TJ-Jitsu

So lets try this another way. We're often in disagreement, so I'm going to do my best to discuss this in a manner that's much more basic and simple. So lets point out your assumptions here: 1: Traditionalists or their styles even know how to fight 2: Said styles fight specifically for the streets 3: The implication of #2 is that "sport" styles don't train "for the street." Point one is the idea that all martial arts and practitioners are equal, when in fact they are NOT. This is the greatest misinformation that is often put forward. IF all martial arts were equal, then why are TKD guys submitting BJJ guys? Why are Kung Fu guys throwing Judo guys? And why aren't wrestlers ko'ing boxers? If the answers aren't obvious, its because they don't all train in the same thing. Styles absolutely matter. While it can be said that no one style can incorporate every facet of fighting, some styles merely do a much better job preparing their practitioners for actual combat. This is shown in the numbers. There is a reason why grapplers overwhelmed their striking opponents in early UFC and MMA events. These events were often held with little or no rules. Despite these rules grappling styles dominated over striking styles. I don't want to go into the specifics of why as that can be yet another lengthy discussion, but this happened. Many challenges were issued (Gracie Challenge being one) to anyone claiming to be the best fighter. Call it what you will, no one was victorious- and these were also no rules matches. Moving on to point #2. This is assuming point #1 has been proven and that's what the early MMA events set out to determine. Could someone prove to be as deadly and dangerous as they claimed? There were plenty of opportunities for every pressure point, death touch, and dirty fighter tactics in early MMA events- none proved successful. Say what you will about the rules, but the rules have to be abided by BOTH fighters, not just one or the other. Now this is a pretty big assumption that "Style X trains for the street and not the ring" when style "X" proved incapable of being the slightest bit respectable in the slightest degree in the first place! I find it particularly rich when this excuse is used over and over but I'll go a step further and say this was predicted ahead of time when the UFC put them on the spot. Initially many of these styles claimed that a kick or knee in the face, or whatever else would easily eliminate their grappling attackers. Their strikes did not prove to be as powerful as they initially thought. Many were too overwhelmed and couldn't cope with what reality was presenting them. Some sought to learn the practical styles of fighter while others chose to continue to lie to themselves- that's right, before MMA all these practitioners were "No Rules" fighters. Then when actually put on the spot (and failing miserably) they stopped being NHB fighters- they became "street" fighters. This became your regular "Oh we don't train for competitions, we train for the street!" claims. So if you hadn't noticed, what many of these people are attempting to do is trying to make their argument unfalsifiable. You're given the opportunity to prove the style in the ring, then the cage, and even behind closed doors and these practitioners continue to backpeddle each and every time. This is hardly a convincing argument, and most people can see what they're attempting to do- hence the hard words and criticism one often gets when this topic arises. This kinda brings us to point #3- that all these "sport" styles were designed to be exactly that. All of the "sport" styles were very martial in their origins. Wrestling in its various forms has always been a cornerstone of every military prior to the invention of firearms. Sport aspects of it were created to allow their soldiers to practice them against each other on a competitive level to get better Then of course theres BJJ, which is really what we're trying to get at right? That's what many are suggesting when they talking MMA aren't they? Yes, BJJ was created to fight on the city streets of Rio de Janeiro where there are no rules whatsoever. There were plenty of circumstances where family members had to flee because they were outnumbers, or assailant were armed, only to come back later when odds were in their favor (or themselves armed...). We're talking self defense vs fighting. This is a form of entertainment, so yes you cant just be timid. If we're talking about self defense now things are a bit different- your job isn't to entertain, nor do you have to defeat your opponent to win- you just have to stay alive. As you can see, this is much easier than going on the offensive. Its very difficult to fight someone who's even modestly trained when the other fighter DOES NOT want to fight. This is self defense. This is the first, the simplest, and the EASIEST part of martial arts. You're attempting to flip things around and make it be the most difficult... Of course you'd think that if you felt your style was being attacked. I'll tell you what created my vitriol- its Charlatans claiming to know how to do something- those that sell you something that they don't even possess. Im of the opinion that this is a serious problem in the world of martial arts- to a degree much greater than you probably would. I feel there is good reason too. Imagine you're trying to learn how to swim. So you read books, you do exercises, and you practice holding your breath. You do everything you can to learn how to swim except actually get in the water. When asked you rationalize that swimming is meant to be used for life and death circumstances. Its not to be made a sport and only used for survival. Meanwhile others are actually swimming and getting in the water, making marked improvements in style, theory, and application. You decide you dislike this, as it doesn't fit with your world view. You critique Michael Phelps and other Olympians as being "sport" swimmers who wouldn't have any idea of what its like to have to swim for your life. So the day comes that you're in the middle of a large lake and your boat capsizes. This is your first time getting wet. This is merely another day at the shop for them- but you want someone to put you on their level when you wont even jump in the pool....

