Rock, Paper, Scissors vs. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu/grappling

[dbrillha]

Like a lot of people, I saw practitioners of striking arts such as Karate, Kung-Fu, etc. doing really badly in the early UFCs (the first 4 or 5) - and thought that these arts might not have a lot of utility in an actual fight. After all, the practitioners of these arts didn't exactly come off looking that great in these contests.

However, here is my theory on this these days. I feel that the UFC and similar contests are somewhat artificial enviroments that favor certain techniques and approaches over others. There is a fair amount of cross over between what works in the UFC and what works in situations that you would find yourself in actual fights. There's also a fair amount that wouldn't cross over.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that almost anyone who did well in UFCs would do really well at defending themselves. I don't think there is any doubt. They'd win the majority of fights they got in just from their build, conditioning, and size. Their martial skills would be a great help, and I'm sure that they wouldn't fight like they do in the ring. These days UFC fighters do way more striking, and it seems like for some fighters the focus they have on grappling is mostly "anti-grappling" so they can play their striking game without being easy prey for the grapplers (as most strikers were in the early UFCs).

In fact, I think that a lot of the things that are very successful in the ring, are very risky in "real life". Groundfighting as a major strategy to win a fight might be one of those things. Yes, I know a lot of fights end up on the ground, and having some ability there would be useful - but having ground fighting as the main goal as a fight ending strategy seems pretty risky.

It's pretty obvious that in a UFC type event that a groundfighter/grappler will be able to beat a PURE striker almost all of the time. However, I think it might be entirely possible that "In real life" striking might be a superior strategy to the exclusing of groundfighting entirely. Of course, there is no set situation in a fight, all are different. My point is that groundfighting is overempasised in the UFCs vs. the amount of utility that it would have "in real life".

While grounfighting might work really well against a striker in a UFC type contest, striking might be better suited to "real life" than groundfighting - hence the subject line of this post.

Anyways - just an idea that popped into my head. Any thoughts?

[JusticeZero]

Grappling is a good tactic when you have the friends and control of space. Jujutsu was developed as a police art, for instance. It works great if your opponent is the rogue element in an area where people are basically cheering you on or giving you space. If you're the rogue element, it falls apart. Issue is that if you're the rogue element and don't have control of the area, then it's advantageous for the other guy to use grappling against you. So you'll want to at least be familiar with it so that you can counter the basics. The reverse is true however, if you try to grapple someone who wants to escape the situation, you'll need to expect a rain of strikes coming your way.

[SubGrappler]

Jiu Jitsu was NOT developed as a police art, it was developed and used by the samurai on the battlefields of feudal Japan.

Grappling, whether in the octagon or in the street, is a very effective approach to fighting. BJJ is even more effective in a street scenario than in the octagon. People in the street arent trained professional athletes, so when you argue that something like karate or kung fu will work on the street, so will BJJ. The old man, Helio Gracie, designed it specifically for street fighting with self defense in mind. You dont see that when two guys square off in the ring, but I assure you its there- people like Royce were BIG into the practical self defense, while people like Royler were big into the sport in addition to the self defense.

Theres a few reasons why I dont see striking as being a "better" option on the street than in the octagon.

1: Striking is highly favored in the octagon- fighters are constantly stood up during fights, and there are 3 rounds- during which fighters start once again off their feet.

2: The use of 4oz gloves greatly protects a fighters hands. Without gloves, fighters would greatly injure their hands, even if perfect technique is used. This happened very frequently during early MMA matches. In fact, during the days that were pre UFC, the Gracies got a lot of challenge matches (of course he got many after he won a few tournies) and when Royce fought, one of his golden rules was never let the challenger fight by his own rules- rules were no biting and no eye gouging, and you were not allowed to wear gloves.

3: there are no weight classes in real life. MMA competitions are supposed to focus on the skills of the fighters, rather than brute strength (this is but one of the ideas being weight divisions). In the event that you're fighting someone who's much larger and stronger than you are, size advantage is much less of a handicap on the ground than it is on the feet. Consider Bob Sapp as an example- heres a 6'6 375 (with a 6 pack) ex pro football lineman who jumped into K-1 with "NFL" listed as his fighting style. He almost ran through the competition, defeating the top fighters in the tournament, including Ernesto Hoost. He comes over to MMA and is submitted by Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, and taken down and pounded by Fujita.

