Gumbi

Ah, the multiple opponents theory- if such kung fu and karate guys had so much trouble defeating one opponent, what makes you think they can defeat two? Judo, Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai, and Sambo all have self defense aspects of their style and are themselves heavily emphasized styles for MMA. Their weapons defenses are no more or less realistic than any other style. Many people dont want to go to the ground- but theres always that "what if" part of a fight- what if you end up on the ground- you'll sure be happy you took the time to learn how to fight there.

Hehe, uh oh, hes talking about ninjas! No argument there, only a ninja can destroy a ninja...... Your brain interprets either situation as being a life or death situation- your heart rate and blood pressure will elevate just as much in a nerve rattling challenge match as they will on the battlefield (there is a maximum heart rate). On top of that, loads of endorphins are being dumped into your system just the same in either situation. They did not have the MOST effective training regimes from the most effective styles back then, not to mention many of them may have been one demensional fighters. Take someone like Mirko Cro Cop for example- heres a guy with great striking skills who wants to learn how to fight on the ground. What horrendus luck he would have if civilization were like it was a 1000 years ago and he was left with the best ground fighter in Croatia- because of technology, he was able to find one of the best in the world and fly him in from Brazil to make his training THAT much better.

The big question here ravenzoom: " but you can't really say that cage matches are like a real street fight. There are many different factors." is WHY do you think that? You are partially right though- I would say cage fights are actually much more difficult than a straight up street fight. You're fighting an opponent who knows your strengths, your weaknesses, and your strategy by studying numerous videos of you in action- all this besides the fact that hes also a well conditioned athlete himself. So, what do you think is so drastically different?

Yeah, but that match was absolutely horrific. Royce got a huge payday for it for sure, but I (and I think many other MMA fans) would have much rather seen him in a fight vs Genki Sudo or another well trained middleweight. He said it would prove that Jiu Jitsu would work against a 400lb man (which it did) but that being the case, I would have rather seen him fight Bob Sapp- THAT would have been much more impressive.

Wrestling techniques are often just as varied and technical as BJJ techniques- its the fighting philosophy that is different. The techniques are usually the same- put yourself in a position to use your larger muscles against his smaller ones (or a point where you're balanced and hes not). Now as far as the philosophy of it, the whole idea of giving way to a stronger force in BJJ doesnt work too well in wrestling. If someone is forcing themselves on top of me, it may be in my best interests to go to my back and look for a sweep or a submission. In wrestling this is not an option, so if someone is using power to force his way on top, you've got to use more to make sure he fails. That is also why a 10lb difference in wrestling is dramatically different than 10 lbs difference in BJJ.

Well davidson, if you're proficient enough in the technique, it will work quite well in a real life situation (most likely better than it does when you randori). Its a basic go to technique that has many setups. It just might save your skin if you have the unfortunate luck of being the guy on the bottom if the fight ends up on the ground.

Nothing wrong with preferences, but the smaller you are the more likely you may fight a larger opponent should you get into a fight. Someone who's say, 50lbs heavier than you and decides that he wants to tackle you to the ground stands a much better chance. If you're one of those guys who's big and strong, well then thats why guys like me had to learn BJJ to fight guys like you I prefer to be experienced in a grappling art, simply because if you take a striking art, you're only proficient in one phase of fighting (free movement) but if you take a grappling art you're most likely to be trained in at least 2 of the 3 and you can very well throw knees, elbows, and headbutts from a clinch. Well then, thats not really one art either is it? Absolutely

Why does everyone (mostly whom dont even do BJJ) insist that it was created to be a sport? Go down to Rio de Janeiro and start talking about how BJJ is only a sport and not made for the street- I dont think you'll make it long. That being said let me point out the following: BJJ wasnt made for sport Muay Thai wasnt made for sport Wrestling wasnt made for sport These styles (among many others) were all made for combat initially but were later adapted for sport. This allowed those who practiced these arts a place to use them when they werent at war. It also allowed for more practice time and competitive fighting which would make those involved that much more experienced and combat effective. Now, as far as the wrestling vs BJJ debate- could a wrestler defeat a BJJ player? Absolutely, wrestling is a very good grappling style, but its major downfall is the lack of submissions and ways to finish a fight. Takedowns can do alot of damage, but lets not forget that BJJ has takedowns too (and many BJJ fighters prefer wrestling style takedowns). This is not to say a BJJer would win the takedown battle but the closer in skill you are to takedowns, the less of a chance of you getting overwhelmed and slammed. You start on your feet in the wrestlers domain, but you end on the ground in the BJJ'ers domain.

