Whats the Difference between Brazilian and Japanese Jujitsu?

[GhostlySykanRyu]

"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." "

 

Are you even reading my posts? I clearly stated that BJJ is combat effective. I simply disagree with your blatant disregard for where you came from, and your closed mindedness...it sickens me.

 

"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."

 

Not so at all. Disrespect and misuse of the martial arts is the key problem, and those who claim they're arts to be supreme (sound familiar???). You're putting words in my mouth...I didn't state that older is better...I'm saying that what works, WORKS. And if something survives for millenia, regardless of criticism and attempts to prove it wrong, it works...nothing you can do to change that...

 

"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. "

 

Do you even read your own posts? I simply agreed that training is important, that does not nullify any of my points (which you did miss, by a long shot...and I refuse to reiterate them yet again). And now you throw your personal preference of technique into the mix?

 

"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. "

 

Now you compare yourself to Jigoro Kano?!? "They"? I am not "they", and I applaud both Jigoro Kano and the Gracies for what they've done. Some of your statements sicken me simply because you insult those who have come before you.

 

"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. "

 

If simple brawling technique is all you seek, then so be it. Finding your center and having self discipline not important. Ok...that's nice.

[Gumbi]

Gumbi are saying the painters and sculptors of today better than the one's of the past. Can you find a more prolific artist today than Michelangelo.

 

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)

 

 

In the old days people lived their art out of survival, we do it for fun and pleasure. When you do something for a living it's alot different don't you think. Newer Arts are not better than older Arts in most cases. You don't seem to understand that in the old days "Warring States Period" Japan fighting was a way of life, not a sporting event.

 

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.

 

 

BJJ didn't improve TJJ, they made a simpler version that serves it's purpose as a ring sport just like Kano did with Judo.

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 hope you understand no one is bashing BJJ we are simply pointing out the fact that it is not a complete art, because it only covers one aspect of Combat.

 

I've never claimed BJJ to be a complete art, which I'll go into further on the next post.

[Gumbi]

Yeah please do point out where I insulted BJJ. I said it was a great sport.

 

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.

Does that mean it won't work in a real situation? No it doesn't. It just means YOU AREN'T BEING TRAINED TO DEAL IN A REAL SITUATION. You're being trained to win, not survive.

 

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.

 

 

Now JJJ you're being trained to survive and not to win. That's bad for competition because you have to throttle back and you're not in an environment you're comfortable with.

 

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.

Besides guys, this "master -v- master" stuff is nonsense. True masters wouldn't be going at it with one another and I think we all know it.

 

Why not? Kimura and Helio Gracie did. Bruce Lee and Gene Lebell did.

 

 

But Gumbi, you sit there and you lambaste JJJ and then have the gall to rip me for saying BJJ is more of a sport and not a complete art? Jesus. Even BJJ guys will admit it's not everything there is to combat. But they'd say that they'd rather get incredibly proficient at one aspect than be more all around.

 

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.

 

 

Am I going to bash that? Hell no. And as far as respect goes, you need to learn to respect other arts not because you agree with them, but because you need to learn to be a MAN. Nothing to do with "Eastern philosophy" or any of that.

 

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.

[Gumbi]

 

Are you even reading my posts? I clearly stated that BJJ is combat effective. I simply disagree with your blatant disregard for where you came from, and your closed mindedness...it sickens me.

 

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.

 

 

 

Not so at all. Disrespect and misuse of the martial arts is the key problem, and those who claim they're arts to be supreme (sound familiar???). You're putting words in my mouth...I didn't state that older is better...I'm saying that what works, WORKS. And if something survives for millenia, regardless of criticism and attempts to prove it wrong, it works...nothing you can do to change that...

 

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

 

 

Now you compare yourself to Jigoro Kano?!? "They"? I am not "they", and I applaud both Jigoro Kano and the Gracies for what they've done. Some of your statements sicken me simply because you insult those who have come before you.

 

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.

 

 

 

"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. "

 

If simple brawling technique is all you seek, then so be it. Finding your center and having self discipline not important. Ok...that's nice.

 

Fighting technique is what I (and many who train in MA's) seek.

[GhostlySykanRyu]

"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."

 

They are labeled thusly because in part, they are. Making something a sport doesn't necessarily make it better...it makes it a game. Any fight that your life and well being isn't depending on IS A GAME, and that's exactly why you don't see more traditional arts in competition.

 

"Why not? Kimura and Helio Gracie did. Bruce Lee and Gene Lebell did. "

 

Well unless one of us is the next Gene Lebell or Bruce Lee, that holds little meaning...

 

"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."