4: This is just my opinion, but when you're fighting on the feet, your opponent can hit you just as well as you hit him. When you put him on his back, you're the only one that can punch with any power- isnt that so much more fun?

Theres nothing wrong with striking when it comes to fighting, whether it be in the street or in the ring, but I would not conclude that its a more (or less) effective strategy.

[dbrillha]

4: This is just my opinion, but when you're fighting on the feet, your opponent can hit you just as well as you hit him. When you put him on his back, you're the only one that can punch with any power- isnt that so much more fun?

Theres nothing wrong with striking when it comes to fighting, whether it be in the street or in the ring, but I would not conclude that its a more (or less) effective strategy.

If you consider what I mean by a "fight" to be essentially an unarmed combat duel, then your points are very valid. If you consider what is meant by "fight" to be a self defense situation, I think your points are somewhat less valid.

In a self defense situation, where your real goal is to get out of the "fight" as quick as you can, groundfighting is not really the way to go. Very often running, or striking once or twice then running is the absolute best defense. Doesn't ground work sort of rule that out?

[AndrewGreen]

2) BJJ won't work as well on the street as it will on a mat. Here is the thing, grappling takes time. Time to set a technique, time to twist a limb. Now there is also the mindset factor of a martial art. With most people who study bjj or any tournament grappling art, there is a sense of mimicing their "heros" choking out an opponent or whatever.

Sure it will, where do you think they fought before the Octagon was built? If you look into BJJ's history you'll see a lot of no rules challenge matches and street fighting.

4) The real reason arts like Karate, kung fu & such didn't do well is because the first fighter in the UFCs where excedingly low-class in skill compared to the Gracies. Even other grapplers.

There where some pretty high class Fighters there. Royce was a serious underdog in most peoples eyes. He was smaller, not as strong, hadn't had the competition records of the other fighters.

There where some relly weak guys that came in, but there was some very good ones too. THey lost not because of their skills, but because of their skillset, it was incomplete without the restrictions they where used too.

Because it was a spin off of the Ultimate Fighting Contest an event that began in Brazil & was started by the Gracies. So if memory serves me correctly the Gracies own(ed) the UFC. If fact there where a great many skilled fighters rejected from the first few UFCs, who where far better choices for their arts. But all thats marketing & politics.

Paritally, Rorion Gracie and Art Mann owned it. They brought in the best fighters they could get in there, and there was some good ones.

Since most MA schools go lighter in training to attract clients I find very few "traditional karate" dojos who train the old ways. Since most karate schools water down their training to make more money off having students there longer.

I don't buy the "Olden days" argument. Does it really matter what they did 100 years ago? There is not a lot of evidence for what they did, no way to know how could they where, and it is irrelevant as what matters is what is getting down now.

This can be seen with karate & judo schools, use to be all the 10th dans where dead men who made a great contibution thier chosen arts. The highest a living person could be award was a godan Now a days we see some arts with 15th dans running around. Traditional is a marketing term for we want your money...

Maybe, so get out of it and do something that isn't. Join a boxing gym, only belts are title belts and you don't give those to yourself.

The rank system is broken, but that is cosmetics and really has nothing to do with peoples abilities.

7) this is geared toward grappler, if I'm fighting on my feet you won't see me. I use allot of distraction methods & slip behind my opponents. A standing choke is just as effective as going to the ground.

No it isn't, you have a lot more control on the ground. A moderatly skilled grappler would be able to escape almost any standing lock.

In all this there is one simple rule for the street, keep it simple. So now whats more simple then a punch to the face? Also if I'm fighting a grappler I'll break a few fingers, kinda hard to grab anything then right? Thats also the reason why finger-locks are illegal

Not so easy to do, try it and they'll probably break all of yours. If you are fighting a better grappler, all the grappling dirty tricks you can think of work in their favour, not yours.

