# Gracie Breakdown on Catch Wrestling vs Bjj



## Hanzou

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EucIOqFgfMM

Interesting comparison between the 2 grappling styles.

I largely agree that catch is more geared towards larger people, while Bjj can be used effectively by a larger swath of the population.

i know some Catch fans are't happy about their comments.


----------



## drop bear

Yeah in the not happy crowd. Conditioning is not cheating.

Can't believe bjj used the rsbd argument.


----------



## Chris Parker

What RBSD argument?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yeah in the not happy crowd. Conditioning is not cheating.
> 
> Can't believe bjj used the rsbd argument.



I wouldn't say its a rsbd argument. Its the argument that people of any size can utilize Bjj training, while catch wrestling tends to benefit much larger people.

Case in point, you wouldn't be able to use that winning Barnett submission on a larger person. A bigger person could pretty easily power out of it, and it would be difficult to achieve the necessary chest compression. On the other hand,  there's several Bjj submissions that could be used by smaller people against bigger people.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> What RBSD argument?



That you don't have to be athletic to make fighting work. Provided you have the right system.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't say its a rsbd argument. Its the argument that people of any size can utilize Bjj training, while catch wrestling tends to benefit much larger people.
> 
> Case in point, you wouldn't be able to use that winning Barnett submission on a larger person. A bigger person could pretty easily power out of it, and it would be difficult to achieve the necessary chest compression. On the other hand,  there's several Bjj submissions that could be used by smaller people against bigger people.



A bigger person can power out of a lot of submissions. Especially at an elite level. In fact let's turn this around what were these submissions that worked against a bigger guy? Josh Barnett for example.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> A bigger person can power out of a lot of submissions. Especially at an elite level. In fact let's turn this around what were these submissions that worked against a bigger guy? Josh Barnett for example.



Rear Naked Choke. Rickson Gracie (5'10 176lbs) submitted Zulu Martins (6'4 220lbs) with that move twice in two Vale Tudo matches.

Pedro Sauer submitted a much larger muscle bound guy with an armbar.

Royce Gracie submitted Akebono with an Omoplata.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> That you don't have to be athletic to make fighting work. Provided you have the right system.



Okay&#8230; how is that an "RBSD" argument?


----------



## Raymond

Hanzou said:


> Rear Naked Choke. Rickson Gracie (5'10 176lbs) submitted Zulu Martins (6'4 220lbs) with that move twice in two Vale Tudo matches.
> 
> Pedro Sauer submitted a much larger muscle bound guy with an armbar.
> 
> Royce Gracie submitted Akebono with an Omoplata.




Fedor Emmelianenko submitted Hong Man Choi with an armbar.  








Anyway, I thought the commentary they gave was pretty biased.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Okay&#8230; how is that an "RBSD" argument?



https://www.udemy.com/u/chrispizzo/

"Regardless of size speed or experience"


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Rear Naked Choke. Rickson Gracie (5'10 176lbs) submitted Zulu Martins (6'4 220lbs) with that move twice in two Vale Tudo matches.
> 
> Pedro Sauer submitted a much larger muscle bound guy with an armbar.
> 
> Royce Gracie submitted Akebono with an Omoplata.



Then why couldn't he submit Josh Barnet?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

In fairness, I don't think even Rener and Ryron would claim that size, strength, and athleticism don't matter when fighting in MMA or grappling competition against someone who knows all the same technique that you do. I think their sales pitch would be BJJ is uniquely suited (compared to other martial arts) for allowing a smaller, less athletic, _but more technical _individual to prevail against a larger, more athletic, but less technical opponent.

There's some foundation for that claim, but I think they're way overstating it. Not too surprising considering it's their family art.  At least they show way more respect for other arts and other martial artists than their Dad used to.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, I don't think even Rener and Ryron would claim that size, strength, and athleticism don't matter when fighting in MMA or grappling competition against someone who knows all the same technique that you do. I think their sales pitch would be BJJ is uniquely suited (compared to other martial arts) for allowing a smaller, less athletic, _but more technical _individual to prevail against a larger, more athletic, but less technical opponent.
> 
> There's some foundation for that claim, but I think they're way overstating it. Not too surprising considering it's their family art.  At least they show way more respect for other arts and other martial artists than their Dad used to.



It seems a weird way to go. From a mma perspective you get toweled up by someone the first thing you do is go learn what they are learning. Which I can bet Josh Barnett did not overlook regarding bjj.

Technique Talk: Josh Barnett&#39;s pushing and pulling for catch wrestling&#39;s respect - MMA Fighting


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Then why couldn't he submit Josh Barnet?



Because Josh Barnet is also a 2nd degree black belt in Bjj. Despite how he is currently marketing himself, he is not pure Catch.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Because Josh Barnet is also a 2nd degree black belt in Bjj. Despite how he is currently marketing himself, he is not pure Catch.



Yeah bjj is good but it is really only suited to larger people. Look at Josh Barnet for example.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yeah bjj is good but it is really only suited to larger people. Look at Josh Barnet for example.



All things being equal, Barnett's size advantage was the difference maker.

Like I said earlier, catch favors larger people. Barnett'ssubmission is a prime example.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> All things being equal, Barnett's size advantage was the difference maker.
> 
> Like I said earlier, catch favors larger people. Barnett'ssubmission is a prime example.




So now he is catch again?


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> https://www.udemy.com/u/chrispizzo/
> 
> "Regardless of size speed or experience"



Er okay how is that an "RBSD" argument?

What I'm getting at is trying to gauge your understanding of exactly what RBSD is so far, it's looking like you have an idea based in a complete lack of knowledge.

Oh, and you do realise that "Captain Chris" is nothing to do with RBSD, yeah? Really, the guys little more than a joke who lives in a world of his own fantasy "trained with the last Japanese samurai"??? Some 130 years after the samurai ceased to exist??? Dude's a looney and far from a "world leader in self defence" bad, bad example


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> So now he is catch again?



He never wasn't catch. My point earlier is that his extensive knowledge of Bjj, Catch, and his size advantage allowed him to win that match. 

My issue with this new Catch craze is that people overlook the reasons why Catch isn't popular in the first place. Don't get me wrong, its a great style of grappling, and Bjj and Judo have a couple of roots in Catch, but it will never be nearly as popular as Bjj, Judo, or even the other forms of wrestling out there.

One of the reasons it won't be is because the advantage that size gives to a catch practitioner, even to the point that it effects the success of a hold.


----------



## Tez3

Whether or not it's particularly relevant to this debate I'd thought you'd like a look at this place, it has an old history, been through some hard times but is now going strong again. 

The Snake Pit Wigan ? Home of Catch-as-Catch-Can Wrestling | www.snakepitwigan.com


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Whether or not it's particularly relevant to this debate I'd thought you'd like a look at this place, it has an old history, been through some hard times but is now going strong again.
> 
> The Snake Pit Wigan ? Home of Catch-as-Catch-Can Wrestling | www.snakepitwigan.com




Starting to make a comeback all round. There are a few mmaers looking very seriously at it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Starting to make a comeback all round. There are a few mmaers looking very seriously at it.



I like the statement that Wigan is the home of Catch Wrestling! Truly though some hard men from there, you wouldn't want to mess with those wrestlers.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I like the statement that Wigan is the home of Catch Wrestling! Truly though some hard men from there, you wouldn't want to mess with those wrestlers.



Lots of grind and lots of those rides. It just opens people up and wears them down. Perfect for things like mma because you can hit. You don't necessarily need the sub to have the technique be worthwhile.

You know you are in that scarf hold and no tap. Who cares? You are punching them in the face.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Lots of grind and lots of those rides. It just opens people up and wears them down. Perfect for things like mma because you can hit. You don't necessarily need the sub to have the technique be worthwhile.
> 
> You know you are in that scarf hold and no tap. Who cares? You are punching them in the face.



