TJ-Jitsu

I dont stare people down in the cage or at weigh ins even. Last guy I fought was actually a pretty nice guy. Most of the people that are talking smack are trying to convince themselves rather than me. I have no problem with that- it shows weakness on their end. I dont believe what comes out of their mouth especially when they havent even heard of me prior to the fight. Let them think Im afraid, let them think whatever they want- when I grab a hold of them, it all comes down to how they can move... which is usually going to be "not good enough." On the flipside, you've got people that make a tactical game out of it like Conner McGregor. He sells lots of tickets, and I love him for it. Most the reason he talks so much smack is obviously to make money, but also because he gets his opponents so fired up that they WANT to chase him down and hit him- and McGregor is a very very effective counterpuncher so they play right into his game.

That would be legs kicks i'm assuming? As that always been the achillies hill to american kickboxing. While the style does make using round house kicks more difficult, it DOES open up side kicks and side teeps and other kicks, like hook kick, which can be very powerful if done correctly Sure, just not as powerful as your classic thai roundhouse. Discussions over which is "better" is really a discussion on strategy. The good thing about the sideways kicks is that they're fast at the expense of power- both to deliver and move afterwards. These fighters are usually out of the pocket quickly after they've hit their opponent, leaving very little in terms of a counter attack. The good thing about the thai roundhouse is the commitment to the strike- it'll break whatever it hits- hands, arms, faces, legs- it represents a full committment to hitting your opponent. Thats the problem though- committment. Your typical MMA fighter will eat a leg kick to get a takedown because frankly its worth it. So theres a triad now of A beat B B beats C, C beats A.... who you're fighting is going to determine what strategy may or may not be better.

Meh, I mean its solid but there are pros and cons to every style. Personally, the reason I see it doing well (from a small group of fighters...) in MMA is precisely because the people they're fighting have lousy muay thai. Works like this- sideway stance gives you lots of mobility and speed at the expense of power. Many of the fighters in the UFC are boxers and not proficient at thai. It might be more appropriate to say those that have the muay thai skill set stand in such a way that they're unable to utilize their leg kicks.... So theres your problem- people trying to trade punches with a style (stance) that favors greater speed and mobility. These fighters found their niche- so many people stopped throwing kicks in MMA because wrestlers were willing to eat them for a takedown. Now you've got very mobile fighters that are making them pay the price.... Same thing that beats that game is the same thing that did it some 30 years ago.....

You got it! But to be fair sometimes you have to do this in an indirect manner.... Also, plenty of people can say "you're supposed to kill the hips" but cant actually do it either....

You know Bruce kinda stopped doing his wing chun to pursue boxing more, yeah? On top of it, the fact that boxing is a sport is an advantage over wing chun- Its more beneificial for martial arts to become a sport, because their practitioners can now practice full contact (in some of them anyways) and learn real life fighting experience.

If you guys are talking about that, then yes the reason why we smack them in the fact is because its a fight! Heres the deal- people want to come in and challenge jiu jitsu. So its a fight, and this guy is going to cave your skull in if given the right opportunity. You get a dominant position on him, and you begin to slap him. The demonstrates that you could seriously hurt him without having to do so. It also adds a little embarassment (thats the idea...). You can smack the hell out of someone without really hurting them like you would throwing punches or elbows- and really make your point. The problem is many people on the recieving end forget that its a fight and often ask for a second and even third match. Its those second and third fights where you need to remind them they're in a fight- and those slaps turn to punches and elbows....

