regarding "99% of fights end on the ground" theory

[Kensai]

Gotta agree with Kirves on that one.

[jiu-jitsu fighter]

loiloi if bjj is the same as judo than why is it classified as a seperate martial art, and i didn't say samurais didn't study jujitsu ,and yes the techniques should be modified if the person is not wearin armor, there has got to be a more effecient way of doing the technique when the armor is not on

 

and every single technique that you saw on bjj.org is right out of the kodokan, than why isn't bjj called judo?

 

every single comment on all the forums you have tried to put down bjj , are you jealous that you have spent all your time training in judo instead of bjj?

 

thats your opinion , and i have trained in a system that covers the 5 areas of combat you have discussed , WWW.TONYBLAUER.COM

 

check it our ,

[Mr Heel Hook]

Wow, loiloi, I would have to agree with my comrade Jiu Jitsu Fighter, you seem kinda jealous...or perhaps another adjective. But regardless, you seem to pick arguments over BJJ issues. But no matter what any one of you say, no matter what "facts" you try and spout forth...the fact will remain that ground fighting dominates all. I mean, if all these other stand up arts are to great and whatnot, and we have never experienced "true" masters, why don't they prove it? I mean, the point (regardless of what people say) is to show your art is best! There are a myriad of fighting circuits to do so. Why don't they come? If 90% of fights don't end up on the ground, why aren't they standing tall and pretty rather then broken and beaten on the ground? The fact remains, ground fighting rules the fighting circuits. Mixed with good (and reasonable) standup skills (how many times have you seen a fighter fly through the air and kick several people AKA: Boards-- unconscious?) the modern fighter still relies on ground technique. On top of that, BJJ fighters tend to dominate all.

 

Readers note: I didn't say all the time!

[HongKongFooey]

JUST BECAUSE IT HAS GROUND FIGHTING DOESN'T MEAN ITS GOOD,

 

i studied ninpo for a while and their groundfighting was from jujitsu it was terrible, stop trying to justify that your art is better than bjj, you might think that, but BJJ IS NOT JUST JUDO AND WRESTLING, its a style all on its own and i can't belive you would say that if it worked for the samurai its good for me, the samurai, never even really used jujitsu, if he fell off his horse he was screwed and who knows if it even worked for them, is there documentation? and your not covered with armor and yielding a sword, so its tottaly different, and bjj is not wrestling and judo , STOP TRYING TO PUT BJJ DOWN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THATS FINE, but keep your comments to yourself, constructive criticism is fine but not oh bjj is just judo and wresling, your so ignorant

 

So, does your comment also include MMA'ers, who constantly put down every other style that they don't do? I hope it does. I for one am tired of the pissing contests, that seem to go on forever. We should try to learn from each other for a change.

[omnifinite]

I think the true masters would feel that "proving" themselves to someone would be somewhat like stepping on an ant just to prove that they're better than the ant. What's the point. They don't care about the ant. They don't even notice the ant. They not only don't see it as a threat, but it isn't even a passing thought. They have better things to do. As hard as it is to imagine, other people have different priorities in life.

 

If you guys want to see what a great master can do, go attack one in an alley. They don't need to go out of their way to show you something they're fully content with knowing themselves.

 

(I think I hear the thread being locked already )

[Mr Heel Hook]

I disagree. "Masters" tend to want to prove their style is best and advertise that a lot. How can you say your style is effective unless you prove so. It's true, and I agree people should be more humble, however, there is to much to prove nowadays and they simply can't. History in combat has proven what I have said.

[Kirves]

I disagree. "Masters" tend to want to prove their style is best and advertise that a lot. How can you say your style is effective unless you prove so.

 

Hmmm.. I thought one of the definitions of a "master" was the fact that he does not want to say his style is best? If you have a need to prove something, then you aren't a master - at least in the traditional budoka sense. Perhaps you are, in a modern cage fight sense, but that again doesn't have anything to do with TMA masters who have aspired their whole lives for mastery over ego and strive to become a non-competitive character in life.

 

I was always taught that fighting is the last line of defence and only done when all else fails. A student of budo should avoid fighting whenever possible. To shout it out loud from the rooftops and put ads in the paper saying "I'm tha baddest sob in town and there's noone here who can beat me!" is plain invitation for trouble - an antithesis of budo. You are asking for trouble while studying an art of avoiding trouble - not good.

 

If you are really interested in the philosophy of TMA and budo as it fits these arguments, I suggest you go get Chuck Norris' book "The Secret Power Within" from a library and read one short (just a couple of pages) chapter titled "Winning By Losing". Especially the barroom story at the end.

