TJ-Jitsu

Very true. The problem lies with the clients. People always want to do a "self defense" course or "show me how to get away" type stuff. Almost like they're learning how to do a magic trick or something. Problem is when you confront them with the reality that its a physical skill that needs to be practiced like any other sport, they get disillusioned (lazy...) and go look for someone to sell it to them cheaper and quicker.

Thats really what it is- not terribly unlike a movie trailer. You cant view a movie in 60 seconds, and you cant learn jiu jitsu in one class. The only thing we can do is hope to pique your interest and invite you to actually come and train...

Bravo Tempest- you're a man that studies his history! To further that point though, grappling was always an important part of warfare, and this wasnt just limited to Japan. Indeed some rennaisance fencing manuals and literature explain how a skilled wrestler is always to be feared in a fencing fight (and even an armored one.) Whoever is on their back has very limited mobility, especially so when you add armor. Not terribly unlike modern MMA the guy that ends up on top wins, and he'd probably win quicker when he can drag his dagger and most likely finish the match from the top position. This explains why the typically approved means of winning a grappling match was by a clean throw (ippon) or by pin for time as this was regarded as ample time to draw your secondary weapon and finish the fight. This mentality of always having to be on top continued even into unarmed combat as shown by catch and folk style wrestling. Once you had the innovation of Judo, they started with their challenge matches but it was always exclusively against strikers. Maeda makes his way to Brazil in the west where his opponents are overwhelmingly boxers and wrestlers as opposed to karateka, kung fu, and other asian styles. Technically Judo wasnt allowed to do "challege matches" anymore as Kano wanted to clean up the image of martial arts in Japan. Maeda therefore called what he did Ju Jitsu (in all fairness he practiced both). The Brazilians cant translate properly, so they misspell it "Jiu" insteade of "Ju" but like it better so they stick with it... Anyways.... With so many wrestlers and given the smaller frames of your average asian vs average european, hes going to find himself on his back more often, as did Helio Gracie. As such you have two choices- learn how to fight their game (wrestling) or learn how to fight a game they're unfamiliar with (guard) and BJJ finds its niche with a very effective grappling game that works both on top and bottom....

I suppose this is why people are affiliates with other high ranking people and whatnot, yeah? A very good question, but I think its appropriate to play the other side of the coin here and give a little insight: -Just because someone is high level/successfull in their style doesnt necessarily mean they're GOOD at it. To elaborate, some people are phenominal athletes with modest skill. Some are good athletes with good skill, but great strategists, etc etc -Just because you're affiliated doesnt mean they're going to actually teach you anything of merit, assuming they had something "secret" to teach you. So, the "quick" route to success is to have someone that knows how to do it teach you. Once you "master" said style (i.e. black belt) hopefully you'll have learned enough that you know the theory behind what you're doing and can hopefully advance the style in your own way- much like a scientist who goes to college and so forth. He graduates and then starts to add his knowledge and mindset to the group after the fact. Martial arts are a little different though, because people get competitive and secretive...

Well, I used to have a very crude way of making weight- just be within 10 pounds for a fight. Take a laxative and dont eat the day before to clean out your bowels. Then sauna suit (or I prefer sauna/ hot tub) to sweat the rest out. I wasnt a wrestler by trade, so I didnt really have a good recipe for it. For my last fight though I did hire a nutritionist who himself was also a professional fighter. That was probably the most intelligent thing I've done. In regards to "fighting wherever your weight is" you have to realize that when you're cutting weight thats exactly what you're doing... because everyone cuts weight. When you watch people in the UFC that are fighting at 155, rest assured they're not less than 175 when they step in that cage, and they typically walk around at about 185-190lbs. The size that fighters can carry is insane. Sure, you could just wing it and fight whatever you weigh, but you're not going to go very far in the professional world doing that.

I think thats a relative statement. If people actually are attempting to mug you, that very well may be all they want. To suggest that just because someone is partaking in one criminal action he now is willing to do everything else has no evidence to feasibily support it. Best you can do when someone demands valuables for a mugging is throw the wallet/valuables one way and run the other. He'll go after exactly what he wants.