All power is generated from the ground. I mean, it doesnt HAVE to be generated from the ground but that is the most efficient and most powerful way of doing it. Thats really small fish though, the problem is this: A fist is going to be moving significantly faster and more often than a bigger slower target- your opponents head for example. If you think its logical to elbow someones fist, then it follows that its significantly easier to hit something much bigger and much slower (the head...) that doesnt move nearly as fast. This is the rationale for body shots, for example. When I see a wing chun guy (or someone thats using wing chun I should say) effectively counter a boxers techniques, I'll start to give credence to the concept of elbowing the fist. If you cant hit the head you're asking way too much for me to give you any room for claiming to time a significant faster and more mobile target... No its not, at least again- not effectively. Effective ground and pound is done with your feet on the ground as again- thats where your power comes from. It doesnt have to be this way and many may not, but then its not as powerful. That actually helps to explain so much of what I see.... You're mistaken on that one too- I was quite a proficient hockey player prior to fighting. All the power is again drawn from the ground or in this case- the ice. Its the balance and ability to drive and pull your opponent off balance thats most important in a hockey fight. The punches are going to come and go- its the balance (and off balancing of your opponent) thats going to make the difference as to whether they have power or not... When he can effectively hit a boxers face (i.e. a student who wears boxing gloves does not equal a boxer...) then I just might start to listen to the idea of attacking your opponents punch. I do not think hes actually worked against a proficient boxer though, which makes sense given the techniques hes attempting....

Im divided somewhat with him. In my opinion hes incredibly open minded for a wing chun practicioner. I mean, Im terribly surprised that he practices ACTUAL grappling and doesnt do "anti-grappling." Some things are a little out there though- I saw one where he was asked about boxers, and he was very much... how should I put it, "off" with his assumptions and whatnot. I mean, to suggest that you're going to elbow an incoming boxers punch is a little ridiculous, along with the concept that hes going to throw a punch and then leave it out there for to counter it or do something with it.... BUT From what I've seen of him, he might have shown me the most important thing- the potential to change his mind when either confronted with evidence or if his technique is defeated. All in all, Im more pro him than anti, but I have to see too many videos either....

What jiu jitsu are you speaking of?

You give way too much credit to the human species. Here we are in the 21st century and we're still waging wars to argue about which bronze age god you'll visit when you die. There is also a flat earth society.... let that one sink in for a bit. And imagine if you could go back in time and explain your new iphone to someone in 1880: "Here I have a device that can access any and all information world wide in a matter of seconds with a swipe of my hand. I spend the majority of my time with it uploading photos of my cat and my lunch...."

The point Im trying to suggest is that there is only grappling- anti grappling or grappling in reverse suggests doing something that isnt otherwise being attempting in grappling. I mean, I grapple to get to my feet all the time- I just also happen to have a leg, arm, or neck when I do get to my feet. I then finish and sometimes submit. Lets invent a scale that guages grappling abilty- call it 1-10. Usually when someone is attempting to "just" get to their feet they tend to only understand grappling until point 5-Im being very generic and vague here. As he gets better (say a 7) he could attempt to multitask and stand up with something in order to cut the fat and immediately go on the offensive. At the end of the day though, whether someone is "just" standing up or standing up as part of a sweep/counter, the standing part still looks exactly the same, barring a few details that a more experienced grappler will be better using. Its not the techniques but the fighters strategy, know what I mean?

Please explain. That makes about as much sense as saying I strike in reverse.....

I'd say you're doing the correct thing. I've competed in muay thai, gi, no gi, and mma rulesets. The biggest thing is adaptability, and you'll learn how (or at least think how to do it) doing this tournament. You'll probably get frustrated that people almost touch you and that counts as a hit. Then you'll rationalize that its not realistic and your ego will convince yourself that everything is all right.... Same thing happened to me- spider guard isnt practical for a "real" fight. Boxing bobbing and weaving "isnt practical for a real fight" muay thai because theres no takedowns, no gi because theres no punches... etc etc. Suddenly you coincidentally find that everything you find "impractical" happens to be the same things you're not good at. You also begin to limit yourself very significantly as a result. Point Im making is that mentality limits yourself and your learning. Youre stepping out of your element and thats a good thing because it'll improve your game. You'll either find something to incorporate or you'll learn how that other side tends to think when they fight. Whatever- have some fun, eh?