The Snake Pit has seminars and training for MMA fighters, Neil Adams the Olympic Judoka also has Judo for MMA so with the BJJ as well our MMA fighters have plenty of choice of weapons in their arsenals! A fighter who can't find techniques that suit them whether they are big or small out of that lot should probably give up lol.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> https://www.udemy.com/u/chrispizzo/
> 
> "Regardless of size speed or experience"



Chris beat me to it, but that guy is no more RBSD than I am the grandmaster of Sinanju.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Chris beat me to it, but that guy is no more RBSD than I am the grandmaster of Sinanju.



Easiest one I could find. There is a theme though that rbsd is geared towards giving skills that you do not have to be an elite athlete to implement.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Easiest one I could find. There is a theme though that rbsd is geared towards giving skills that you do not have to be an elite athlete to implement.



I would hope that _any _worthwhile martial art would give you skills that you do not have to be an elite athlete to implement. Given that 99.99% of us are not elite athletes, they would be kind of pointless if they didn't. 

Obviously, you do need to be an elite athlete to compete in the UFC or Metamoris or venues of that nature. That's because you would be facing elite martial artists who are also elite athletes. Most of us are not preparing for that scenario.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I would hope that _any _worthwhile martial art would give you skills that you do not have to be an elite athlete to implement. Given that 99.99% of us are not elite athletes, they would be kind of pointless if they didn't.
> 
> Obviously, you do need to be an elite athlete to compete in the UFC or Metamoris or venues of that nature. That's because you would be facing elite martial artists who are also elite athletes. Most of us are not preparing for that scenario.



Which sort of takes away the point that catch only works for physical guys. And bjj works for less physical guys.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Which sort of takes away the point that catch only works for physical guys. And bjj works for less physical guys.



Eh, I don't think it's controversial to say
a) having more physical attributes (strength, speed, flexibility, endurance, etc) is always a helpful thing no matter what art you are practicing
b) some arts/techniques require a higher minimum degree of those attributes in order to be effective

I don't have enough experience with catch wrestling to say whether it actually requires a higher minimum degree of athleticism than BJJ. Maybe so, maybe not. I was inspired by the video to catch one of my training partners a couple of times with that Barnett-style chest compression recently. It seemed pretty easy, but the guy was about my size and only a blue belt. I doubt I could have gotten the tap against one of the big guys. Maybe I could if I was actually trained in catch and knew all the nuances of the technique or maybe it's just a technique to use on bigger guys.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Eh, I don't think it's controversial to say
> a) having more physical attributes (strength, speed, flexibility, endurance, etc) is always a helpful thing no matter what art you are practicing
> b) some arts/techniques require a higher minimum degree of those attributes in order to be effective
> 
> I don't have enough experience with catch wrestling to say whether it actually requires a higher minimum degree of athleticism than BJJ. Maybe so, maybe not. I was inspired by the video to catch one of my training partners a couple of times with that Barnett-style chest compression recently. It seemed pretty easy, but the guy was about my size and only a blue belt. I doubt I could have gotten the tap against one of the big guys. Maybe I could if I was actually trained in catch and knew all the nuances of the technique or maybe it's just a technique to use on bigger guys.



It can be a sneaky false positive though. Quite often if the martial arts is competitive it appears that it is more inclined to work for physical people. Because physical people do better. 

It is like the other end of the spectrum where wrestling is considered more explosive than bjj. Which is considered slow.But that is up to the people doing it.

The submission is what it is. Like a lot of submissions.


----------



## punisher73

There is nothing new under the sun.  Reminds me of Funakoshi talking about how the "Naha based" styles of karate were geared towards bigger, stronger men and the "Shuri based" styles of karate were geared more towards the average, smaller guy.

It is all marketing.  Whether people want to admit it or not, STRENGTH IS A TECHNIQUE.  A good athelete/martial artist knows when to apply it and when not to.  Too many factors that play into a fight or combat sport.

In reference to the "RBSD argument", it is usually in relation things like eye pokes, throat attacks etc. that don't require large amounts of force to damage the attacker.  You don't have to be in great shape to punch someone in the throat.  That is very true.  But, it also assumes that you are the one starting the attack and striking first and NOT trying to survive the initial assault or ambush by a much larger attacker and getting yourself into position to use that tactic effectively.

IF size/strength don't matter in grappling (or any other martial art) then why do we have age divisions and weight divisions in combat sports?


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Easiest one I could find. There is a theme though that rbsd is geared towards giving skills that you do not have to be an elite athlete to implement.



Er what? No, there isn't not any more than there is in many, many martial arts including sport systems. Judo teaches (and emphasises) efficiency of motion, so that a small person can easily throw a much larger one BJJ has long proclaimed that it's point of difference is the "scientific application of leverage", meaning that a smaller, weaker person can defeat a stronger one by utilising better technique (small bone of contention it's hardly a point of difference), Wing Chun talks about it's founding by a woman, to highlight it's methods of application using direct-line angles to defeat the strength of an incoming attack...

The point I'm making here is that, well, for all your comments about RBSD, nothing you've posted shows any actual understanding of what it actually is which is why I've been asking you to clarify what you believe it to be I mean, you gave a poster child for idiocy, who's nothing to do with RBSD, as an example because it was the "easiest one you could find" if it's not actually an example of what you're trying to demonstrate, then it's not the easiest you could find as it's not what you were looking for.



drop bear said:


> It can be a sneaky false positive though. Quite often if the martial arts is competitive it appears that it is more inclined to work for physical people. Because physical people do better.



How is it a false positive to have "more physical people" (whatever that means) have more success in something that you're saying works better for these "physical people"? Surely that's just a positive (in terms of validation of the idea)?


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Er&#8230; what? No, there isn't&#8230; not any more than there is in many, many martial arts&#8230; including sport systems. Judo teaches (and emphasises) efficiency of motion, so that a small person can easily throw a much larger one&#8230; BJJ has long proclaimed that it's point of difference is the "scientific application of leverage", meaning that a smaller, weaker person can defeat a stronger one by utilising better technique (small bone of contention&#8230; it's hardly a point of difference&#8230, Wing Chun talks about it's founding by a woman, to highlight it's methods of application using direct-line angles to defeat the strength of an incoming attack...
> 
> The point I'm making here is that, well, for all your comments about RBSD, nothing you've posted shows any actual understanding of what it actually is&#8230; which is why I've been asking you to clarify what you believe it to be&#8230; I mean, you gave a poster child for idiocy, who's nothing to do with RBSD, as an example&#8230; because it was the "easiest one you could find"&#8230; if it's not actually an example of what you're trying to demonstrate, then it's not the easiest you could find&#8230; as it's not what you were looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a false positive to have "more physical people" (whatever that means) have more success in something that you're saying works better for these "physical people"? Surely that's just a positive (in terms of validation of the idea)&#8230;?



I do judo. It is pretty commonly accepted it is harder to do on a bigger stronger person. Same with bjj. Maybe I do a strange version.

It certainly seems harder to do on bigger stronger guys.


----------



## Chris Parker

Then you're focusing on strength, rather than technique&#8230; and you're ignoring the aims, ideals, and focus of the systems themselves.

Of course it's harder to do on bigger stronger guys&#8230; which is why you need to get better at it&#8230; constant striving towards the ideals of the arts&#8230; which are that technique trumps strength.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Then you're focusing on strength, rather than technique&#8230; and you're ignoring the aims, ideals, and focus of the systems themselves.
> 
> Of course it's harder to do on bigger stronger guys&#8230; which is why you need to get better at it&#8230; constant striving towards the ideals of the arts&#8230; which are that technique trumps strength.



If it is ,of course, harder to do on bigger stronger guys then by definition it is designed for the bigger person.

Which is generally pretty obvious but also generally ignored in the hope it goes away. Fighting is physical. There is no escaping that. 

Technique increases strength.