You.... I like you. We should hang out

Hey hey- welcome aboard... So to put this simply- try doing some Muay Thai. Full contact like kyokushin but you can also punch to the face. Primary concern is learning how to fight, not score points. In terms of teaching, as an instructor one can always add their influence but it's less proper to force people to adopt your mindset or strategies. You have to lead them to the watering hole, but they make the choice to drink or not, you know?

But... BJJ is just people trying to wrestle in a karate gi! Well it can be and for many practitioners it is- but wrestling is more strength based than bjj... Although not always on the individual level

I'm not going to comment on the aikido and systema videos as I've nothing good to say about them and everything bad.... So BJJ... Bernando Faria is a talented individual, but hes also a heavyweight. I also happen to think his statement isn't correct. Its not wrong per se, but not right either. How do you know you're using too much strength when you're doing jiu jitsu? The more you're holding your opponent and the less they're able to move the more you're using strength... assuming your partner knows how to move.

I personally feel like many people in BJJ do not truly understand this concept.

Wonder what sparked this thread.... Just because someone is a pro fighter doesn't really mean they're a skilled fighter. Likewise with being "good." As I've said in the past, I've worked with some professional fighters and said "dear god man, how do you survive in the cage?" In other words just by virtue of being a pro fighter doesn't indicate a certain amount of knowledge- many get by on athleticism rather than technique. Furthermore, it'd be a common logical fallacy "argument from authority" to suggest that merely by being a pro they know. This however does not mean that by default if someone practices "martial arts" their opinions are therefore valid. Theres a lot of really really bad stuff out there and far too many people with opinions and theories that really shouldn't be giving out any suggestions... You're making an assumption with the first question and asking a relative question on the second. Not all fighters are sadistic Far as learning how to just hurt others- YES. That's kind of the idea here. This is kind of why I tell people that I'm a fighter as opposed to "I do martial arts." I have no interest in philosophy as it pertains to fighting- theres no overlap IMO.

Interesting suggestion.... Unfortunately for your argument I used to be a prison guard. I've got some insight for you- being a felon or a "bad dude" doesn't instill magical fighting prowess. In fact if you want to see some interesting examples you can even look up felony fights on YouTube. There was one where a modestly trained mma fighter in shad smith fought a guy who "just didn't care" because he was "crazy." As you would have guessed, shad toyed with the guy, because he's a pro fighter. You're failing to justify any arguments you make and are trying to appeal to fantasies "These guys MUST be crazy killers because they're in PRISON" I fail to see the correlation between being a criminal and being a skilled fighter. Watch those felony fights. Those guys are- you guessed it- former felons. You'll see just how "not professional" they are.... So you are saying that, the best fighters are cage fighters due to practicing resistance training with each other; whereas traditional martial artists are below them in every way, skill wise due to this reason?I know that this question isn't directed to me. I apologize for my perked up ears on the bold type above... I'm a traditional MAist, and I'm not below anyone; I can not, and I will not subscribe to that, nor will my resolve subscribe to that either. Shindokan is all about resistance training from day one. That's the point I'm trying to make... Which is what? So I can better understand your point. The single most important thing as it pertains to learning how to fight is training with fully resisting partners.