GM Young Ik Suh was a great overall fighter, even with his hands. After all, he was once a Korean Presidential Guard, and he's not the only TKD practitioner with great hands. Yeah, I know but I was just making a broad over generalization for the sake of simplicity. I mean, its like me saying BJJ guys can throw punches because look at Vitor Belfort.... Sounds like the instructor wasnt doing his job if better students are beating up on newer ones. It should have been him that kept them in check... but you doing it probably sent the point home a bit better. If you like Emin's attitude, great- but is that not a very generic phrase that can be ascribed to virtually any martial arts instructor?

How do you know he didnt try?

This- as a general response to all self defense classes...

I've got about 400 myself bouncing over the past decade. "Real" fights too as in we're squaring up and people are throwing punches at me. Wasnt too difficult a number to get to if you work at the right (wrong?) place. Several of my co-workers could verify this, but its not necessary (more on that later...) Rickson himself claims to be 400-0 between tournaments, challenge matches, professional fights, thumb wrestling, and whatever else.... Mario Sperry claimed 250-0 when he went to the UFC. Back to my previous statement- it doesnt matter. The reason why is this. Among my 400 bar fights, you've got a decent mix of various types of people, but they all had the same thing in common- they werent fighters. They were regular people. Furthermore, even if everyone you spoke to about me says "yeah, he fought that many" it still wouldnt hold up as any sort of scientific evidence. At least Sperry was honest when asked about his "record." He said he made it up to sound good so he could get in, nevermind the jiu jitsu phenom he was. And thats the problem. Being "undefeated in street fights" or having a 1000-0 record is the easiest thing to claim and its impossible to refute. To top it off anyone worth their merit really doesnt care about how many bums you beat up in the street. Its not the quantity of people you beat but the quality of fighters you faced. Anyone can beat up a bum in a street fight- thats not impressive and I speak from experience....

Heres the problem- Style "X" is challenged on its effectiveness. It fails. Style X then claims that said techniques are made to fight more than one person. How does it follow that someone is unable to defeat a single attacker but is somehow capable of dominating 2 or 3? Thats kinda like saying I get sick if I take a shot of tequilla but Im ok if I do 4 or 5....

So I did a quick google and came up with this, dated in 2011 (at least updated 2011) Now I HIGHLY recommend anyone viewing this thread to watch the second video- 30 seconds in we see a deadly reversal and a groin rip where he actually simulates tearing of his opponents testicles and casually tossing them over his shoulder like a salt shaker at thanksgiving dinner Im hoping these are old compared to what you say hes doing that new. Videos like this are the reason why so many (such as myself) cant take this seriously. Im seriously hard pressed to find a worse self defense demonstration. This guy has absolutely no concept of how to move his hips on the ground or in a clinch. Havent they ever grabbed someone that actually had wrestling experience and knew how to throw the most basic of double legs? I really and I mean really encourage you to visit your local MMA gym (if you have one) just so you can spar and move around a little bit. Now, MMA gyms are used to novices and they're used to people from other styles coming in but most importantly they should be used to getting hit. Try some of this in there and see where it takes you. Once again now, you'll be sparring so you dont need to worry about someone really hurting you. You could gradually increase your power as the rounds go on if you really want to push the action a bit. Thats perhaps the safest way to really go about trying this out. Im not trying to find a reason to gloat, but you seem to really want to learn how to fight and defend yourself. If you're still not willing to test what you've been training against actual fighters, well I've done all I can for you at this point- the ball is in your court

Nor do I. Takes a few days for posts to pop up, so what the hell- we've got plenty of time to run off on a few tangents... Exactly the point Im trying to make. The real world results are not qualifying the theory.... So allow me to point out the obvious here... TKD cant punch to the face and for all intents and purposes is a style of pure kicking... and the best story you've got is basically fighting a guy thats as novice and they come with his hands? Thats not exactly strong ground to stand on. "Dirty" fighting techniques are laughably effective at best. The reason why is because novice fighters havent a clue about positional dominance or how to achieve it. In short, the position you are in is what will dictate how effective your attacks will be, not necessarily your choice of attacks. Headbutts are certainly legit, but you've got to be on top to headbutt, and you also need to know how to posture up. Once again, being able to duplicate success against people that have no idea what they're doing is hardly a convincing argument.