Can you give me a reason as to what made you think it wouldnt work? There had to be something that made you create this post.

actually yes. If for nothing else than intent. I know all of the guys in my class. Even with hard full contact, they don't want to knock my head off. I spar them all the time - no adranaline factor or various other issues. In competition, these are present, and your opponent is someone who is not your friend and who does want to knock your head off. Good point, lets not also forget too that the people you're sparring with in class you've been doing so for a long time. You find yourself knowing their strategy and techniques and dont feel nervous fighting them. When you go to fight someone in a tournament and MMA match, you often know nothing about your opponent whether it be his skills, his techniques, or his strategy. This is one reason why everyone who has competed can relate to the extreme nervousness or anxiety you get when you're at a tournament or preparing to fight.

you don't believe that... I certainily hope he doesnt.....

Finding one without humility? What does that mean? Are you suggesting that all cage fighters, by definition, are not humble people/arrogant? Not just TJJ, but the other styles as well and they dont need to be from just one organization- certified in multiple ones is just as well. It wouldnt come to grappling? Grappling is NOT a style of combat, its a phase of it whether you like it or not. Thats like me saying that if Im aggressive enough there wont be any strikes thrown. If you're in a fight, you will see both strikes and grappling- thats what fights are. Besides, fighting with your heart is not neccesarily good, as you can run yourself into trouble by making mistakes- you have to fight with your head, not your heart. The intelligent ones did- they adopted and changed instead of holding on to the old traditions. The need for realism and realistic sparring in martial arts was realized during the first few UFC's (or if you want to go back further, when there were the Judo vs Ju Jitsu matches about 100 years ago). It might be a good idea if hes been training for 40 years and is unable to dominate someone of a different style. When the first UFC's came out, people thought that BJJ would be the end all in mixed martial arts and that nothing could beat it- that was until strikers learned how to sprawl and break out of clinches, and wrestlers started studying submissions to learn how to avoid them. Many BJJ fighters who had been doing nothing but BJJ for the past 20 years saw what was happening and said "gee, well this is a problem here- I guess we need to incorporate some striking into our training" and they did just that. sigh....... I've been giving proof that strongly supports my opinion the entire time. Someone had this wild idea of getting numerous people of different styles together and having them fight each other to see which ones would win. It was a pretty direct way to figure this question out, but it got the job done, even though it hurt many people's feelings.

As was said earlier, yes there is a lot of groundwork in Judo, but when people say that, they are often comparing it to BJJ, which has the MOST groundwork of any other grappling system (the ENTIRE class is spent on groundfighting). Even if a Judoka knew the same amount of techniques an equal level of Jiu Jitsu guy did (which I find rather unlikely) the BJJ guy is more proficient at those moves. For example, every move I do against my training partners in class, they know it as well. The reason why I can do it and they cant is because Im more proficient at it. Unfortunately' date=' yes it is true. Practically 100% of every BJJ class is dedicated to groundwork. Another style could only have as much groundwork, but not more (how can you spend more than 100% of your time on something?). Yes, Judo does alot of groundwork, but people who are saying it has little are comparing it to BJJ which is a true statement. Well hey, good for you- nice victory. There are things to take into account here though. You may have had a better instructor You said you had a yellow belt in jiu jitsu You had 3 nice throws Kids divisions vary vastly in terms of age (i.e. a 14 yr old fighting a 17 yr old is a VERY lopsided fight in terms of the older fighter being much more mature). I've cheered for my friends in Judo when they do BJJ tournaments (mostly they're doing in house tournaments) but Judo gives you a great grappling base, theres no two ways about it. From my experience, a typical Judo blackbelt has ground skills of an advanced white to blue belt on the ground (often when a Judo black belt would compete in the in house tournaments, it would only take about 1 or 2 tournaments before they'd be promoted to blue belt). Even one guy I used to train with was Nationally ranked and had been doing Judo since he was a kid- his ground skills were that of a seasoned blue belt, and he crosstrained too. He would not defeat anyone purple or above (not that thats a bad thing- its very difficult to beat a purple or above in grappling). There is also an interview with the Camirillo brothers, famous for their competition in both BJJ and Judo (they did Judo first) and they talk about exactly this- BJJ vs Judo. If you want, I can dig up the interview and post the link.