Cant believe I missed this post... You've just as much likelyhood of liking vs not liking. MMA is just a ruleset, so you cant say wrestling is any more mma than boxing. It would be appropriate to say that you'd have to be familiar with the ground game, or perhaps better to say it'd be in your best interest. Heres the kicker though- it really all depends on who your opponent is. Youve got a wide range of opponents to choose from and potential to get a good fight. Like others have said, you'll do best just going to the school and trying it out for about a month. You'll know by then.

Point taken, but when it comes to probabilities vs possibilities, I prefer to focus on the first over the second.

I disagree- what ever environment you're in your opponent is also in too, therefore both of you are back to neutral as it were. For example, I've been in fights in bars, bathrooms, sidewalks, city streets, basements, parking lots, and so forth. The altercation doesnt suddenly change because the environment did and no one was more difficult than the other. In short, it sounds like a strawman argument to me... As you can only speak from your own experiences (TJ-Jitsu) then that is your perspective alone and not representative of everyone everywhere.Using the environment is very important in an altercation due to using it to ones own advantage, if a person knows how. If a person doesn't no how to use the environment to ones own advantage, then yes I agree that it will be a level playing feild for both involved. Fair enough, but you'd have to show me an example of someone more aware of the environment than his opponent and further it by showing how he was taught such awareness and where he was able to execute it

I cant say I've seen anything impressive from systema. It looks like a regular run of the mill RBSD type thing to me. A style is not valid unless proven otherwise- the claimer has to have proof. In this sense if someone is to claim that systema is an effective system they must present proof. I dont recommend anything to the public for self defense. An exceptionally small window of people are actually open to facts and debate and the rest are clouded in their own delusions, not unlike religious people. If you're honest and truthfull, you'll find something practical.

I disagree- what ever environment you're in your opponent is also in too, therefore both of you are back to neutral as it were. For example, I've been in fights in bars, bathrooms, sidewalks, city streets, basements, parking lots, and so forth. The altercation doesnt suddenly change because the environment did and no one was more difficult than the other. In short, it sounds like a strawman argument to me...

Stop! Who would post on this forum must answer me, these questions three! What art doest thou practice? How long hast thou doest practiced? What is your favorite color?

Sure- sounds effective enough, but just because what you do was effective doesnt negate all other options either, nor does it mean it would have been equally effective in all situations either. Whether someone may or may not do "technique X" is hypothetical, so Im going to start with what I highlighted in your response. STRENGTH. They're looking for weaker targets. A 120lb woman is going to have quite a difficult time attempting to knock out a 180lb man. Thats a significant weight advantage there, and strength advantage to go with it. On the other hand, it takes only 5lbs of pressure to collapse the caratoid arteries and cause unconciousness. The chances are good that: -people confronted tend to avoid conflict and attempt to flee -the only way to prevent said escape is by grabbing someone, thereby grappling. In short, if you can punch or kick, you can also run. We're talking self defense here, not fighting- so running would always take precedence. People also grapple significantly more often that you're taking into account- when you ask when and why you'll see it even with the best of strikers. Consider: -many untrained (and trained for that matter) prefer to initiate fights with punches. -one inevitably gets the better of the exchange -knockdowns are more common that knock outs -solid strikes are more common than knock downs. -knockdowns from strikes are more often from a combination of multiple strikes rather than a single strike So what happens when the fight starts with punches and one gets the better? The other instinctively grapples. Happens all the time you dont even need to be taught it. Watch a boxing match and look at what the referees primary job is- to keep two individuals who spend their entire lives throwing strikes from grabbing each other The takedown is the most difficult part of the grappling game (usually) but is the beginning of a download slope. Once someone is down the next thing that happens is you choke them unconcious... No need to worry about what they might do then. If they do have a switchblade or tazer, the chances are quite nil they're going to get their hands on it once they're grabbed. They also wouldnt win criminal of the year award if they waited until after the situation started to brandish a weapon. Once the weapon is out and in his hand, well thats a whole different discussion and unarmed combat be it grappling or striking is at a significant disdadvantage at this point. Depends if you consider the outcome. Problem is a gun is lethal force only or none at all. Many self defense situations arent what you see in self defense videos where a masked rapist armed with a knife charges you from 21 feet away. They tend to be much more subtle. No doubt a firearm is the ultimate means of protecting yourself from an attacker, but maybe you're dealing with an intoxicated friend who things you're macking it with his girlfriend, or some guy complaining that you cut in front of him at the supermarket. I mean, sure a gun will solve both of those problems, but that doesnt mean there may not be a better alternative yeah? You have to understand that grappling (or martial arts even, I should say) isnt like reading a book of facts and saying "Oh, ok- I know that now." Its not unlike striking in that sense. Theres someone who practices fighting twice a week. A hobbyist. Much different than a competitor who himself is much different than a professional competitor and to be a pro doesnt necessitate one is world class either. In short, its not whether you know it or not but how well you know it and how well you can execute it.