Standing they can swing, might get lucky. Any one can get knocked out by anyone if the cards are in their favour that night. Odds aren't great if your a lot more skilled, but it's still possible.

Take them down, mount them, then punch them in the face and the odss of them effectively returning from that point are a lot smaller.

[Gen_Tora]

Sure it will, where do you think they fought before the Octagon was built? If you look into BJJ's history you'll see a lot of no rules challenge matches and street fighting.

So they say, but the same is said of japanese jujitsu & allot of american MAs. I know this I've done security work, body guard work, been in the infantry & had plenty of street fights. You go to the ground you control the situation with one opponent 90% of the time, against more then that it ain't so easy...

There where some pretty high class Fighters there. Royce was a serious underdog in most peoples eyes. He was smaller, not as strong, hadn't had the competition records of the other fighters.

There where some relly weak guys that came in, but there was some very good ones too. THey lost not because of their skills, but because of their skillset, it was incomplete without the restrictions they where used too.

Royce was only an underdog in America, he had a big reputation in Brazil.

Thats true, I agree with you on the skill set. Allot has change in Shotokan since I quit & moved to a new art. But, I also know a few "old timers" who can dislocate your shoulder standing within a matter of seconds, unfortunately most karateke don't even know those techniques exist in their arts.

I blame the organisations & comericalism for that...

Paritally, Rorion Gracie and Art Mann owned it. They brought in the best fighters they could get in there, and there was some good ones.

Not really after the first UFC, there where allot of fighters turned away, Soke Odabata Aikijujutsu people for example. They have been known to KO people with stand-up grappling methods (Muscle & pressure point grabs), same as the Chin Na practicers. But, I'll drop this since it's a pointless arguement.

I don't buy the "Olden days" argument. Does it really matter what they did 100 years ago? There is not a lot of evidence for what they did, no way to know how could they where, and it is irrelevant as what matters is what is getting down now.

I agree with you on that, but allot of "olden days" where only 15 to 20 years ago. Think about how downward the spirl has came with a massed attention. BJJ will start being watered down by politics in about 10 to 12 years. Just watch...

Maybe, so get out of it and do something that isn't. Join a boxing gym, only belts are title belts and you don't give those to yourself.

The rank system is broken, but that is cosmetics and really has nothing to do with peoples abilities.

I don't study shotokan anymore it was my first MA & so I have a passion fot it. I've been in boxing gyms before, unfortunately I quit fighting for fun along time ago.

No it isn't, you have a lot more control on the ground. A moderatly skilled grappler would be able to escape almost any standing lock.

True but I'm a fighter, I strike & grapple. I fought a grappler once, worst fight of my life lasted 20 minutes & ended with us slamming each others' head into a truck door. Poor guy lost an eye, there is more to grappling then just joint manipulations.

Not so easy to do, try it and they'll probably break all of yours. If you are fighting a better grappler, all the grappling dirty tricks you can think of work in their favour, not yours.

Standing they can swing, might get lucky. Any one can get knocked out by anyone if the cards are in their favour that night. Odds aren't great if your a lot more skilled, but it's still possible.

Take them down, mount them, then punch them in the face and the odss of them effectively returning from that point are a lot smaller.

Again in a 1 Vs 1, since most crimes are 2 or 3 to 1 or worst yet a 1 on 1 that turns into 12 guys wanting to stomp the guys on the floor. Nope... As I said I'm a fighter. If I can hit you once it's all over, if I have to hit you 10 time or choke you out, so be it. If I have to dislocate a shoulder ok.

Do you know what a cross arm bar the way it's taught on the ground was origionally for? It had nothing to do with grappling, it had to do with fighting. The arm was a control for a partial pin that let you deliver close range stomp kicks to the head (temple or jaw), neck or floating ribs. The pain of the strikes where a set up to breaking the elbow.