I certainly do know that- find me a fighter (who's not a cage fighter) that can beat Fedor Emilianenko, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Tito Ortiz, or Randy Couture Supposing those masters were certified under the governing people of that style. As far as me calling someone who's simply better than you a master, it was meant to be a jab at the usage of the word- in other words, because a guy is labeled a "master" in say for instance, kung fu, many people automatically assume that, if he began to teach groundfighting, he would be a master in that aspect of the fight as well. Evan Tanners problem against a more skilled grappler is simply that- the person is more skilled in grappling than he is. Someone whos been training all their life in submission wrestling is NOT going to be outdone on the ground by someone who's merely crosstraining in it- the grappler has been fighting against the worlds best for too long and has too much skill for someone else who just picked it up to beat him at his own game. Much the same way that you're not going to see Mark Coleman KO Mirko Cro Cop on the feet (Kevin Randleman, yes). Fighters who come out of one style are usually the top of the food chain in that art, and they've trained in it for such a long time. I believe that was TreeBranches post If I were generalize techniques, perhaps that would be inaccurate. The bottom line is that no JJJ school had active randori on the same level that Judo or Jiu Jitsu did prior to the UFC events. Once again, we're not saying so much that they're ineffective as much as we're saying the other styles are MORE effective.

Well, the guy said give your opinion, so you didnt outright come out and say particular things about the styles mentioned. However, since you invited me to add my input, I will. You had mentioned that JJJ has standing joint locks, which is very true. BJJ has many standing joint locks as well, but certainly not as many as JJJ. The reason for this is that the BJJ mindset when applying a submission hold is to have a certain level of control over your opponent so as to be able to isolate a particular limb. This is much more difficult to do on a standing opponent since he isnt being pinned or controlled with the same efficientcy as on the ground. So standing joint locks, while effective, are not as commonly seen in BJJ (as compared to JJJ) for this particular reason.

The ring is just to give relative boundries and set a universal standard for all fights to be held under. Go and fight in a parking lot for all I care- just prove that you can do what you say you can. It just so happens that the best fighters happen to be the ones who are also fighting in the ring. You need to get the chokehold first in an MMA fight as well as a streetfight- whats your point? And yes, we know BJJ isnt the only system with joint locks and chokes. And whats makes you believe that MMA fighters always assume they have an advantage? But what if those people were certified "masters" in that given style? Well, it would be no more difficult to grasp than to train say, in BJJ, Wrestling, and Muay Thai. Jack of all trades does not mean hes not proficient- it simply means that person is more of a freestyle fighter with no preference as to what phase of the fight they fight in. For example, someone like Nogueira has a BJJ fighters mentality (obviously). He wants to take the fight to the ground where he excells the most and can take advantage of his skill on the ground to win. Someone like Evan Tanner, on the other hand, is willing to take the fight to whichever phase becomes available. He doesnt actively pull guard, force takedowns, or force strikes- he just takes whatever comes his way. Although very skilled in all phases of a fight, his ground grappling skills simply are not as proficient as someone like Nogueira, his striking skills are not as proficient as Silva, and his takedowns are not as proficient as Coleman, because all three of those fighters are specialists at that particular skill.

Well, complete AND very effective I guess it the words Im looking for. Right now, the best fighters combine different styles rather than just training in one. I think you'd be hardpressed to find a single style that can match up with a combination of very effective styles. Absolutely, as I said thats why Im trying to compliment my grappling training with Muay Thai, however there are only 3 phases of a fight- the free movement, clinch, and ground phases. Since groundfighting is unnatrual and not as popular as standup fighting, I feel its best to learn the ground fight first- you'll be quicker to outclass people on the ground (and outclass them by a larger margin) than on the feet. So right now, my weakness is the free movement phases, but its not half bad to be pretty strong in 2 of the 3 phases already, although keeping my standup my weaker link isnt the plan. Care to elaborate?

