhood. Where I'm from guys lift a lot of weights, they are strong, they are tough, and they aren't afraid. They don't have half of the respect as many martial artists and I don't see it going how you described it. I don't think Bruce meant it shouldn't be used but the fact is that it is a fair comparison. A low kick has much more weight behind it, a mid section kick has much more reach with its use, a high kick is at a disadvantage. Also, in a street situation I assure you idlf a man isn't good, I mean fast and hard hitting, with a high kick then it's highly likely somebody will grab it. If we make the assumption that the person using it is highly skilled I hear you, but FYI Brian (bushido man) is totally right. I did see the fight, and there were not a tremendous amount to of kicks thrown. It was about timing. Only a fool would walk up on a grappler and stick to head shots. I say to adult students in particular "theres a time and a place for everything". I say it to more adults because adults seek what's practical, and challenge things mentally. It's important for me to help students see that what's practical depends on many things. I have some basic grappling skills, but I bet I can take some people with my mobes, that makes them effective in some situations. A jiu-jitsu guy would make me a pretzel, not so effective. Not always about the techniques but how well you can execute them. I dont think we've got the same definition for "martial artist" to be honest with you. Allow me to clarify. Do you train full contact with others who also train full contact that are professional/amateur full contact fighters? If so my statement still stands. If not, then you're not really learning how to fight (at least not very well). So if your regular grind consists of heavy/full contact, yes you will find it amusing how hard that muscular guy doesnt hit, how fast he isnt, and how novice he actually is. Granted a low kick is easier and safer to throw than a high kick, but this is all dependant on who's throwing it. A well executed mid or high kick needs to be blocked before it can be caught, less the defender break whatever it is hes trying to catch it with.

I suppose this really depends on what style you're teaching, eh? Its not uncommon to see ranks lower than black belt teaching classes in BJJ- black belts tend to be hard to come by, good black belts even moreso. Usually purple is the rank where most black belts are comfortable allowing to teach, and it takes about as long to get a purple in BJJ as it does to be say, a 3rd degree black belt in other styles. If the academy has other instructors (say brown or black belts) sometimes these purple belts will teach beginner classes or self defense. Who you have teaching depends on who's available in various parts of the world. The same can be said for muay thai- sometimes the coach or the fight team may be away for the weekend for a fight several states away. Sometimes a student fills in to teach the class while they're gone. I've seen it happen on more than one occasion. I dont get too caught up on whos teaching, provided that they're not attempting to teach something they dont know, they're doing a good job teaching what they do know, and they're making an earnest attempt to do so. I've seen a few black belts that I thought were nothing short of trash when it came to instructing, and have seen a few purples that have done great despite.

These are valid points and true no one has a patent on "MMA." Lets be quite honest though- someone comes into your school asking if you teach MMA... you know EXACTLY what they're referencing. This is the issue that I tend to call out. I also never heard of anyone teaching "mixed martial arts" until the UFC came about and popularized it. Is it a play on words? Sure it is, but people know exactly what you're referencing when you say "MMA." Might the guy turn out to be great? With "black belts in muay thai" and all that? I mean, its a possibility and at the end of the day yes the proof is in the pudding.... but I have a strong feeling that hes teaching a kids gymnastics class rather than a martial arts class that actually teaches unarmed fighting. Am I being harsh? Yeah (I said I was) but thats how I am

I'll entertain your question, but he warned- I'm a harsh critic Firstly he plays on the terminology of mixed martial arts- mixed martial arts requires at least stand up and ground. In short, you need a striking style and a legitimate submission grappling style. He claims to teach karate, Kung fu, and Muay Thai thereby teaching "mixed" martial arts. With no credentials for anything on the ground. I'll bet money the "mma" classes (if offerred) are atrocious at best. While we're on the topic of credentials, he claims to have a "black belt" in Muay Thai. That's an immediate red flag. There are no belts in Muay Thai and by claiming one he's claiming to be a fraud- there are no two ways about that. Then in regards to Kung fu- I was under the impression that Kung fu has sashes and not belts, and that a red sash is the highest rank- but certainly no black belts in Kung fu. 5 year old black belts.... Karate birthday parties... Krav Maga.... This website has it all- yes it screams mcdojo.

You have a point... but the purpose of "martial arts" is to learn how to fight. In this sense, success is a question of being able to impose that onto someone else effectively. One may have many other reasons for doing a particular martial art, and thats perfectly fine- but that does not make one a fighter.

High rating with public support? Most of the poeple I interact with widely accept aikido as the absolutely least effective martial art there is. What high rating and public support are you referring to? Police use aikido because frankly the people who are in charge of their curriculum have absolutely no idea what they're trying to do. These are politicians who sell their services to the lowest bidder. Happens in corrections, military, and private security. If you saw what they're teaching (or saw one trying to apply it) you'd (hopefully) shake your head in disgust.