Kano, took the technique & focused solely on locking the arm. Because it was a more humane way of dealing with agression. Several of the "Old Masters" at the time rejected both judo & karatedo as weaker expressions of a warriors' art. I've trained in a traditional japanese jujitsu dojo. I don't mind telling you it sucked, I had my shoulder dislocated allot & we never used padding for our strikes. It was a whole different animal from a comerical dojo. I started off with non-complying opponents, moved to partial contact & when I reached "black belt level" (we didn't have a belt system) it was full contact with no padding & one restiction.

[SubGrappler]

Sure it will' date=' where do you think they fought before the Octagon was built? If you look into BJJ's history you'll see a lot of no rules challenge matches and street fighting. [/quote']

So they say, but the same is said of japanese jujitsu & allot of american MAs. I know this I've done security work, body guard work, been in the infantry & had plenty of street fights. You go to the ground you control the situation with one opponent 90% of the time, against more then that it ain't so easy...

Nothing is easy when you have to fight against more than one opponent. Besides that, most confrontations I've seen (and encountered) tend to involve one attacker as opposed to multiples. Im not saying that multiples dont happen, but the majority of the time, its one attacker.

ra"]

Paritally, Rorion Gracie and Art Mann owned it. They brought in the best fighters they could get in there, and there was some good ones.

Not really after the first UFC, there where allot of fighters turned away, Soke Odabata Aikijujutsu people for example. They have been known to KO people with stand-up grappling methods (Muscle & pressure point grabs), same as the Chin Na practicers. But, I'll drop this since it's a pointless arguement.

Natrually, they only had so many spots open for people (even though they had twice as many fighters in the 2nd UFC) they would have to turn a few people away. Jason Fairn was an Aiki-Jitsu fighter who would make his UFC debut in UFC 4 however. There were many people who challenged the Gracies, and the Gracies would set everything up for the challenge match, only to never hear from their challengers again.

I don't buy the "Olden days" argument. Does it really matter what they did 100 years ago? There is not a lot of evidence for what they did, no way to know how could they where, and it is irrelevant as what matters is what is getting down now.

I agree with you on that, but allot of "olden days" where only 15 to 20 years ago. Think about how downward the spirl has came with a massed attention. BJJ will start being watered down by politics in about 10 to 12 years. Just watch...

I dont think karate was in its "olden days" 15-20 years ago, I simply believe that there was so little information known about martial arts in general that it still contained that mysitcism where people thought martial artists were deadly

Again in a 1 Vs 1, since most crimes are 2 or 3 to 1 or worst yet a 1 on 1 that turns into 12 guys wanting to stomp the guys on the floor. Nope... As I said I'm a fighter. If I can hit you once it's all over, if I have to hit you 10 time or choke you out, so be it. If I have to dislocate a shoulder ok.

If 12 guys want to stomp you on the floor, you're kinda deadmeat, grappling, antigrappling, striking or whatever. As far as your statement about being a fighter, your mindset kinda applies to just about everyone, dosent it?

Do you know what a cross arm bar the way it's taught on the ground was origionally for? It had nothing to do with grappling, it had to do with fighting. The arm was a control for a partial pin that let you deliver close range stomp kicks to the head (temple or jaw), neck or floating ribs. The pain of the strikes where a set up to breaking the elbow.

Obviously you can do the armbar just as well without attempting those moves. An Armbar breaks the arm, which almost wins you the fight right there. Against a skilled grappler as well, relieving the pressure in the slightest bit from your legs is all one would need in order to escape an armbar- you would be doing this if you attempted to heel kick him in the face or the ribs.

Kano, took the technique & focused solely on locking the arm. Because it was a more humane way of dealing with agression. Several of the "Old Masters" at the time rejected both judo & karatedo as weaker expressions of a warriors' art.

Many of those same "masters" that so rejected Kano's teachings were in fact beaten by him. Aside from that, Kano's main intentions were to make a martial art that was combat effective while at the same time reinstilling the honor that used to be with JJJ (as at the time they were viewed as a bunch of thugs)

Edited December 11, 2005 by SubGrappler

[SubGrappler]

2) BJJ won't work as well on the street as it will on a mat. Here is the thing, grappling takes time. Time to set a technique, time to twist a limb. Now there is also the mindset factor of a martial art. With most people who study bjj or any tournament grappling art, there is a sense of mimicing their "heros" choking out an opponent or whatever.