----------



## Chris Parker

Er&#8230; yeah&#8230; uh, look, to be blunt, you're expressing what I call a young man's mentality. Yes, it's harder&#8230; that's why you train to get better&#8230; not stronger, better&#8230; there's no "ignoring" going on&#8230; in fact, it's embraced. That's why you train. If it was all trumped by strength, you'd just spend your whole time lifting weights. 

And no, technique doesn't increase strength&#8230; better technique increases the power to the technique&#8230; honestly, there's a bit of a difference&#8230;


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Er&#8230; yeah&#8230; uh, look, to be blunt, you're expressing what I call a young man's mentality. Yes, it's harder&#8230; that's why you train to get better&#8230; not stronger, better&#8230; there's no "ignoring" going on&#8230; in fact, it's embraced. That's why you train. If it was all trumped by strength, you'd just spend your whole time lifting weights.
> 
> And no, technique doesn't increase strength&#8230; better technique increases the power to the technique&#8230; honestly, there's a bit of a difference&#8230;



Or you would just have weight classes in competitions. To give little guys a chance.

OK split hairs on the difference? A power lifter relies on technique to lift more weight. His technique by all measurable difference makes him stronger. His strength also makes him stronger. Same with martial arts.

Not relying on strength is a teaching concept to try to get people to get as much out of their strength as they can by improving technique.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah&#8230; that's not why there are weight classes, so you know&#8230; and while both technique can enhance (and amplify) strength, and strength can help technique (to a far lesser degree), not relying on strength isn't the same as saying you don't use any&#8230; and improving technique is the entire point of training technique.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah&#8230; that's not why there are weight classes, so you know&#8230; and while both technique can enhance (and amplify) strength, and strength can help technique (to a far lesser degree), not relying on strength isn't the same as saying you don't use any&#8230; and improving technique is the entire point of training technique.



OK so why are there weight classes then?

Oh by the way. The rbsd argument?

Your basically arguing it.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> OK so why are there weight classes then?



Broadly, to make a more entertaining (and even) contest&#8230; by limiting other factors&#8230; while that can "give the little guys a chance", it's not actually the reasoning&#8230; in fact, it's more about the bigger guys being evenly matched&#8230; which is why you can fight in higher weight classes, but not lower ones.



drop bear said:


> Oh by the way. The rbsd argument?
> 
> Your basically arguing it.



That's the thing I've been trying to highlight to you since you started saying it&#8230; it's not an "RBSD argument"&#8230; it's a martial arts argument&#8230; and you don't have a clue what you're talking about in either regard.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Broadly, to make a more entertaining (and even) contest&#8230; by limiting other factors&#8230; while that can "give the little guys a chance", it's not actually the reasoning&#8230; in fact, it's more about the bigger guys being evenly matched&#8230; which is why you can fight in higher weight classes, but not lower ones.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing I've been trying to highlight to you since you started saying it&#8230; it's not an "RBSD argument"&#8230; it's a martial arts argument&#8230; and you don't have a clue what you're talking about in either regard.



You are kind of trying to say the weight class thing a bit backwards. To make the fight more evenly matched they Match weight. If weight wasn't a factor they wouldn't do it. But it is. In general martial artists understand this.

So not really a martial arts argument across the board.

FightingArts.com - Strength Training Benefits for Martial Artists: An Interview with Charles Staley Part 1
There are many martial arts who advocate strength training.

You said yourself that it is harder with bigger guys. They have the advantage.

Not at all sure how that is complicated.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> You are kind of trying to say the weight class thing a bit backwards. To make the fight more evenly matched they Match weight. If weight wasn't a factor they wouldn't do it. But it is. In general martial artists understand this.



It's one factor, and you're missing the rest of them. By the same token, you don't have white belts fighting 3rd Dan holders&#8230; but let's say you did&#8230; we'll make the white belt the bigger guy&#8230; how do you think that's going to pan out?

And mate, don't mistake sports martial artists for all martial artists&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> So not really a martial arts argument across the board.



Are you sure about that? Can you name any martial art that stresses being bigger rather than technique? 



drop bear said:


> FightingArts.com - Strength Training Benefits for Martial Artists: An Interview with Charles Staley Part 1
> There are many martial arts who advocate strength training.



You didn't read that very closely, did you? He's a sports conditioning specialist who trained until he was 31 (a decade ago), who has focused on trying to be a superior athlete (not a superior martial artist)&#8230; his comments about martial artists being afraid of strength training is an old wives tale, frankly&#8230; and he's largely just pushing his book. Of course, the issues are that no-one, at any point, has said "being strong is bad"&#8230; what we've said is that being big, and strong isn't the only thing&#8230; there's always someone bigger and stronger, so training to cover that eventuality is more in line with martial arts/self defence than sporting systems&#8230; you don't have to deal with someone twice your size if you're always paired up with people the same size as yourself&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> You said yourself that it is harder with bigger guys. They have the advantage.



Which is why you have to work the technique more&#8230; catching up yet?



drop bear said:


> Not at all sure how that is complicated.



It's not. The thing is, you're still refusing to see anything beyond your limited perspective.


----------



## Sub Zero

Im not taking sides but the Gracies are a bit biased.  Just like there are some moves in BJJ that smaller people can do and larger ones can't does not mean Jiu Jitsu isnt for big men and excludes certain folks.

 There are some Catch moves that smaller opponents can do to defeat larger foes.  I should know I studied both at my dojo.


----------



## drop bear

Sub Zero said:


> Im not taking sides but the Gracies are a bit biased.  Just like there are some moves in BJJ that smaller people can do and larger ones can't does not mean Jiu Jitsu isnt for big men and excludes certain folks.
> 
> There are some Catch moves that smaller opponents can do to defeat larger foes.  I should know I studied both at my dojo.




OK and that is the bare bones of the matter. What move can a smaller person do that a larger person can't?


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> It's one factor, and you're missing the rest of them. By the same token, you don't have white belts fighting 3rd Dan holders&#8230; but let's say you did&#8230; we'll make the white belt the bigger guy&#8230; how do you think that's going to pan out?
> 
> And mate, don't mistake sports martial artists for all martial artists&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is also a difference in experience. But let's take this back to catch. If it is designed towards stronger martial artists then there would not be that difference in ability between a good catch wrestler and a bad one.
> 
> I am not confusing sport it would be the difference between compliant and non compliant. Obviously compliant martial arts neither rely on strength or ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? Can you name any martial art that stresses being bigger rather than technique?
> 
> 
> 
> strength is technique technique is strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read that very closely, did you? He's a sports conditioning specialist who trained until he was 31 (a decade ago), who has focused on trying to be a superior athlete (not a superior martial artist)&#8230; his comments about martial artists being afraid of strength training is an old wives tale, frankly&#8230; and he's largely just pushing his book. Of course, the issues are that no-one, at any point, has said "being strong is bad"&#8230; what we've said is that being big, and strong isn't the only thing&#8230; there's always someone bigger and stronger, so training to cover that eventuality is more in line with martial arts/self defence than sporting systems&#8230; you don't have to deal with someone twice your size if you're always paired up with people the same size as yourself&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sporting systems pair you up with bigger and smaller guys that is a false statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you have to work the technique more&#8230; catching up yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strength is still technique technique is still strength. Caught up gone passed waiting for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not. The thing is, you're still refusing to see anything beyond your limited perspective.
Click to expand...


my experience is not as limited as you are trying to make out. I understand sport systems traditional systems and street hybrids as I have done all three.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> my experience is not as limited as you are trying to make out. I understand sport systems traditional systems and street hybrids as I have done all three.



Then it doesn't show in anything you write.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Then it doesn't show in anything you write.



I am more practical than theoretical.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I am more practical than theoretical.



Writing is a practical art. If you are writing about what you know rather than what you just think then theoretically it can't be theoretical.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> I am more practical than theoretical.