I think theres a fine line between cocky and arrogant- cocky is to have the confidence that you cant be beaten i.e. "I've trained too hard and for too long for him to beat me" arrogance is the belief that you're better than you are i.e. "I'm so good, I dont need to train" Because they havent proven themselves as the other styles have. MY game? The game is FIGHTING and its not mine or anyone's for that matter. The nature of combat doesnt suddenly change because we're not in a ring-a MMA fight can easily turn into a fight to the death- all I need do is not let go of that chokehold...... The more experience you have to fighting, the better you'll become at it. Take someone who enters their first boxing, wrestling, or submission wrestling match. He'll often be very jittery and nervous. As he competes more and more, he'll eventually gain confidence in his skills and learn to control his emotions, which would give him a GREAT advantage in a fight. If you were comparing individuals, perhaps you'd be right. What we're talking about though is evidence using numerous different people rather than a single person or a small amount of people. For example, to have 90 out of 100 people of a particular style win their matches against people of another style, it suggests that one is working more effectively than the other.

I know where BJJ came from whats the point? As far as me being closeminded? Im far from it. If I were closeminded I wouldnt give the other styles the respect they deserve. Thats the problem with people who dont understand mixed martial arts- they think that EVERYONE that does it is just a BJJ nutrider who hates traditional arts. If you (or people in your art) can do what they claim to be able to do, then step into a ring and PROVE it. Many other styles have, which is why they have my respect. Prove what you claim, and I'll respect you. We're not arguing so much over what works as much as we're arguing what works better. Swords were around for thousands of years. They work rather well, but guns and ballistic weaponry work better I used Kano as an example (since he is a well respected figure)when you stated that my "lack of respect" holds no place in the world of martial arts. Explain what statements of mine insult those who have come before me and how they manage to do so. What sickens me about you is your disregard for the facts. Fighting technique is what I (and many who train in MA's) seek.

Page 2: "I'll be up front... someone proficient in BJJ is going to beat someone in JJJ in a competition. But put them on the street and it's a different story." "Put a master of jjj in a match against a master of bjj in a PRIDE fight and the jjj fighter would win." These two statements are a blantent disregard for the facts. The facts are that pressure points and striking areas were not restricted in early MMA competitions, so the excuse that "I cant use my super deadly moves" was destroyed. As far as JJJ, its practitioners DID NOT FAIR WELL in these competitions. They fought under the SAME rules that everyone else did and these rules FAVORED NO STYLES. Winning= survival I hear this argument sometimes from people who say "theres no tapping out in the street" so lets examine how "winning" helps you attain victory. Chokes- people tap out from chokes because they're caught and feel the blood being cut off from their brain. If they dont tap out, they pass out. If someone continues to apply the choke for several minutes after his opponent passes out, he will die from lack of oxygen to the brain. Joint attacks- people tap out because their limb is about to break, simple enough. If they dont tap, the limb breaks which makes them VASTLY less combat effective. Think about it- you were unable to defeat a person when you had 2 arms and 2 legs, and now one of those is incapacitated- the chances of me getting another joint lock/choke have increased ASTRONOMICALLY at this point. If I get a choke, I can hold on until you pass out/die and if I can break another limb (such as a leg) I can stand up and stomp your head until I severe it from your spine. Look at any mismatched grappling/MMA matchup and you'll see plenty of people who's only goal was to survive. You skills are what enable you to survive. Why not? Kimura and Helio Gracie did. Bruce Lee and Gene Lebell did. I never asked you to say that BJJ is a complete art, but it did prove itself to be one of (if not the) single most effective art. That is why Im ripping you because you're not giving it the respect it deserves. You're writing off its contributions to fighting as mere "sport." I know BJJ is incomplete- no style will ever be complete. If I focus 100% of my time on the ground, clearly I'll be better on the ground than someone who focuses 30% on the feet, 30% takedowns, and 30% on the ground. Yes I'd rather get incredibly proficient at one part of combat before being all around (notice I said before, as in I am cross training) ironically, this is the same strategy that many modern MMA fighters adapt as well. Nothing to do with fighting either. There are many great fighters who are far from respectfull. A cocky Tito Ortiz is one of the first to spring to mind.