Thanks for stating your opinion! Thats always what gets conversations started, but allow me to explain where you're wrong. I much agree with you on self defense vs fighting, in regards to how long either may last at least. So lets address your statement that "lethal" striking is better than learning how to grapple. First I need to add the disclaimer that many people take to certain styles as opposed to others- I've known people that take to striking better than grappling, better to thai than boxing, and better to wrestling than jiu jitsu. As it pertains to self defense though, the one option available thats not available in a fight is to run away. In this sense, the only way that someone can keep you from running is to grab and attempt to restrain you- this becomes a grappling situation. Knowing how to grapple is of utmost importance in said situation, moreso than striking. If you're mentality is that your striking is so devestating that someone cant grab you, then you havent seen how modern fighting competitions have destroyed what were preconceived notions regarding martial arts over the past few decades. Theres nothing wrong with striking styles, but you suggest "lethal" striking as if to suggest its a better option. Once again the whole "deadly" thing was dispelled quite convincingly over the past few decades. Interestingly enough you present a scenario where, if there were ever a need or argument for grappling this would be it and yet you argue the opposite. Im going to guess that you havent trained in grappling, because the elevator scenario is one where you're pretty much guarenteed to have a grappling situation no matter who you put in there, and we're back to grappling. The other reason Im guessing you havent trained (at all) in grappling is because of the videos you posted.... let us analyze! So videos 1 and 3 are two guys that have no idea what they're doing. Check that- 4 guys that have no idea what they're doing. Heres the first problem- they've both go untrained unorthodox people who are attempting to do something that they themselves (from the looks of it) have NEVER done before in their lives. I.E. They're demonstrating against someone who has no idea what they're doing. They are both attempting to attack an opponent who has your hips and therefore has control. Hips are everything in grappling and for that matter everything in striking and fighting in general. Because someone has your hips, any strikes you attempt to throw will not have sufficient power to be of any use whatsoever. Its not your choice of attack thats the flaw, its the position you're choosing to attack from- something you learn very soon in jiu jitsu. I should also note the guy in the third video is grabbing with the wrong hand when hes doing a guillotine... Now conveniently you posted the second video which I can use to qualify what Im saying and I dont need to go searching for others. In this video you see the only correct response to a shot/tackle/double leg- a sprawl. Notice the thai fighter sprawls successfully. This is the first and only thing that needs to be done so as to defend your hips. Once his hips are successfully defended, he then transfers to his own grappling clinch and gets control of his opponents posture (notice his opponents hips are far away...). Now he starts delivering his shots. This happens again and again you'll notice the thai fighter sprawling first and after defending the takedown is able to go on the offensive. Sprawling is one of the first things you learn in grappling. Notice those not particularly familiar with grappling arent showing it, because they havent learned it. Because they havent learned it they're doomed to failure unless they fight against the most incapable of opponents. The concludes the point that there is no such thing as "anti-grappling." Anti grappling is grappling, so the very phrase is nonsensical. Again the problem here isnt that hes using the wrong strikes or that hes hitting the wrong areas- the problem is that hes doing it from a poor position.