You're missing the point&#8230; it really doesn't have anything to do with "practical" versus "theoretical"&#8230; what I am saying is that your comments do not reflect the reality, or an actual grounding and understanding of pretty much anything you're trying to address. It's not that you're not expressing your ideas well&#8230; it's that your comments indicate that, well, you don't get it. In this thread, for example, you've commented on what you referred to as a "reality based" idea&#8230; except it's not, and is far more a "martial arts" idea, having little to nothing to do with reality based systems at all. Your comments on traditional systems are just as off-base&#8230; not expressed poorly, but simply inaccurate.

That's what I'm saying to you. Your posts do not indicate any real understanding of anything outside of a very narrow form of training methodologies&#8230; so, if you do have the experience you are saying, you missed most of what was there. That's not unheard of, or even uncommon&#8230; but simply having what you consider experience doesn't mean you have any real understanding&#8230; especially if that experience wasn't something you were able (or willing) to take on board.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> You're missing the point&#8230; it really doesn't have anything to do with "practical" versus "theoretical"&#8230; what I am saying is that your comments do not reflect the reality, or an actual grounding and understanding of pretty much anything you're trying to address. It's not that you're not expressing your ideas well&#8230; it's that your comments indicate that, well, you don't get it. In this thread, for example, you've commented on what you referred to as a "reality based" idea&#8230; except it's not, and is far more a "martial arts" idea, having little to nothing to do with reality based systems at all. Your comments on traditional systems are just as off-base&#8230; not expressed poorly, but simply inaccurate.
> 
> That's what I'm saying to you. Your posts do not indicate any real understanding of anything outside of a very narrow form of training methodologies&#8230; so, if you do have the experience you are saying, you missed most of what was there. That's not unheard of, or even uncommon&#8230; but simply having what you consider experience doesn't mean you have any real understanding&#8230; especially if that experience wasn't something you were able (or willing) to take on board.



I still think this accusation that I don't understand the really real martial arts is a cop out. Especially when I was asking for evidence you failed to provide.


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> OK and that is the bare bones of the matter. What move can a smaller person do that a larger person can't?



A friend of mine competes in the World's and is a BJJ Brown Belt.  He is a very large muscularguy and has told me many times that he has a VERY hard time trying to apply a triangle choke on somebody because his thighs are so big.

It's not that he can't do one, just not very easy to.


----------



## Hanzou

punisher73 said:


> A friend of mine competes in the World's and is a BJJ Brown Belt.  He is a very large muscularguy and has told me many times that he has a VERY hard time trying to apply a triangle choke on somebody because his thighs are so big.
> 
> It's not that he can't do one, just not very easy to.



That's funny, because I have that same problem. I have thunder thighs from my football days. Meanwhile, a good friend of mine who is thin and lanky has one of the nastiest triangles around. 

He makes it a point to remind me of how nasty said triangle is every time we roll....


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> You're missing the point&#8230; it really doesn't have anything to do with "practical" versus "theoretical"&#8230; what I am saying is that your comments do not reflect the reality, or an actual grounding and understanding of pretty much anything you're trying to address. It's not that you're not expressing your ideas well&#8230; it's that your comments indicate that, well, you don't get it. In this thread, for example, you've commented on what you referred to as a "reality based" idea&#8230; except it's not, and is far more a "martial arts" idea, having little to nothing to do with reality based systems at all. Your comments on traditional systems are just as off-base&#8230; not expressed poorly, but simply inaccurate.
> 
> That's what I'm saying to you. Your posts do not indicate any real understanding of anything outside of a very narrow form of training methodologies&#8230; so, if you do have the experience you are saying, you missed most of what was there. That's not unheard of, or even uncommon&#8230; but simply having what you consider experience doesn't mean you have any real understanding&#8230; especially if that experience wasn't something you were able (or willing) to take on board.




Have another bite at this because I thought of something funny. From what perspective are you arguing from in relation to a competitive martial art?

Why is your perspective all martial arts?


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> I still think this accusation that I don't understand the really real martial arts is a cop out.



It's not an accusation, it's an observation. And it's about as far from a "cop out" as you can get&#8230; I'm not avoiding anything, it gets pointed out after your continual missing of what you're being told.



drop bear said:


> Especially when I was asking for evidence you failed to provide.



Do you really want to go back there? After you got that thread locked? Seriously?

You were given the evidence. You started from a ridiculous hypothetical (that samurai might have been killing each other in practice all the time), that was denied, and the denial was supported with existing training methods, taken directly from the methods the samurai used, as maintained, preserved, and codified in "samurai" arts (that still exist, for the record), as well as pointing out that there are documents and records from the time (the densho and other forms) that continue to support just how incorrect your hypothetical was, and, if that wasn't enough, it was demonstrated just how unrealistic your idea was.

In other words, you had documentary evidence, direct (first-hand) experience evidence, logical evidence, contemporary evidence, and current training evidence&#8230; and your response? "So&#8230; no proof?". Dude, you got nothing but proof&#8230; and completely ignored it all.



drop bear said:


> Have another bite at this because I thought of something funny. From what perspective are you arguing from in relation to a competitive martial art?
> 
> Why is your perspective all martial arts?



How would that be funny? Are you thinking that I don't have an understanding of your side of things here? Dude&#8230; way off&#8230; I've made numerous comments in favour of the more "sport" training methods, depending on the aims and context. 

But, for your edification, my background includes Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do (a branch of Shito Ryu that was formed basically to win tournaments), Rhee Tae-Kwon Do, BJJ (Gracie affiliated, including some training under Royce), boxing, and kickboxing. I've also spent some time (occasional visits, really) in a couple of MMA dojo, done some wrestling, and explored Judo. Add to that my traditional work (the semi-traditional side of the Ninjutsu arts, my Koryu training, Iai, Kyudo, as well as some time in Aikido, and more), and my RBSD training (both in various training environments, and as a teacher of RBSD methods within my Ninjutsu classes), my range of friends and associates who train in many of the above, and more (sporting and other systems) with whom I communicate regularly, and my last 3 decades or so reading, learning, and training, and you end up with, quite frankly, one of the most well-rounded persons on this forum.

Why is my perspective "all martial arts"? It's not&#8230; but it is one that takes each art from it's own perspective, rather than from one that has nothing to do with it. Oh, but it is far more "all martial arts" than yours, for the record.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> But, for your edification, my background includes Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do (a branch of Shito Ryu that was formed basically to win tournaments), Rhee Tae-Kwon Do, BJJ (Gracie affiliated, including some training under Royce), boxing, and kickboxing. I've also spent some time (occasional visits, really) in a couple of MMA dojo, done some wrestling, and explored Judo. Add to that my traditional work (the semi-traditional side of the Ninjutsu arts, my Koryu training, Iai, Kyudo, as well as some time in Aikido, and more), and my RBSD training (both in various training environments, and as a teacher of RBSD methods within my Ninjutsu classes), my range of friends and associates who train in many of the above, and more (sporting and other systems) with whom I communicate regularly, and my last 3 decades or so reading, learning, and training, and you end up with, quite frankly, one of the most well-rounded persons on this forum.
> Why is my perspective "all martial arts"? It's not&#8230; but it is one that takes each art from it's own perspective, rather than from one that has nothing to do with it. Oh, but it is far more "all martial arts" than yours, for the record.



Just curious, Chris, how would you break down the time you've spent in these various arts? I've got a comparably broad list of arts I've been exposed to, but there's a  big difference in my understanding of the arts I've spent thousands of hours on vs the ones I've spent hundreds of hours on vs the ones I've only spent tens of hours on.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just curious, Chris, how would you break down the time you've spent in these various arts? I've got a comparably broad list of arts I've been exposed to, but there's a  big difference in my understanding of the arts I've spent thousands of hours on vs the ones I've spent hundreds of hours on vs the ones I've only spent tens of hours on.