I took part in a challenge match. Sizable kung fu guy came in and wanted to challenge jiu jitsu so they had myself as a purple belt and a shorter smaller blue belt for him to fight. No rules, gave him the option to wear gloves (which he declined). Merely said "if you bite or eye gouge, we'll react accordingly." Both myself and the blue belt were MMA fighters so we were quite comfortable with it. His first was with me and it was classic clinch, takedown, mount, smack him about a bit, then finish with RNC. Of course he wants to go again, so Im sure to do the same exact thing so he doesnt think its a mistake. Not having luck with me, my instructor recommends he try fighting the smaller blue belt, but hes much more aggresive and meaner than I am and immediately takes him down and starts dropping elbows on the guys face- he tapped quite quickly. So after that was done, my coach encourages the guy to come in for a class so he can learn why it was he lost. The guy refused saying that if he just trained a little more with his kung fu he thinks he could come back and win. At this point my instructor points out how nice we were (at least myself) when we fought and if he came back again and challenged us we would hurt him much worse. He never came back and presumably never learned why he lost.

Hmmm... so Im not trying to come off as being "dur, BJJ is t3h Best0R!" but I kinda am at the same time, so allow me to elaborate. The primary reason why the Gracies were so successful was because they had not just real world experience, but LOTS of it. Thats the inherit advantage of grappling styles. The physics of fighting favor the grappling game. Grapplers are able to spend more time training at 100% against fully resising opponents. The advantage of being able to train at near to full resistance on a regular basis becomes quite significant over time. Thats part one. Part two has to do with the ability to derive theories and then test them out. The gracies would fight against any and all styles- sometimes within a particular styles ruleset (Judo for example) and sometimes with minimal or no rulesets whatsoever. The significant problem with wing chun is that it attempts to identify and create a hypothetical (not theoretical) range of combat called "trapping" range. It also overhauls what is a completely natural way of twisting to throw punches in favor of "chain punching." Not to be outdone, we have "anti-grappling." As delicately as I can put this, I dont think I've ever seen any practical technique in a wing chun video or demonstrated by a wing chun practicioner... ever- and there IS a reason for this. It lies in their outright refusal to test their style in a fight. (See above explanations before bringing up streets fights...). The problem here (as there was in so many traditional martial arts) is that contact with reality is soon lost and without that, there becomes nothing with which to keep absurd ideas in check. In regards to how it practices and why its not particularly good- 1: Trapping range doesnt really exist, at least if it does its easily and naturally overcome. Humans by nature will quickly grab someone in a fight especially if you're on the recieving end of some strikes. This quickly nullifies trapping range and makes it a grapple 2: Brings us to anti grappling- the most underwhelming demonstrations for grappling I think anyone has produced, and for good reason- none of them actually took the time to learn how to grapple. "High level" anti grapplers look like 6 week white belts with the techniques they show and how they execute them. Its a classic example of the blind leading the blind. 3: Chain punching. The problem with this is that no power is transfered to the punches. I know you might wish to argue different, but once again this is a case of the blind leading the blind. Anyone with a few years boxing will understand the concept of hitting with power (and the consequences of not). The chain punching concepts leave your chin wide open for practically any attack that your opponent may throw and a committed haymaker thrown by a novice will overwhelm someones guard. In kung fu practice the guard works better, because again said practicioners dont understand how to put their body into a punch. Now before you wish to debate what I've said, Im going to encourage you to look at the evidence. Show me a video of wing chun working against even a modest opponent- I cant find a single one. Now what did these UFC teach us? It wasnt so much that "OMG styles #1 and #2 are the best and thats it." Some people already mentioned thought all you needed was one style.... No, again I direct you to the concept of training with resisting opponents. Go back to the beginning and BJJ and wrestling was all the rage. That "karate stuff" just doesnt work, right there with anything regarding striking. Then guys started to learn how to box AND wrestle. Ok.... so thats one more style added to the mix, but dont you dare kick cause someones gonna just catch it and slam you... until fighters really start to work on their kicks and I'll be- they can work too. Ok, but these are the "real" styles- the sportive ones. The traditional ones dont work at all though... right? Well... you are starting to see a few fighters that are incorporating things that "arent practical" to your old UFC fan. These are fighters like Lyoto Machida and Steven Thompson that are very much karate oriented in their fighting styles. You see, these fighters started to train with fully resisting opponents and tested their theories against other fighters. This allows you to fine tune your theories and change some things while keeping others. This happens in the jiu jitsu world as well. It wasnt that long ago when I heard people say things like half guard doesnt work in MMA and leg locks arent practical when someone's punching you in the face. You better not pull guard in a "real" fight.... What is and isnt practical is constantly being challenged in the UFC and fighters are always looking at other means of using whatever they can find to get a leg up on the competition. The formula is simple- resisting opponents. So to bring us back to wing chun, thats primarily why the style isnt respected. Maybe some of it theories are valid, but without evidence thats just conjecture. In the martial arts world, skepticism is very healthy because there are just too many people selling crap out there. Now maybe some of the stuff from WC might have its place in a real fight, but we'll never know until someone (anyone!) can prove to us it does. In either case, it needs to incorporate much more resistance in their training