Interesting suggestion.... Unfortunately for your argument I used to be a prison guard. I've got some insight for you- being a felon or a "bad dude" doesn't instill magical fighting prowess. In fact if you want to see some interesting examples you can even look up felony fights on YouTube. There was one where a modestly trained mma fighter in shad smith fought a guy who "just didn't care" because he was "crazy." As you would have guessed, shad toyed with the guy, because he's a pro fighter. You're failing to justify any arguments you make and are trying to appeal to fantasies "These guys MUST be crazy killers because they're in PRISON" I fail to see the correlation between being a criminal and being a skilled fighter. Watch those felony fights. Those guys are- you guessed it- former felons. You'll see just how "not professional" they are.... So you are saying that, the best fighters are cage fighters due to practicing resistance training with each other; whereas traditional martial artists are below them in every way, skill wise due to this reason?I know that this question isn't directed to me. I apologize for my perked up ears on the bold type above... I'm a traditional MAist, and I'm not below anyone; I can not, and I will not subscribe to that, nor will my resolve subscribe to that either. Shindokan is all about resistance training from day one. That's the point I'm trying to make...

Interesting suggestion.... Unfortunately for your argument I used to be a prison guard. I've got some insight for you- being a felon or a "bad dude" doesn't instill magical fighting prowess. In fact if you want to see some interesting examples you can even look up felony fights on YouTube. There was one where a modestly trained mma fighter in shad smith fought a guy who "just didn't care" because he was "crazy." As you would have guessed, shad toyed with the guy, because he's a pro fighter. You're failing to justify any arguments you make and are trying to appeal to fantasies "These guys MUST be crazy killers because they're in PRISON" I fail to see the correlation between being a criminal and being a skilled fighter. Watch those felony fights. Those guys are- you guessed it- former felons. You'll see just how "not professional" they are.... So you are saying that, the best fighters are cage fighters due to practicing resistance training with each other; whereas traditional martial artists are below them in every way, skill wise due to this reason?To be a little more specific, cage fighters tend to be the best fighters because they actually practice fighting with fully resisting opponents each and every day. Not for nothing, but haven't you noticed that no mma fighter ever started a thread or asked in honesty how to take down a "style x" fighter or how they would fight "style x" on the street? Now again, MMA is a ruleset and not a style. The one thing the fighters will have in common is training (hopefully) with fully resisting partners when you grapple and strike. This is the heart of the argument here- resistance. Just by virtue of "I do MMA" doesn't make one a good fighter. Nor does "I do BJJ" anymore than "I do traditional style X" would make you a poor fighter. To be fair, I have worked with and taught some guys that were "professional" fighters and they were godawful bringing me back to the points I made before.

Interesting suggestion.... Unfortunately for your argument I used to be a prison guard. I've got some insight for you- being a felon or a "bad dude" doesn't instill magical fighting prowess. In fact if you want to see some interesting examples you can even look up felony fights on YouTube. There was one where a modestly trained mma fighter in shad smith fought a guy who "just didn't care" because he was "crazy." As you would have guessed, shad toyed with the guy, because he's a pro fighter. You're failing to justify any arguments you make and are trying to appeal to fantasies "These guys MUST be crazy killers because they're in PRISON" I fail to see the correlation between being a criminal and being a skilled fighter. Watch those felony fights. Those guys are- you guessed it- former felons. You'll see just how "not professional" they are....