Hey Tony,

Sure. The first few (Shukokai and TKD) both 3-4 years each&#8230; BJJ about a year&#8230; boxing and kickboxing about 6 months each (there are reasons for the short span, of course, but not worth getting into here). My primary arts (traditional systems) go back 2 decades plus, the RBSD over a decade (that one's a bit harder to quantify, for a few reasons), and the occasional visit-style systems have been over the last 3 decades. The reading, learning, communicating, and striving to understand each and every approach from their own perspective and context, well, that's been a constant throughout everything.

I agree with you on the difference between understanding depending on the level of immersion, but I also feel that's only part of the story&#8230; it's entirely possible to have a long time in a system, and not really get much understanding, particularly as it contrasts and compares with other approaches (especially if that's the only reference you have)&#8230; and the reverse is also possible. It depends on the approach of the person.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Tony,
> 
> Sure. The first few (Shukokai and TKD) both 3-4 years each BJJ about a year boxing and kickboxing about 6 months each (there are reasons for the short span, of course, but not worth getting into here). My primary arts (traditional systems) go back 2 decades plus, the RBSD over a decade (that one's a bit harder to quantify, for a few reasons), and the occasional visit-style systems have been over the last 3 decades. The reading, learning, communicating, and striving to understand each and every approach from their own perspective and context, well, that's been a constant throughout everything.



Thanks! For the record, my own training over the last 33 years probably breaks down something like:

5000+ hours BJJ
2000+ hours Muay Thai
1500+ hours Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu
600+ hours Yudansha Fighting Systems (a Danzan ryu spinoff)
400+ hours Judo
400+ hours Boxing
300+ hours SCA heavy weapons fighting
100+ hours Kali (various flavors)
10 - 100 hours each TKD, Bando, Tai Chi, Karate, Sambo, Wrestling
less than 10 hours each Silat, Wing Chun, JKD, Capoeira, Shaolin Do, HEMA

I figure the breakdown by hours is more informative than listing in terms of years.

I'm not counting the ridiculous number of hours spent reading books, watching videos, and talking with practitioners of different arts.



Chris Parker said:


> I agree with you on the difference between understanding depending on the level of immersion, but I also feel that's only part of the story it's entirely possible to have a long time in a system, and not really get much understanding, particularly as it contrasts and compares with other approaches (especially if that's the only reference you have) and the reverse is also possible. It depends on the approach of the person.



True, but ... I think there's a danger in becoming overly confident in theories about what the perspective and context of a given martial art _should _be about based on a beginners/outsiders viewpoint, especially if it leads you to dismiss the actual experiences and understanding of people who have spent a lot more time in the art.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> I do judo. It is pretty commonly accepted it is harder to do on a bigger stronger person. Same with bjj. Maybe I do a strange version.
> 
> It certainly seems harder to do on bigger stronger guys.



Good Lord, I couldn't disagree more! 

Judo-throws especially-is generally  _easier_ to do on a bigger, stronger guy.

I say this as a bigger, stronger guy ( 6'2",230lbs.) who has been doing judo what some would call a long time-43 years......

(Haven't read the whole thread yet-maybe you were being facetious?)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

elder999 said:


> Good Lord, I couldn't disagree more!
> 
> Judo-throws especially-is generally  _easier_ to do on a bigger, stronger guy.
> 
> I say this as a bigger, stronger guy ( 6'2",230lbs.) who has been doing judo what some would call a long time-43 years......
> 
> (Haven't read the whole thread yet-maybe you were being facetious?)



??? Am I missing something? Are you suggesting that when you compete with a 120 lb judoka whose overall skill and athleticism are about equal to your own that the advantage is in favor of the other guy?

There's a reason why weight classes were instituted in Judo after Anton Geesink won the world championship. It wasn't to protect poor Anton from getting beat up by all those mean lightweights.

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your point.


----------



## ballen0351

Tony Dismukes said:


> ??? Am I missing something? Are you suggesting that when you compete with a 120 lb judoka whose overall skill and athleticism are about equal to your own that the advantage is in favor of the other guy?
> 
> There's a reason why weight classes were instituted in Judo after Anton Geesink won the world championship. It wasn't to protect poor Anton from getting beat up by all those mean lightweights.
> 
> Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your point.



It is much easier to get under and get leverage on taller guys.  One of the guys in out dojo was 6'7"  I loved working with him Im only 6ft and could easily get low on him.  He on the other hand had a much harder time getting low  on me to get the leverage


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ballen0351 said:


> It is much easier to get under and get leverage on taller guys. ...  He on the other hand had a much harder time getting low  on me to get the leverage



The taller guy doesn't have to get low on you. He can come from top and crash you down with his body weight.

 - The short guys like to use "lower body control (such as waist surround, under look)". 
- The taller guys like to use "upper body control (such as head lock, over hook)".


----------



## ballen0351

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The taller guy doesn't have to get low on you. He can come from top and crash you down with his body weight.



He does if he wants to throw me


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ballen0351 said:


> It is much easier to get under and get leverage on taller guys.  One of the guys in out dojo was 6'7"  I loved working with him Im only 6ft and could easily get low on him.  He on the other hand had a much harder time getting low  on me to get the leverage



Yeah, some throws do work easier for shorter guys. That's not the same as saying it's easier to throw stronger, heavier guys.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ballen0351 said:


> He does if he wants to throw me



You may call this "take down",






but is this a throw?






Is this a throw too? You don't have to get under your opponent to "throw" him.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> Thanks! For the record, my own training over the last 33 years probably breaks down something like:
> 
> 5000+ hours BJJ
> 2000+ hours Muay Thai
> 1500+ hours Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu
> 600+ hours Yudansha Fighting Systems (a Danzan ryu spinoff)
> 400+ hours Judo
> 400+ hours Boxing
> 300+ hours SCA heavy weapons fighting
> 100+ hours Kali (various flavors)
> 10 - 100 hours each TKD, Bando, Tai Chi, Karate, Sambo, Wrestling
> less than 10 hours each Silat, Wing Chun, JKD, Capoeira, Shaolin Do, HEMA
> 
> I figure the breakdown by hours is more informative than listing in terms of years.
> 
> I'm not counting the ridiculous number of hours spent reading books, watching videos, and talking with practitioners of different arts.



I can see where you're coming from, but to me, hours (mat-time) is only a part of it all&#8230; as a result, I count in years, not hours. 

I'll put it this way&#8230; I currently train in an Iai system, Koryu Kenjutsu, Ninjutsu, and Kyudo. Each has a maximum of 4-7 hours a week (Ninjutsu, depending on the week), with a minimum of half an hour a week&#8230; with things like Kyudo being every second week for two hours&#8230; but that's just my mat-time. My study, training, exploration, research, reading, and so on go well and truly beyond that.



Tony Dismukes said:


> True, but ... I think there's a danger in becoming overly confident in theories about what the perspective and context of a given martial art _should _be about based on a beginners/outsiders viewpoint, especially if it leads you to dismiss the actual experiences and understanding of people who have spent a lot more time in the art.



While I agree with you there, I really don't think you can accuse me of dismissing the experience and understanding of practitioners. To be blunt, that's precisely what drop bear has been doing, here and in other threads.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may call this "take down",



Well, I'd call it convoluted, flawed, and largely ineffectual. Really not fond of that one in the slightest. Of course, I don't see what that has to do with the comments on Judo methodology, as it has nothing to do with it&#8230; 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> but is this a throw?



Yes, it's called Kubi Nage in some areas.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is this a throw too? You don't have to get under your opponent to "throw" him.



And again, yes, this is a throw&#8230; but I have no idea where you get the idea that you don't have to get under the opponent&#8230; getting under the opponent in order to throw him is exactly what the practitioner does.


----------



## elder999

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, some throws do work easier for shorter guys. That's not the same as saying it's easier to throw stronger, heavier guys.