What was my method? Well, I would keep turning when I got under the leg- 90 degree represented the minumum needed to turn, but I would try to go 135 if possible. Basically the idea was to kick (with the bottom leg) towards my opponents head as much as possible. The more towards the side, the more they can use their leg. More towards the head (like you're trying to faceplant them) less their leg can post. Good video. I just never knew it as the flower sweep. It was "that thing were you get under like this and do that to get there"

Ah, the dreaded "street fighter" argument.... been around the block a few times with this one, so I dont mind doing it yet again... Every style claims to be a scientific way of fighting while also being completely unwilling to follow the rules of science when they start to disagree with them. What this means is that in science you develop something and then you test it- preferably numerous times with as few constants as possible. With the results you can then make conclusions. Many styles dont test or refuse to test what they call "theories" (in reality they're hypothesis). If they do, they immediately offer conjecture as to what went wrong with the experiment rather than what went wrong with the theory. This is a dime a dozen with traditional styles Always something about the rules, the fighters, the clothing, the cage, whatever- everything and anything prevents us from seeing the "real" style. You think there arent numerous things that make doing any grappling a pain? Having big clunky gloves on while trying to choke your opponent? Having no articles of clothing to grab at all? Not being allowed to hit the back of the head? Constantly being stood up because of "entertainment" and "rounds?" Wrestlers certainly dont enjoy being punched in the head. Boxers dont like being slammed in the ground- they dont train these things in their sport, but what these styles DID do was prove they were incredibly versatile and despite how many (or how few) rules were in place, whether some rules favored and others hampered, all of these styles continued to dominate because they are adaptable. This is what makes these styles the best (or their training methods I should say). You realize that BJJ was developed on the street of Brazil, correct? Thats as pure a "street fighting" style as there is. In fact when you actually look at the history of virtually all martial arts, they are ALL designed with combat at its heart but were changed to allow for sportive competition allowing practicioners to develop said style even moreso. What the first MMA events taught us are as follows: 1: Real life fights favor grappling, ironically regardless of how skilled a striker (sometimes in spite of their skill at striking) the fighters were. 2: Numerous claims by martial arts went up in a cloud of smoke. 99% of the things we were taught and were expecting were rubbish. 3: The styles that were considered "sports" (wrestling, bjj, boxing, muay thai) absolutely and overwhelming decimating to an extreme degree (have I emphasized just how much they annihilated TMA's?) that many found it hard to believe. This occurred because what was most important was the means of training for fighters. Practical experience (i.e. actual competition) was of utmost importance significantly more than any death touches or pressure point ninja moves could ever be. No one had more experience dealing with fully resisting opponents than the sportive competitors because thats EXACTLY what the sport is about. In regards to dealing with multiple opponents, I'll give you that. BJJ will not help you when you're fighting more than one... but then again neither will any other style. See the above examples where the traditional styles were unable to even defeat a single opponent when put to the test. Now explain to me how someone who cant fight one person suddenly knows how to fight 2 or 3? Your "sportive" styles wont teach you to fight against multiple attackers... but at least you'll actually learn how to fight against one. So the dreaded "street fight" is a great sales gimmick to thos that have never been in one, because it sounds so deadly. Much like people that have "bouncer, LEO, Military, Bodyguard" or whatever else in their credentials. It impresses people who know no better. Street fights are a joke. The worst street fight wouldve barely classified as a warmup for any generic hobby-ist practicioner in a "MMA-esque" style (the ones you associate with MMA, to save me from typing out a ton...). So on the topic of street fights-The "longest" one I was in was never more than 15 seconds, because untrained people do not even know how to stop the first move. That means my first takedown always worked. My first choke hold always worked, and they never blocked or countered it- because they were never trained how. I dont know where you get this concept that a "street fight" is some dreaded encounter in a separate dimension where the current laws of physics are suspended- a street fight is a fight between 2 completely regular people the majority of the time. People who otherwise have no idea what they're doing. You're not impressing me because you beat up bums. On the other hand, if you become known for doing something (submitting people or knocking them out- whatever) and theres footage of you doing it, you continue to do it despite other trained fighters watching how you do it and training to keep you from doing it.... and you STILL are able to- you now have discovered someone that has a true talent. This is reality. Unfortunately there are many that will refuse to acknowledge it and will continue to live in their own world but at the end of the day will never step up to the plate to back up what they say.