I don't disagree that they put themselves at risk by doing this...but I don't care. There's no reason for this kind of thing in training. It's how injuries occur. Point it out during the roll, explain it to the individual. So what happens if you don't crush their jaw, you lose the tap? So what. They need the situation explained so they don't get a false sense, but there's no reason to smash people in training like this. In a tournament? Different story. It's part of the game. But there's no reason to send someone to work tomorrow because they had a mental lapse just to feel better about a roll. Meh, I should have elaborated more when I made my statement. Im not of the mindset where "arrghh! train for the streets" in the sense that harder is better and "rude" things are therefore acceptable because "we're tough guys." It is acceptable for the person on top to fight hard for a submission, provided that his opponents safety takes priority over his own ego to get the tap. That said though, many times people are rolling and try to go for things quickly as hard rolling would have it. Sometimes during these rolls the person getting caught tucks their chin and feels the need to state it afterwards as if it weren't a legit choke or it was "rude" and almost as if to demand an apology. This is where I correct people, and guys can develop bad habits by relying on it and also by respecting it too much. Suddenly technical progress stops because the person defending need only tuck his chin and the person attacking doesnt attempt to generate more pressure less he be rude. I used to have the same mindset when I was a purple belt. I'd take peoples backs and when I put a hand in their collar they'd inevitably tuck their chin to defend. I'd then not choke so as to not be rude, until I realized that my back attacks started to suffer in competition. Again the need to point out that tucking your chin will not help you happens very often, but one can be "nice" while still being "rude" as it were. Part of training is taking care of your partners and a part of that is giving your partner time to tap. This requires two people though- Im sure you've seen several times where someone refuses to tap (say a lower rank sets up a sub on a higher rank) and the higher rank refuses to tap, nevermind plenty of time to do so, because of EGO- they're too good to tap. This is a situation where the person who gets injured is 100% at fault. Now the same thing occurs when you're applying a choke and someone tucks their chin- surely I dont just drop all my weight and pressure and attempt to snap it like a slim jim (I wouldnt have many students and training partners if I did) but I slowly start to apply the pressure over a period of ten seconds giving a significant amount of time for someone to tap. Theres also the "feel" of the submission as well- where you can apply "just enough" to the submission to take effect without really causing injury. This becomes quite the same then as any other submission you throw in a nice and gentle manner that gives your partner more than enough time to tap in all circumstances.... unless they're ego is preventing them from doing so.

If I do this choke, Im a fan of doing it in the reverse- grabbing the collar first before using the under grip (over works just as well too). The secondary grip (the one not on his neck) isnt of great importance (in terms of where you have to grab) so its easier to do that one last. One thing I did notice is where Alex says "if I want to be a jerk when someone tucks their chin...." This is where I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement- if your face or chin gets smashed when someone is going for a choke, that is YOUR fault for putting it there. Tucking the chin is NOT a valid defense for a chokehold. A proper choke generates so much pressure that it'll break your teeth and fracture your jaw until it also chokes you unconcious. Thats the reason we tell beginners not to tuck their jaw- its not that it doesnt help (obviously it does) but it relies on ignorance. What I mean by that is that if you tuck and get away with it you did so not so much because you did the right thing but because your opponent didnt know how to maximize his pressure. Once he learns how, tucking the chin will fail 100% of the time Moral of the story- if you dont want your face smashed dont put it in front of your neck....

What was it in the MMA school that made you feel neglected? Granted, its important to note that just because something says "MMA" doesnt mean its good or that the person teaching it even knows what they're doing. Assuming the instructor is competent, there are good instructors and there are poor ones. Its important to see the reverse side of things too. Some students think they know what they need to know.... despite not knowing what they're doing. Its not uncommon for people to have no idea what they're doing for the first several months of grappling- thats usually one of the hardest phases. So, maybe you could elaborate a bit?

Pretty simple. Judo is cool. BJJ is Super Cool.... ;p Seriously though... Simple explanation- fight starts with Judo and ends with jiu jitsu.