It's not only easier to get your center of gravity under a taller guy, but a stronger, heavier guy is generally easier to influence-turn their strength and size against them.....you know, what judo is supposed to do.

Weight classes didn't exist in judo competition until 1948, and were developed by the U.S. There were only four of them: 130 lb,150lb., 180lb. and unlimited, and there was usually a "Grand Championship" that would give the 130 lb. competitor an opportunity to win over the "unlimited" weight class- not too much after this, further rules and weight classes patterned after Olympic wrestling were instituted in order to make judo an "Olympic sport."


----------



## Tony Dismukes

elder999 said:


> It's not only easier to get your center of gravity under a taller guy, but a stronger, heavier guy is generally easier to influence-turn their strength and size against them.....you know, what judo is supposed to do.
> 
> Weight classes didn't exist in judo competition until 1948, and were developed by the U.S. There were only four of them: 130 lb,150lb., 180lb. and unlimited, and there was usually a "Grand Championship" that would give the 130 lb. competitor an opportunity to win over the "unlimited" weight class- not too much after this, further rules and weight classes patterned after Olympic wrestling were instituted in order to make judo an "Olympic sport."



Umm ... yeah. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the World Judo Championship did not have weight classes until after Anton Geesink won the gold in 1961. (Somehow he managed to overcome the handicap of being 270 pounds of solid muscle.) In 1965 the World Championships instituted weight classes so that poor Anton wouldn't have to face all those mean lightweights again.  Looking through the winners of the Open Weight division in the World Championships since then, the winners seem to be mostly heavyweights. I'm not seeing any 130-pounders coming in and taking advantage of the fact that the big guys are easier to throw.

Obviously, having a sufficient advantage in technique can allow a judoka to overcome a stronger, heavier opponent. That's practically the idealized essence of judo. (BJJ too, for that matter.) Once the big guys develop their own technique to the same level as the small guys, the advantage shifts in their favor. The last 50+ years of empirical results at the top level of Judo show clearly that big guys are not at a disadvantage against smaller guys.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> I can see where you're coming from, but to me, hours (mat-time) is only a part of it all&#8230; as a result, I count in years, not hours.



There's value to looking at it both ways, but between the two I think hours of mat time is more revealing. If you have one practitioner who has trained 4 hours per week for 10 years and another who has trained 20 hours per week for 5 years, it's the latter who is likely to have more skill and understanding of the art.

That said, measuring in years has the advantage that you can count them pretty accurately. My estimate of hours trained could be significantly off in either direction - it's not as if I've been filling out a time card all these years.



Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way&#8230; I currently train in an Iai system, Koryu Kenjutsu, Ninjutsu, and Kyudo. Each has a maximum of 4-7 hours a week (Ninjutsu, depending on the week), with a minimum of half an hour a week&#8230; with things like Kyudo being every second week for two hours&#8230; but that's just my mat-time. My study, training, exploration, research, reading, and so on go well and truly beyond that.



Reading, watching videos, talking with other martial artists, thinking about martial arts ... I certainly hope they all have value, given the thousands of hours I've spent on them. I do think they are secondary to actual mat time. (Unless you're talking about understanding history. That's one area where reading is much more important.)




Chris Parker said:


> While I agree with you there, I really don't think you can accuse me of dismissing the experience and understanding of practitioners. To be blunt, that's precisely what drop bear has been doing, here and in other threads.



Well ... when you lecture people in other arts about the purpose and context of their chosen art it can kind of give that impression whether you mean to or not. (Not saying that you are doing that in this particular thread or that drop bear isn't guilty in his own way.) You do that a lot less with me than with other BJJ practitioners on the forum, but I do kind of recall that last time you were arguing with me over the development of BJJ you asked for evidence to back up my position and then didn't acknowledge when I provided it.


----------



## elder999

Tony Dismukes said:


> Umm ... yeah. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the World Judo Championship did not have weight classes until after Anton Geesink won the gold in 1961. (Somehow he managed to overcome the handicap of being 270 pounds of solid muscle.) In 1965 the World Championships instituted weight classes so that poor Anton wouldn't have to face all those mean lightweights again.  Looking through the winners of the Open Weight division in the World Championships since then, the winners seem to be mostly heavyweights. I'm not seeing any 130-pounders coming in and taking advantage of the fact that the big guys are easier to throw.



We're not in disagreement-though history argues that weight classes were coming, and not just as a consequence of Geesink's performance.

In cases where all other things are equal, of course strength and size are an advantage-though not one that can be exploited and turned to disadvantage. 

In any case, what I originally disagreed with was:



drop bear said:


> I do judo.* It is pretty commonly accepted it is harder to do on a bigger stronger person*. Same with bjj. Maybe I do a strange version.
> 
> It certainly seems harder to do on bigger stronger guys.





And I'd argue that mr. drop bear probably  *is* doing a strange version of judo:

the *wrong* one. :lfao:


----------



## Tony Dismukes

elder999 said:


> In cases where all other things are equal, of course strength and size are an advantage-though not one that can be exploited and turned to disadvantage.
> 
> In any case, what I originally disagreed with was ...



i think maybe we're just having a communication issue. I'm pretty certain that what drop bear meant by "_harder to do on a bigger stronger person_" is the exact same thing as you are saying with "_In cases where all other things are equal, of course strength and size are an advantage ..._"

BTW, I'm sure you're right that weight classes would have come anyway without Geesink's victory. I do suspect that maybe he helped speed up the process.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's value to looking at it both ways, but between the two I think hours of mat time is more revealing. If you have one practitioner who has trained 4 hours per week for 10 years and another who has trained 20 hours per week for 5 years, it's the latter who is likely to have more skill and understanding of the art.



Skill and understanding aren't the same thing&#8230; which is part of my point&#8230; 



Tony Dismukes said:


> That said, measuring in years has the advantage that you can count them pretty accurately. My estimate of hours trained could be significantly off in either direction - it's not as if I've been filling out a time card all these years.



The real advantage is a sense of completion in this sense&#8230; as well as accuracy.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Reading, watching videos, talking with other martial artists, thinking about martial arts ... I certainly hope they all have value, given the thousands of hours I've spent on them. I do think they are secondary to actual mat time. (Unless you're talking about understanding history. That's one area where reading is much more important.)



Not just history, but yeah, that's more the level I'm talking about&#8230; again, skill and understanding are two different things. They can be related, but not necessarily.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Well ... when you lecture people in other arts about the purpose and context of their chosen art it can kind of give that impression whether you mean to or not. (Not saying that you are doing that in this particular thread or that drop bear isn't guilty in his own way.) You do that a lot less with me than with other BJJ practitioners on the forum, but I do kind of recall that last time you were arguing with me over the development of BJJ you asked for evidence to back up my position and then didn't acknowledge when I provided it.



Do you want blunt honesty here, Tony? I didn't acknowledge anything because you'd started on the wrong idea, ignored the clarifications, and continued to argue something I wasn't arguing against. I made a comment on the current state and development of BJJ, you went to the early history&#8230; I pointed out that I was discussing modern observation rather than earlier generations, you continued to talk about early developments not being in sport (for the record, the challenge matches you cited could be seen in that regard, and the origins of Vale Tudo were from the 20's, so&#8230, so I asked for current forms that weren't sporting in their development (which would have given quite a different result, honestly), and you once more went back to the early days, citing the ranged kick as an example of something not necessary in BJJ competition&#8230; but would be in Vale Tudo competition, as well as the challenge matches you gave as an example.