open challenge on their terms! That rational people can deduce why! Right... The rules are simple- fight until someone gives up or gets knocked out... Oh my how they stacked the odds in their favor.....

"Challenging the Gracie family" is hardly a claim to fame. The problem with this is that he didn't fight anyone. The Gracie's did. They went everywhere and anywhere and fought the world over. They had an open challenge-all emin would need to do is show up... it he didn't and I think rational people can deduce why after looking as his fight.

We're not saying that it wasnt flashy- we're saying that he appeared to have no idea whatsoever what he was doing.... because he didnt. There wasnt much "get it over quick" from what I saw. There were two guys on the ground with aboslutely no idea what they were doing.

I suppose thats a relative question (as to what I use in half). I dont usually fight much from bottom half, because I arch away to a stand in base position and sit up into butterfly/hooks game. For MMA I use much more of a deep half guard game because the reactions from the person on top are a little different than in BJJ. Most in this situation keep pressure high on the shoulders to keep you pinned and have a good area to strike. Because of this though, it makes getting under ridiculously easy (as long as you're ok with getting punched in the face...).

It did a great job of shattering the theories of wing chun. Two guys who were supposedly the best in the world at wing chun- who practice "anti-grappling" "chain punching" and all that jazz.... and it ended up being the most pitiful excuse for martial artists in a fight. It was their welcome to the world of UFC 1993... better late than never

With a little more than a decade in muay thai, I could be a little biased but I'll give my input. I see all three as being valid, it depends on your target and what technique you're executing. The shin is best for that raw power strike thats going to crack whatever it hits- like swinging a baseball bat at someone. I dont care what it hits- its going to hurt. Thats the pro. The con is a shorter range and a limited angle of attack (how does one kick straight up and hit with the shin?). Instep is good for a little more length and because of the flexibility of the ankle its attached to, gives more angles of attack. You'll often see fighters wind up a kick and feign to the leg only to redirect and whip the foot over to attack the head. Its a common set up. Thats the pro. The con is you're limited on your targets since you move definitely dont want to throw leg kicks this way, nor do you want to kick at the body for fear of hitting the elbow, as these run high risks of breaking your foot.. Finally the ball of the foot. Again the pro is it offers an angle of attack that neither the shin nor the instep offer (straight up the pipe). The con is that this is the only practical angle to use it (front kick). So in short, the one that can utilize various facets of kicking will most likely have the most success- choosing the best tool for the job so to speak.

I think peligroso's comment came with a heavy side of sarcasm.... Its taken a while for kicks to become accepted in the MMA world. One has to consider that a vast majority of MMA fighters focus their techniques on wrestling and boxing. Granted this is a very very broad statement, but most wrestlers will eat a leg kick if it means getting a takedown- hence the reason they throw it infrequently. So, IMO its a little less about whether a technique is practical or not (since thats a relative statment altogether) and more about HOW its delivered and set up.

I remember seeing one of Dillmans no touch KO students- the one on Fox news where they took him to a jiu jitsu school (I think most people have seen that?) He demo'ed his touchless KO on his students, but refused to try it on the reporter because "she might get hurt." As an alternative he decided to strike her jaw with an open hand strike.... because hitting someone is safer than not hitting them.... I guess.... ?