[Kensai]

Again Kirves is truely wise.

 

A "true" master does not need to prove him/herself.

 

There is a good story, that Young Master Tobais (Fellow KF person)told me that I think applies here.

 

What is the difference between a good sword and a great sword?

 

In ancient times the good sword would be placed into a stream. As the gentle currently slowly washed the blossum down the stream it would fall onto the blade and be cut in half.

 

A great sword would be placed into the same stream, but the blossum would avoid the blade as they already understood their fate.

 

Or a more basic way of putting it is that you would not stand infront of a moving train, to know that it would kill you. In the same way that I would never ever challenge my Sensei, because I would already know my fate.

[magikchiongson]

As far as proving themselves, many have, its not their fault you are ignorant of their accomplishments. You are looking at a very limited circle, if you think UFC, Pride, the Gracie Challenges is all that makes up the Martial Arts world then you're just blind.

 

How could you know? Who's challenging who? Where I'm from, walking around claiming to be a Martial Artists will invite one thing, a fight. Because there are always hot heads who want to "try you out". Try you out meant, fight to the death, usually. Its just funny, that proving yourself now means, strapping on some speedos and wrestling with a bunch of guys.

 

I agree with some of you MMAs though, the only way you're going to know if your art is still affective is to fight. But its a different world now, even in the bundocks where I came from that kind of fight is rare, but not unheard of. Hehe shoot man, before I learned any styles, I used to fist fight with other kids just to see who's better, but that was my culture. America is a little different.

[LOILOI44]

Wow, loiloi, I would have to agree with my comrade Jiu Jitsu Fighter, you seem kinda jealous...or perhaps another adjective. But regardless, you seem to pick arguments over BJJ issues. But no matter what any one of you say, no matter what "facts" you try and spout forth...the fact will remain that ground fighting dominates all. I mean, if all these other stand up arts are to great and whatnot, and we have never experienced "true" masters, why don't they prove it? I mean, the point (regardless of what people say) is to show your art is best! There are a myriad of fighting circuits to do so. Why don't they come? If 90% of fights don't end up on the ground, why aren't they standing tall and pretty rather then broken and beaten on the ground? The fact remains, ground fighting rules the fighting circuits. Mixed with good (and reasonable) standup skills (how many times have you seen a fighter fly through the air and kick several people AKA: Boards-- unconscious?) the modern fighter still relies on ground technique. On top of that, BJJ fighters tend to dominate all.

 

Readers note: I didn't say all the time!

 

Am I jealous of BJJ? I would have to say no. My personal oppinion is that BJJ is an incomplete art. It specializes in one area (which it does very well) but it still lacks many components of being a complete art. I feel that it encourages chest thumping and a bravado that doesn't exist in TMAs. Things like Helio Gracies followers bring a coffin into the fight with Kimura seems like a classless act to me. I always thought that martial arts should teach humility. I do feel that BJJ is good at what it does. It's brought new publicity to martial arts, that is never a bad thing. It has it's place, but it's not my cup of tea. That is my oppinion. You can disagree with it, but it is an oppinion. It can't be wrong. Everybody is entitiled to an oppinion.

 

As far as this thread goes...I can see how the logic got skewed. If 99% of all fights go to the ground, and BJJ specializes in ground fighting, then it must be the best art for today. It makes sense, but it's not accurate. The original statistic is that 90% of all fights end up on the ground. This is based on a study done by either the F.B.I. or U.S.D.O.J. (I can't find the actual study. I belive it was done in the 70's) It was about fights involving police officers. It doesn't cover fights on street corners, bars, or school yards. This study was done on police officers because officers report any fight they have. It usually involves an arrest. People who get into a bar fight usually do not go to the police unless they are seriously hurt. Why would you? You can't study every fight.

 

This statistic is also skewed because of things like tactics taught by The N.Y.P.D. NYPD cops were taught to get as much back up as possible and then jump on the person. "Dog pile on the rabbit," as it was called. If everybody is literally jumping on a person the fight is almost guarantees that a fight will end up on the ground. The statistic is also misleading because a normal fight usually does not involve handcuffing your opponent. It was always thought that a suspect was at a disadvantage if they were on the ground. It was considered the best way to cuff a person. In MMA competitions you have the luxuary of using the ground as an additional weapon. This is where BJJ excells. In law enforcement on the street, you do not have that option. You are armed, and you must protect that weapon at all costs.

 

Heelhook, and JJfighter, feel free to dispute me. Please remember that the fisrt part is strictly my editorial oppinion. The second part is fact. I welcome any discussion.