But the main reason was that you were arguing something I wasn't arguing against.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> Do you want blunt honesty here, Tony? I didn't acknowledge anything because you'd started on the wrong idea, ignored the clarifications, and continued to argue something I wasn't arguing against. I made a comment on the current state and development of BJJ, you went to the early history I pointed out that I was discussing modern observation rather than earlier generations, you continued to talk about early developments not being in sport (for the record, the challenge matches you cited could be seen in that regard, and the origins of Vale Tudo were from the 20's, so), so I asked for current forms that weren't sporting in their development (which would have given quite a different result, honestly), and you once more went back to the early days, citing the ranged kick as an example of something not necessary in BJJ competition but would be in Vale Tudo competition, as well as the challenge matches you gave as an example.
> 
> But the main reason was that you were arguing something I wasn't arguing against.



Hey, good way to help illustrate my point. Thanks! 

As a reminder, the original point we were discussing was your statement that BJJ was best suited for BJJ competitions. I made the point that much of BJJ is not intended for, suitable for (or even allowed) in BJJ competition. This is BJJ as it is practiced _right now_, not just in early history.  The pisão, the approach to controlling range, the punch defense  - these aren't some historical artifact in a museum. They are some of the first things I teach my beginning students. They are "current forms" and they weren't developed for BJJ competition.

Now if you had asked for_ recent innovations _in BJJ, I would cheerfully acknowledge that they almost all come from the sporting arena. That's not what you asked.

In fact, if you had just said up front that the latest developments in BJJ had come from the world of sport BJJ competition, we would have no argument. Once again, that's not what you said. Maybe it's what you _meant,_ but it's not what you _said_.

BTW - I agree that it's possible to regard the challenge matches and street fights that shaped BJJ as being essentially sportive in nature if you have a broad enough definition of sport. They are not what is known as BJJ competition.

Let's put it this way. You're fond of popping in to deliver lectures on the meaning and purpose of kata training. Suppose I were declare that the purpose of kata training was to learn how to stomp and scream and flip and impress the judges in tournament competition. Suppose I were to dismiss counter-arguments by you and all the traditional Karate and CMA practitioners on the board by stating that those old kata without the screaming and flipping and working to impress the judges were just ancient history and nothing to do with what kata is now.

(Or I could tell elder999 that judo is just whatever is included in the latest Olympic rules.  )

I can't imagine that approach would make me tremendously appreciated.


----------



## elder999

Tony Dismukes said:


> (Or I could tell elder999 that judo is just whatever is included in the latest Olympic rules.  )
> 
> .



*That tears it.*:rpo: I'm on my way to Kentucky right now! :lfao:

Seriously-in 14 out of 15 dojo, you'd probably be right. 

That one out of fifteen, though? Places where they teach  pre-WWII judo (usually along with competitive, btw)? Something to be treasured.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

elder999 said:


> *That tears it.*:rpo: I'm on my way to Kentucky right now! :lfao:
> 
> Seriously-in 14 out of 15 dojo, you'd probably be right.
> 
> That one out of fifteen, though? Places where they teach  pre-WWII judo (usually along with competitive, btw)? Something to be treasured.



Yeah, in 4 out of 5 BJJ gyms, Chris would be right as well. (Unfortunately, IMO.)

I would dearly love a chance to visit one of those dojos that teaches the pre-war judo. If you are ever in Kentucky, come on by. We'd love to have you teach a class.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hey, good way to help illustrate my point. Thanks!



Hmm&#8230; not sure of the point you think I'm helping you with&#8230; 



Tony Dismukes said:


> As a reminder, the original point we were discussing was your statement that BJJ was best suited for BJJ competitions. I made the point that much of BJJ is not intended for, suitable for (or even allowed) in BJJ competition. This is BJJ as it is practiced _right now_, not just in early history.  The pisão, the approach to controlling range, the punch defense  - these aren't some historical artifact in a museum. They are some of the first things I teach my beginning students. They are "current forms" and they weren't developed for BJJ competition.



I know what the original conversation was, Tony, I re-read the entire thread before responding. But, if you're going to insist, let's look at it. Here are all the relevant posts, in order, in full (with regards to the context), with exposition from myself:

*Starts here*


AJH40 said:


> Sorry about misunderstanding of my question, I meant say what are the appropriate environments to uses Judo & BJJ?
> 
> Thanks



_&#8203;Note the use of present tense&#8230; "what are"&#8230; _



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.


_
Continued in my answer&#8230; "the appropriate environment is&#8230;" Note also that I don't rule out other usages._



AJH40 said:


> So You wouldn't say that BJJ and Judo would be well suited for some kind of street fighting environment ?



_Still on present tense._



Chris Parker said:


> No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.
> 
> Look, the real issue here is that you're asking a question that can't be answered... none of them are "best", or "most effective" in comparison to any other. How well trained in the system are you? How well do you understand how it needs to be adapted? How naturally skilled are you? What's your training been like? All of that is far, far more important than "which system"... as "which system" really means nothing.



_And still._



Tony Dismukes said:


> Given that BJJ sport competition wasn't even invented until the art had been around for 40 years or so and many practitioners still don't train for it, I'd say this statement is at best a partial truth.
> 
> For a much more in-depth examination of what BJJ is "about" or "designed for", take a look at my post on page 4 of the "Modern vs Antiquated Self-defense" thread.


_
And here's where you entered&#8230; talking about earlier history and development, which I hadn't even addressed, mentioned, or broached at that point. I was purely addressing the current development and state of BJJ (and Judo), as that was the context in __which AJH40 was asking, with regards to his potential training._



Chris Parker said:


> Hey Tony,
> 
> Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field. The sophistication of sweeps, counter-sweeps, submissions, escapes, and so on simply doesn't happen in anything that is geared towards pure combative pragmatism. It developed as a sport, it developed through the sporting approach, and is very much custom designed for competition... which isn't anywhere near a bad thing or a criticism, nor is it saying that that's all their good for... but it is what it is, a current observation, rather than a partial truth.


_
Note that here, I agree with your comments on the earlier history and early development, but highlight that I'm not talking about that, rather it's current development and expression. I back that up with examples of just how that sporting development has manifested in much of BJJ's curriculum and format&#8230; which you then agree with (in a modern expression)._



Tony Dismukes said:


> What you are describing is one aspect of how BJJ has developed and how it is practiced by a significant percentage of practitioners. It is not the original nor the only way it has developed and is practiced. That's why I said it's a partial truth - it is an accurate observation of how many people train in the art, but it is certainly not universal. With all due respect - I think I have rather a lot more experience in the art than you do and thus a lot more data points to draw upon. I have no doubt that you are correctly describing what you have seen.


_
Here, you again try to take it back to the early history of BJJ&#8230; which is still not what I'm addressing._



Chris Parker said:


> Hey Tony,
> 
> While not arguing that you have more experience in this field than I do, and also not arguing about the origins or focus of some schools of BJJ, I'd argue about the development not coming from the sporting side of things. Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application? The reason I ask is that I can't think of any form that shows the hallmarks of not developing in that fashion... and, to be absolutely clear here, I don't see anything negative about developing through sports at all... as I said, it is what gives BJJ it's sophistication and depth of knowledge on the ground. It's a great thing.


_
Here, I point out that I'm not arguing with you (on the history or origins), but talking about the modern, current expression by discussing the (current) development and expressions as having come from sporting and competitive aspects._



Tony Dismukes said:


> It might be easier to continue this discussion over in the "Modern vs Antiquated" thread, where I've already laid out some background on BJJ's development, but I'll go ahead and give an example here.
> 
> The original crucible for the development of BJJ was street fighting and challenge matches with practitioners of other arts.* To this end, the Gracies developed the classic strategy of controlling the distance against strikers by using the pisão (a hybrid between a stomp kick and a side kick) to keep opponents outside of striking range until finding an opportunity to close directly to the clinch range, avoiding any opportunity for the opponent to land a punch. This approach would be pointless against another BJJ practitioner, even if BJJ competition allowed strikes. This was an original development for BJJ - I've never seen it anywhere in judo.
> 
> Another example, BJJ contains very effective methods for defending against strikes on the ground. These weren't developed primarily for use against other BJJ practitioners. They were developed for situations where the BJJ practitioner took down a bigger, stronger opponent who was able to reverse him and end up on top. By negating the opponent's ability to strike, the BJJ practitioner could tire out and frustrate his adversary, leading to the opportunity for a submission.
> 
> *(As we know, street-fighting and challenge matches are not self-defense. I'll agree that BJJ has relatively little in the way of original development in self-defense methodology, except for those ground techniques which are useful both for fighting and self-defense. The stand-up self-defense curriculum is not unique to BJJ.)