Its the other way around. Can't tell you how many "local tough guys" across the world I've ran into that were laughable. Beyond me there are also videos of said local guys picking fights with the wrong one and get wrecked. Fighting is a science. Your arguments are akin to saying the NFL isn't the best footballers because there are other big and bad guys out there.... But they don't play football... Against other pros... Full time no less... There is a reason these are the best fighters in the world. You don't have to like it and it by no means suggests what you're doing is worthless or ineffective, but lol at all these mystical tough guys that never seem to materialize anywhere in the world...

How did I miss this one? What an opportunity to stir the pot! So at the heart of it, your cage fighters are your best fighters because of a very simple reason- experience against fully resisting opponents who know what they're doing and are also full time professional fighters themselves. I do not play nice when it comes to "respect" and martial arts. If you're going to claim you can do half as good, I'm going to put you on the spot and ask you to back it up- it's only fair. Maybe you actually can and you have sometime valuable I can learn, but maybe you actually can't and your mind is playing tricks on you. If you haven't moved with pros on a regular basis that's usually the most common result. Most of the illegal techniques limit grapplers over strikers for that matter. MMA is a rule set so mma fighters are no more grapplers than they are strikers. It really is the easiest thing in the world- just fight a pro and show us what you've got. I don't intend to be so blunt (I do but I want to do so gently if that makes sense) but I hear this way too often from people that haven't actually been in a fight let alone against a professional fighter. Pro fighters tend to win these contests overwhelmingly because they actually know what a resisting opponent feels like. That's all I care about. Call your style whatever you want. Are you going full contact? Cool if so. If not, you're trying to critique Olympic swimmers without ever having gotten wet yourself....

Yes, but size and skill is pretty significant. Men are just so much physically stronger than women. The womens abu dhabi or world champion would have a very very difficult time submitting a male blue belt if they were fighting, nevermind anyone else of a higher caliber. Think about how much difficult top black belts have submitting other guys in their division.... yeah

Nah its legal, its just exceptionally rare to be in a situation where you can actually use it. Most people lean forward and away from you if you get to their back. This makes the move a little more difficult to perform.

I play open guard almost exclusively. Im not a big fan of spider guard because it means I'm on my back (the flat of my back anyways). I prefer the mobility of a seated position. Its sometimes, but not always a butterfly-esque position. Spider guard is an odd conundrum. It works best when people are trying to smash through it and get to you. In a weird irony, people start to run away when you get good at it though.

CPR? I didn't learn how to kill people so I could bring them back to life

Absolutely! That's where I'm getting at. The "problem" with these grappling competitions is that they ignore step one: making your opponent fight. This is a serious issue in MMA where BJJ guys cant get the fight to the ground, or stay there once they do. Even worse is guys who do, but cant pass a guard on the ground because they've never had to against someone who would stand up given the space. They're so used to standing up, backing away, and trying to run all over. Not familiar with what he said, but theres a difference between being comfortable at every position and being good at every position. When you truly know what positional dominance means, it absolutely does matter which position you end up in. You may say "I'll take whatever gets me to the ground" and I'll agree with that, because that's what I do. Once I get there though I start to attack like a SOB to advance position. In a weird way though, submissions are positional advancements. Hopefully you start to understand when I say "positional dominance" it doesn't mean "top, pass, mount, back." It means getting to a position better than the previous one... Indeed. Fighters make for good fights, not rulesets. Consider Mickey Ward boxing matches- hes always been entertaining as has Manny Pacquio, despite "all the rules" boxing has. Then you have early MMA with no rules, and yet many fights were snooze fests.... That's the inherent problem- you cant force someone to fight in an entertaining matter.