Yes,but I'd hardly consider that a strong point that "style X works against complete novices." No. Not in the slightest degree....ever....under any circumstances Yes. I find they have a very difficult time applying anything at all to be honest. I mean, Im trying to be as unpartial as possible, but aikido is not meant for hand to hand unarmed combat. Every circumstance I've even encountered, seen, or heard of reaffirms this. Ive never seen an aikido technique work that wasnt employed during a demo Same statement above holds true to this. Usually I see an aikido specialist attempt a wrist lock or something only to be thrown or taken down when doing so.... Thats the problem. The hips are EVERYTHING when it pertains to fighting (especially grappling). Aikido tends to fall short so often because its focusing on a part of the body thats a far as possible from controlling/ attacking the hips.

This...

Bruce Lee was way ahead of his time, but he wasnt perfect. He thought Muay thai wasnt a very practical fighting style, but its beaten every striking style there is since his time. Ronda (and everyone else for that matter) getting knocked out just shows the effectiveness of a head kick. Of course, what most people are missing most are the relative questions that will determine if a head kick is a good idea: -can you throw one (well?) -how skilled is the person you're throwing it against? When talking self defense, we're typically talking you're regular joe street fighter. Basically an untrained person, a scrub. If you're a trained fighter you can pretty much do whatever you want, headkicks included, while you crack jokes, and update your facebook status at the same time. The closer the skill level of the two examples above, the more difficult and perhaps less practical an attempted head kick becomes.

Meh, you're jumping to conclusions a little quickly here. The reason why strikes arent taught in BJJ is because they dont need to be. One does not need to be train how to punch from the mount- its quite easy. Needless to say if you want to learn how to strike then yes, BJJ isnt for you. Unfortunately any style that attempts to teach all 3 facets of the fight (striking, clinch, ground) tends to be modest at best in any 3. In short, watered down. In regards to mma fighters only practicing things that are immediately practical... well yeah, thats the idea. I dont buy the whole "it needs to be practiced for 10 years to be effective." Something that never works will suddenly switch "on" after that final year? If it hasnt been working for you for the past 10 years you're either doing a bogus technique, or doing a legit technique the wrong way.... Again I call shenanigans on these statements. This is the most common thing encountered with BJJ critics and the answer is always the same- BJJ does not teach you to fight multiple opponents, but NO martial art does. All the same people that claim to be able to teach you to defend yourself against many often prove to be unable to defend themselves against one.... so hows that logic work? Basically we're both at odds fighting multiple people, so why even bother bringing it up? If you actually do end up on the ground against multiple opponents you'll be glad you know how to fight on the ground so that you can protect yourself and stand up- at least better than anyone else can teach.

Starting from kneeling is always a good start. In regards to the fall imagine you're going in a straight line (going forward) but you obviously dont want to smack your head/face on the ground. The solution? Look to the shoulder (the one you're NOT rolling over) and tuck your chin. Now instead of going directly over your head and spine, you'll find that you've simply moved your head out of the way of the fall. Thats probably the most important part of learning how to fall (protect your head and neck). Most everything else will fall in line once you start to do that.

South Africa, he wrote this in his posts I don't think he will read this though, he seems to have disappeared from the forums. That makes sense- BJJ and MMA havent ventured that far yet.

Eh, there's a few generalizations that I feel are too... Generalized. Both karate and tkd were created to fight, they were merely adapted to sports as well. In many respects that's a positive thing- the most effective fighting arts are those considered sports. It may be more appropriate to say the tkd dojo YOU are training out of is more sport, etc. Whether you consider it a "sport" or not it's still a sport of hitting people in the face and that sounds like learning how to fight to me. Take it for what it's worth- I'm normally a harsh critic of tkd and karate, so even I can see when some things are too generalized.

Another guy that's too deadly for mma.... Hey kal I'm assuming sa mean South America. Any Gracie Jiu jitsu school will entertain your challenge. Yes there are no rules if you do a challenge match. Be warned though that you will receive whatever you attempt to dish out. In short, that means that if you want to gouge the eyes of bite, then there is no tapping or quitting when someone decides to break your limbs. You say you try not to make these statements out of ego, and I believe you. You simply haven't been exposed to what a pro fighter can and will do to you. I'll leave you with a final note. The mere suggestion that a "deep horse stance" would stop a takedown... You're 30 years behind the times- really. You are not the first to think this and you won't be the last. Let's entertain your claim for a minute though just to point out either how incredibly misinformed you are, or how incredibly unique you are. If you indeed make yourself "immovable" you are a walk on for the nfl all star team. Millions of dollars are yours for the taking because you have a skill that no offensive lineman has been able to achieve. So you may be wrong, but you may be right