I dont think we can compare actual art with fighting styles- art cannot be measured in the same sense that fighting can (i.e. style A is better than style B because it wins 9 out of 10 times) People who are fighters simply are that- they're fighters. They havent picked up fighting because its a sporting event, they've picked up sporting events because they're fighters. All they've really done is found a way to get paid for fighting, much the same that the traditional ju jitsu fighters did when they started teaching ju jitsu classes to the general public for money. Thats the problem is when we label things "sportive styles" as opposed to combat styles. By making it into a sport, they made it a MORE effective style under combat conditions. I've never claimed BJJ to be a complete art, which I'll go into further on the next post.

The Renzo Gracie Academy (located in Midtown Manhattan) is a central hub for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training. http://www.renzogracie.com/html/rzacademy.aspx

Certainly not the case, but the Gracies had a breakthrough in martial arts that people like you refuse to accept or write it off as "not practical." So, by agreeing that you're disagreeing with whats been proven, are you suggesting that your own opinion is wrong? Of course you're going to get hit when attempting to clinch, I never said you werent, but its much easier to force a clinch than it is to keep the distance. Funny you mentioned Kano, they said he "spit in the face of the founders of traditional arts" when he introduced Judo and now here we have this great style of throwing. As to WHY I ask why respect is important- its because martial arts are about FIGHTING PLAIN AND SIMPLE. They are NOT about discipline, or finding oneself, or becoming one with nature. Many style differ from "my ways" that I respect because they've proven themselves in the ring. Boxing, Muay Thai, and Judo have different mindsets than BJJ, as do Sambo, Wrestling, and Catch Wrestling and I've never questioned the quality of these styles. "The truth is there is much more evidence supporting these styles under combat conditions than any other you can name." Ah, see now lets analyze your VERY train of thought here- by this statement, you're saying that because its old, it MUST be good. THAT RIGHT there is the problem with martial arts. The Germans, French, and English tried rushing the trenches of WW I side by side because thats how it was done for hundreds of years. The Polish attacked the Nazi Blitzkrieg by sending out calvary on horseback because that was the way warfare was for thousands of years. Then someone comes along with this idea of mechanized warfare- but surely it wont work against these other battlefield strategies because they're "older."

Just because you train something doesnt mean its going to actually work. How often have you actually gouged out someone's eyes or bitten off chunks of flesh while they're trying their hardest to resist you? Take the veterans of each sport and you'll notice everyone says the same thing- experience cant be taught. I can practice hitting a curve ball in baseball, because curveballs break a certain way. I can practice a pattern in football, because that pattern will always be the same. The only way to drill for a resisting opponent is to ACTUALLY have a resisting opponent in which case it becomes sparring. Look at it this way- the sparring you see in class is the practice, and the tournaments are the "gametime." Are you serious? You realize that you're insulting the style and the practitioners of BJJ with the statements you've made? Certain statements such as "BJJ is only good for sport" or "my style is too deadly for the cage" or "JJJ would beat BJJ with no rule restrictions." What makes it more insulting is when every excuse is analyzed, examined, and explained only to have the other person completely cover their eyes and blind themselves to the truth. The truth is that the training method that BJJ has is whats responsible for its success, as well as other styles that share that common training style (wrestling, sambo, Judo, boxing, muay thai). The truth is there is much more evidence supporting these styles under combat conditions than any other you can name.

Thats not my definition, but rather the one most apparent when people are training in martial arts- they assume that someone who knows more than they do is a "master." This is more prevalent in grappling arts, simply because of the vast number of techniques available. The question that has to be asked is WHY- why must we respect the traditional ways? Most schools of martial arts do this for no other reason then the fact that they are traditions and their refusal to challenge tradition is what kept them from evolving and advancing their art.