That can certainly be the case some of the time, relative to each others skills, but that kinda proves my point. People have to pass the guard before they can be allowed to attack. This is not a requirement in an actual fight. What happens is people race to pull guard and want credit because they tried to finish the fight more than the guy on top, while ignoring the fact that in grappling the guy on top needs to pass before he can even begin to attack. Yes- but see the above post about guys who attempt things but never actually threaten their opponent. The "refs" we have nowadays aren't particularly versed in the intricacies of the game, despite the ranks they may or may not wear on their belt. IBJJF refs are quite stubborn when it comes to advantages for sub attempts- other tournies not so much Indeed I agree on the assumption that the person on top will do damage. There is the real possibility of a lay and pray. If the person on top can get and maintain posture though, then yes he'll have gotten powerful shots in. Whether they are clean shots becomes another debate but it'd still do more than nothing. I understand that I'm being a little harsh on bottom players, but I feel that given the direction the sport is taken its required. Too many people lay on their back and cant take the fight to their opponent. To specify, the ability to fight from your back is a great skill. Good guard players are rarities. Exceptional guard players even more so, however having ONLY the ability to fight from your guard is a serious issue. Now does this mean that a BJJ black belt doesn't know how to fight from top? Of course he does, but the lighter black belts IMO tend to have the passing game of a purple belt while relying on their guards to carry the day. Theres nothing that's more of a fight than a cage fight... I get what you're saying though, that the ref is going to stand you up and get in your way if you're a grappler, and I agree. However rulesets can be overcome and adapting to these rulesets will only make your game better for it. Finding excuses as to why your style cant adapt means you stop improving. We're talking about relativity, sure. Going towards either extreme limits you. Sub only grappling ignores position, and many have paid that price dearly when strikes are involved. Position only (wrestling) ignores sub, and many paid for ignoring that. We need to entertain both.

Its A counter without being the only one. No one has an impassable guard. Yes of course, but submissions are kinda all or nothing. If you "almost" choke someone 10x but never actually do, you've never actually accomplished anything. I'm not saying that attempting subs is a bad thing- far from it. What I'm saying is that the reason the top player is supposed to get the decision is because this is a style that's supposed to teach you how to fight- and the person on top would have actually accumulated damage whereas a generic attempted sub that doesn't threaten the guy doesn't do anything whatsoever. Been doing it for a little over a decade. At the highest level its a game of fractions of an inch. My problem isn't with "boring" people, its how we're attempting to teach people a style that's supposed to be fighting. This becomes my perspective and that said- jiu jitsu can be whatever each individual chooses it to be. For me its about fighting at its roots. A world class competitor that cant sub a blue belt level fighter from his back is severely lacking... once again IMO In some respects I feel the rules added to judo helps to accelerate the sport, in BJJ to an extent as well. What the rules have dictated for BJJ is that its very undesirable to be in someones guard. I've trained with black belts who spend so much time trying to avoid the guard that they never learned how to fight from there in the first place- it was like my first move works whenever I want. I think that's unbecoming of a jiu jitsu fighter. Ultimately again what I'd like to see is more emphasis on position. The recent rule changes (sub only) I feel hasn't helped the game for practical applications. Something adding more emphasis to position would help to improve jiu jitsu fighters as it pertains to actual fights.