 

Let's put this into someone interested in the sporting aspect (such as yourself, obviously) can understand. Respect is important. Period. If you do not respect your opponent, you will think less of him. Then your chances of losing are greater. You can be as cocky as hell, it won't improve your skills.

 

" If I were closeminded I wouldnt give the other styles the respect they deserve"

 

You don't.

 

"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"

 

Ever think that they don't want to play your game? Attack a traditional martial artist, back him into a corner...I gauruntee that different results will be yielded. True martial artists train to survive, and keep to using their skills as a last result. Fighting in the ring is detrimental to that. You can call people cowards for that, they'll let it slide. To fight for the sake of fighting makes you a brawler, nothing more. A skilled brawler perhaps, but still a brawler.

 

"We're not arguing so much over what works as much as we're arguing what works better"

 

"Better" is a matter of personal preference. You can't correctly state that one art is better, you can only point out what aspects work better for you. I'm not even argueing over what is BETTER, that would be petty. I don't care if you think your style is the best around, it doesn't make you correct. I'm simply vouching for arts that are EFFECTIVE, plain and simple.

 

"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. "

 

You state that JJJ is all around inferior to your art because a few brawlers from BJJ beat a few from JJJ. I'd say that the masters (though you wouldn't call them that) would be insulted. Disregard for the facts? Nay, I disagree with your opinion. You are adamant about something, That's good. Still doesn't make it right.

 

"Fighting technique is what I (and many who train in MA's) seek."

 

Good luck to you then, fighting without self discipline, and without knowing your current limits.

 

I've had about enough of this conversation, we both know that it's going nowhere. So unless you plan on making any points that you haven't tried to already, I bid you farewell.

[Gumbi]

You can be as cocky as hell, it won't improve your skills.

 

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"

 

 

" If I were closeminded I wouldnt give the other styles the respect they deserve"

 

You don't.

 

Because they havent proven themselves as the other styles have.

 

 

Ever think that they don't want to play your game?

 

MY game? The game is FIGHTING and its not mine or anyone's for that matter.

 

 

Attack a traditional martial artist, back him into a corner...I gauruntee that different results will be yielded.

 

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......

 

 

True martial artists train to survive, and keep to using their skills as a last result. Fighting in the ring is detrimental to that. You can call people cowards for that, they'll let it slide. To fight for the sake of fighting makes you a brawler, nothing more. A skilled brawler perhaps, but still a brawler.

 

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.

 

 

"Better" is a matter of personal preference. You can't correctly state that one art is better, you can only point out what aspects work better for you.

 

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.

[Treebranch]

Gumbi: 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.

 

You assume no style is complete because you don't know of any. If someone is 100% effective on the ground they rely on that aspect, real combat is unpredictable which means it's better to be rounded. How about being incredibly proficient at all aspects of fighting and combat? But if your goal is competition than you are doing what's best for competition. That's great I hope to see one of your fights one day and I will cheer you on. But please know that there are many things that cannot be understood unless you experience them.

[GhostlySykanRyu]

"I think theres a fine line between cocky and arrogant- cocky is to have the confidence that you cant be beaten "

 

That doesn't make it a good thing.

 

"Because they havent proven themselves as the other styles have. "

 

Again, because they don't play in the ring.

 

"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...... "

 

Always assuming that you'll constantly have the advantage. You need to get the chokehold first, remember? BJJ isn't te only system with chokes...where do you think they came from?

 

"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."

 

That suggests that there are 90 people who are not ready, and have not trained hard/often enough. TJJ is much harder to grasp than grappling alone, and it take many more years to become proficient...but when that point is achieved, the individual is a very well rounded martial artist, and not just a "jack of all trades".

[Gumbi]

You assume no style is complete because you don't know of any.

 

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.

 

 

If someone is 100% effective on the ground they rely on that aspect, real combat is unpredictable which means it's better to be rounded. How about being incredibly proficient at all aspects of fighting and combat?

 

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.

 

 

But please know that there are many things that cannot be understood unless you experience them.

 

Care to elaborate?

[Gumbi]

 

"Because they havent proven themselves as the other styles have. "

 

Again, because they don't play in the ring.

 

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.

 

 

"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...... "

 

Always assuming that you'll constantly have the advantage. You need to get the chokehold first, remember? BJJ isn't te only system with chokes...where do you think they came from?

 

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?

 

 

 

"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."

 

That suggests that there are 90 people who are not ready, and have not trained hard/often enough.

 

But what if those people were certified "masters" in that given style?

 

 

 

TJJ is much harder to grasp than grappling alone, and it take many more years to become proficient...but when that point is achieved, the individual is a very well rounded martial artist, and not just a "jack of all trades".

 

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.