Sure it will- BJJ will work even better on the street, because you're fighting a BJJ fighter IN a BJJ tournament- he knows the techniques you're trying and the counters to them- someone in the street most likely wont.

3) Have you ever been to the ground in bar brawl or during a mugging? Most muggings even with weapons are 2 or 3 to 1. Mostly propetuated by teenage to early 20s males who are 80% of the time in a gang and/or one drugs. That means atleast 2 or 3 to 1..

I work in a bar- most fights involved 2 people, and I've been on the ground during brawls involving 20 people. Thats why I chose knee in the belly, where I could pin one guy down and keep a head up for anyone who chose to sneak up on me. Needless to say, I didnt get pounded into oblivion the moment I threw my opponent to the ground.

In those situations styles like taijitsu, kenpo-jujitsu or aikijujitsu excel. Because grappling doesn't mean wrestling on the ground, styles that blend striking & grappling do very well. Especially styles which teach the dirct concept of a techniques. Judo & aikido type arts, which BJJ is very much derived (heavily judo influenced) was designed as a "gentlemen's art." A gentle man does not fight dirty or kill an opponent...

BJJ's techniques were Judo influenced- that doesnt mean their fighting style is. Helio was a nasty little fighter in his days, and most of his fights involved no rules.

As far as a Tai Jitsu or Aiki Jitsu being more effective in these situations, I dont buy that. Its not to say it cant work, but it didnt bring a whole lot to the plate when these fighters were tossed in the ring.

4) The real reason arts like Karate, kung fu & such didn't do well is because the first fighter in the UFCs where excedingly low-class in skill compared to the Gracies. Even other grapplers....

Not true- many of these fighters had competition records that were quite long and rather impressive. The other grapplers you refereed to as "low class" involved the #1 ranked Shootfighter, Ken Shamrock, and Michigan State Wrestling Coach Dan Severn. There were attempts to get fighters such as Ernesto Hoost and other top notch boxers in there, but you have to remember that the UFC didnt have a whole lot of money to throw around to attract these individuals. Most fighters were getting paid somewhere around $3000 for one fight, which is pathetic compared to professional kick boxers and boxers.

7) this is geared toward grappler, if I'm fighting on my feet you won't see me. I use allot of distraction methods & slip behind my opponents. A standing choke is just as effective as going to the ground.....

Why do so many people insist that MMA competitions favor the grappler? There is NO evidence that supports this! This is often an assumption made by people simply because the grapplers are the ones who won most of the time. MMA competitions, unfortunately, heavily favor striking over grappling.

In all this there is one simple rule for the street, keep it simple. So now whats more simple then a punch to the face? Also if I'm fighting a grappler I'll break a few fingers, kinda hard to grab anything then right? Thats also the reason why finger-locks are illegal

Depends on the position you're in when and if you can grab those fingers (he can grab yours too). Small joint manipulation isnt very effective in a fight- its very effective if used in an instance before a fight, but once punches are thrown and adrenaline is surging, broken fingers arent doing much. Consider that many bareknuckle fighters break their hands (larger than the fingers) and still keep fighting. In the old Pancrase days in Ancient Greece, there are accounts of champions who stood at the end of the day with all their fingers broken- they apparently still fought, or else they wouldnt be standing victorious.

[Gen_Tora]

I got this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC#UFC_rules

Fouls:

1. Butting with the head.

2. Eye gouging of any kind.

3. Biting.

4. Hair pulling.

5. Fish hooking.

6. Groin attacks of any kind.

7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.

8. Small joint manipulation.

9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.

10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.

11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.

12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.

13. Grabbing the clavicle.

14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.

15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.

16. Stomping a grounded opponent.

17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.

18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.

19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.

20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.

21. Spitting at an opponent.

22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.

23. Holding the ropes or the fence.

24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.

25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.

26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.

27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.

28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.

29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.

30. Interference by the corner.

31. Throwing in the towel during competition

[AndrewGreen]

Those rules have not always been there, In fact, when the straight grapplers really dominated, they weren't.