Ahhhh..... A debate. I love debates Meh, yes and no and I'll explain why. First off, being on bottom isn't always a disadvantage, this is true. Whether its good or bad is relative to your skillset and your opponents. For example, if you're a novice on your back and your opponent is a skilled grappler obviously its not. If youre a skilled guard player and your opponent is not (and hes on top) then its not so bad. Usually this scenario is seen with your classic "I don't know takedowns" BJJer (who also doesn't know striking) and pulls guard in an attempt to get the fight to the ground. In this sense, fighting from guard against Mike Tyson is good if the alternative is to fight him on the feet. Simply put, it is ALWAYS better to be on top than on bottom. The only reason this isn't true is the ignorance of the person on bottom. For example, if your guard game is better than your top game, that's more that your top game needs more work.... and I'll explain further That's just it though- the guard is not a position of control or leverage- its actually the opposite. The guard is best described as a complete lack of leverage from both parties. This is why there are no "perfect" techniques to be done from the guard (compare to say RNC). No matter how good anyones guard ever gets its just not an advantage to be on bottom against a fighter who knows what hes doing on top. That last statement becomes an important one, because against people less than skilled in grappling it is possible to have the advantage even though you're on bottom. I think this is simplified when we merely say "Fighter X wants nothing to do with him on the ground." Now if you want an easy way to figure out your problems, just take it to the extreme to figure out the most reasonable path. The guard as I said is best defined as the complete lack of leverage. Its almost neutral. We of course are assuming two evenly skilled fighters. What tips the scales for the person on top is gravity (takes the form of "free strength") Take two fighters, one 150lbs and another 300lbs. Put them in guard. If the big guy is on top, no one can say the small guy has it easy from bottom. This doesn't mean he cant win, but he definitely doesn't hold any advantage assuming skill levels are similar. Now reverse it. The only way someone could say the 150lb guy is better off on bottom isn't because of his skill on his back but rather his lack of skill on top. This is where the gray area begins to intrude. What I'd need to see is some legitimate "OMG hes got it hes going to tap!!" submission attempts- not some "Oh he threw his legs up lets give him a point" sub attempt. See, a jab actually hits your opponent and actually causes damage. A sub attempt only merits scoring when your opponent is very close to getting finished. Of course the guy on bottom is going to "attempt" to submit because he doesn't have a large plethora of options to choose from. The observation that hes attempting it is irrelevant- I had better see an opponent holding on for dear life- the type that's looking for the buzzer to save him, otherwise just throwing your legs up does nothing to impress me. Just as every time the guy on bottom throws his legs up, so to does the person on top attempt to pass every time he brings his knee up or pushes his opponents knee down. A failed submission attempt is better compared to a boxer that takes a big swing and completely whiffs and misses his opponent... but wants credit for "attempting to end it." Finally, there aren't any ways to legitimately attack someone from inside their guard in a grappling match that don't include leg locks. What happens now is the person on top has to pass the guard just to even be allowed to attempt to submit. Once we start adding strikes many of our questions are answered. Being on top is better than being on bottom. This does not mean that being on bottom is bad. A select few can be on bottom and claim to be in an advantageous position relative to their opponents (lack of) skill. Assuming equal skill, the winner is often overwhelmingly (without absolutely) the person on top. Bear in mind I was a guard player. Now I'm just a jiu jitsu fighter...

There was a very precise reason that the person on bottom loses when it goes to refs decision- positional dominance. There is nothing wrong with pulling guard- it's like losing the battle to try to win the war. Problem is it's simple and straightforward- you either sweep (and the game continues) or you submit and win the war. Tournaments that started awarding points for submission attempts hindered progress I feel- a sub attempt is an all or nothing thing. It doesn't matter if you "almost" got 20 subs from bottom, at the end of the fight your opponent would be sweaty but you'd be bloody. My very simple suggestion is to keep Ibjjf rules the same, but merely add 2 points for top position, regardless of how it is attained. People will still pull guard but immediately will be losing by two points. No amount of advantages will overcome that. Maybe then things will clean up a bit

Curious- why do you think grip fighting skills are essential for a good mount?

Kind of wonder how your Tai Chi Sifu would receive this, if at all!? Not many, if any, instructors like being told, directly or indirectly, along the lines of your quote above. Seldom do people like hearing the truth.

Agreed with Alex- if I could articulate it my way though. "Mma" isn't a style- it's a rule set. There is no "mma" style because you can fight however you want. What it really comes down to is how you train, the concept of resistance training. This in and of itself settles virtually all debates. This is also the reason why I'm so critical of rbsd styles and why they don't work. Provided you keep it real with resistance training you can call what you do whatever you want imo. The next thing is the idea that some people will indeed be willfully ignorant and will not change their minds no matter the amount of evidence presented. The person who actually spends time fighting will have a marked advantage over the person who pretends to fight- and that doesn't settle well with most people. Call it what you will, my concern is fighting so when we talk about martial arts that's what I mean. Being a spiritual person is of no concern to me