_
Finally, you finish with examples that again highlight the history you're bringing up, which I never argued __against, and wasn't anything to do with what I was saying.
_
Here endeth the repeated history.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Now if you had asked for_ recent innovations _in BJJ, I would cheerfully acknowledge that they almost all come from the sporting arena. That's not what you asked.



So, after all that, you're saying that what I was saying was right. Good to know.

And yes, that is exactly what I asked ("I can't think of any form [contemporary, current] that shows hallmarks of not developing in that fashion [through competitive application]")



Tony Dismukes said:


> In fact, if you had just said up front that the latest developments in BJJ had come from the world of sport BJJ competition, we would have no argument. Once again, that's not what you said. Maybe it's what you _meant,_ but it's not what you _said_.



I did. You missed it by reading into my posts comments about something I wasn't addressing&#8230; and missing each time I agreed with you and pointed out that that was not what I was talking about.



Tony Dismukes said:


> BTW - I agree that it's possible to regard the challenge matches and street fights that shaped BJJ as being essentially sportive in nature if you have a broad enough definition of sport. They are not what is known as BJJ competition.



Modern forms and expressions are largely driven by BJJ competition, with MMA also having a strong influence on a number of approaches&#8230; but yeah, back in the day, Vale Tudo, challenge matches etc were a similar crucible.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Let's put it this way. You're fond of popping in to deliver lectures on the meaning and purpose of kata training. Suppose I were declare that the purpose of kata training was to learn how to stomp and scream and flip and impress the judges in tournament competition. Suppose I were to dismiss counter-arguments by you and all the traditional Karate and CMA practitioners on the board by stating that those old kata without the screaming and flipping and working to impress the judges were just ancient history and nothing to do with what kata is now.
> 
> (Or I could tell elder999 that judo is just whatever is included in the latest Olympic rules.  )
> 
> I can't imagine that approach would make me tremendously appreciated.



Then you have completely missed what I was saying there, as that is simply not a similar construct.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Not taking any sides here but I wanted to point out:*

Actually on the current front the Gracie Academy and Rorion and his son's have actually added several things into their self defense curriculum through the years.  Gracie Combatives actually has at least one thing in it that you would not find in older BJJ or in other lines of BJJ. (it was codified specifically for Gracie Combatives)  They have also addressed certain things for law enforcement and military that again has added to their curriculum and taken into account things that were not taken into account previously.  This is an area that they specifically have moved into in a big way.  Not to mention their BullProof program is new as well.  Some of it is good, some bad but hey that is just my opinion!

So there are some areas in BJJ that specifically are not or were currently not developed through sporting competition.  Though I will readily agree that the vast majority of training and technique advancement is from competition training.  So much so that if you are not researching and training with different people all the time you will miss new developments quickly!  Though of course the best way to counter anything you have not seen before is to have good fluid BJJ fundamentals.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Okay Chris, let's start with what we agree on. that should hopefully get us closer to seeing the disconnect.

We both agree that 
a) the elements of BJJ which were developed for street fights and challenge matches were mostly added to the art in the early decades of its existence (early-mid 20th century) and
b) the elements of BJJ which have been added to the art in the last 2-3 decades are mostly derived from sport grappling competition (with some input from the MMA arena as well).

I think we're on the same page there, right?

Now. let's look at the bits you quoted from the previous thread.



			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.
> ...
> No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.
> ...
> Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field.
> ...
> Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application?



You don't say "the elements of BJJ which have been added in the last  3 decades or so are best suited for BJJ competition." You don't say "the recent additions to BJJ were not designed for street fighting." You don't say "the crucible which formed the latest innovations in BJJ was sport competition." You didn't ask "give me an example of BJJ that was invented in the last 20 years that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application." 

You say BJJ *is* such and so. In other words, you are conflating what BJJ *is* with what elements have been *added to it* in the last generation or so. When you insist that my mentions of how the art was created and developed are irrelevant to discussion of what BJJ is now, then you are consigning what I consider the heart of the art to an exhibit in a history museum.  I don't agree with this. Just because new facets have been added to the art does not mean the old facets have gone away.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> Okay Chris, let's start with what we agree on. that should hopefully get us closer to seeing the disconnect.
> 
> We both agree that
> a) the elements of BJJ which were developed for street fights and challenge matches were mostly added to the art in the early decades of its existence (early-mid 20th century) and
> b) the elements of BJJ which have been added to the art in the last 2-3 decades are mostly derived from sport grappling competition (with some input from the MMA arena as well).
> 
> I think we're on the same page there, right?



No, not quite. For one thing, I'd argue the idea of elements being "added"&#8230; instead, I'd say they were developed. Secondly, while the early decades may have had less of a competitive aspect (certainly not what we currently have as BJJ/Grappling competition), the idea of testing against skilled opponents (either in the same area, or different) was common from the very beginning. Of course, this can be seen as a largely semantic argument between us in terms of choices of terminology, which it might be&#8230; or it might be indicative of a rather different way of looking at what makes a martial art what it is.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Now. let's look at the bits you quoted from the previous thread.
> 
> &#8230;.
> 
> You don't say "the elements of BJJ which have been added in the last  3 decades or so are best suited for BJJ competition." You don't say "the recent additions to BJJ were not designed for street fighting." You don't say "the crucible which formed the latest innovations in BJJ was sport competition." You didn't ask "give me an example of BJJ that was invented in the last 20 years that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application."



Of course I didn't say that, Tony, I was addressing someone who had no experience with these systems, and little knowledge of them&#8230; as a result, I didn't want to overly complicate things. But even if I wanted to give a complete historical perspective, it would have been out of place, and not address the question and context of the poster asking about training in the here and now.



Tony Dismukes said:


> You say BJJ *is* such and so. In other words, you are conflating what BJJ *is* with what elements have been *added to it* in the last generation or so. When you insist that my mentions of how the art was created and developed are irrelevant to discussion of what BJJ is now, then you are consigning what I consider the heart of the art to an exhibit in a history museum.  I don't agree with this. Just because new facets have been added to the art does not mean the old facets have gone away.



No, Tony, I was doing nothing of the kind.

But you know what? Let's take this back to where you started this revival of an old conversation&#8230; you were saying that mat hours were more accurate a measure of your depth of understanding. Tell me&#8230; what portion of your 5,000 hours of mat-time in BJJ dealt with the early history and development, as well as the modern expression, and where that has developed from, as well as how? How are you getting that from rolling and training drills and flows?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> No, not quite. For one thing, I'd argue the idea of elements being "added"&#8230; instead, I'd say they were developed.



How about: developed/invented/refined/copied/stolen and then added? 



> Secondly, while the early decades may have had less of a competitive aspect (certainly not what we currently have as BJJ/Grappling competition), the idea of testing against skilled opponents (either in the same area, or different) was common from the very beginning.



Absolutely, which is why I acknowledged that even street fights and challenge matches could be viewed as "sportive" if you take a broad enough view of the term.  The only thing I would add is that they also had plenty of testing against guys who were big and strong, but not necessarily skilled martial artists as well.






> Of course I didn't say that, Tony, I was addressing someone who had no experience with these systems, and little knowledge of them&#8230; as a result, I didn't want to overly complicate things. But even if I wanted to give a complete historical perspective, it would have been out of place, and not address the question and context of the poster asking about training in the here and now.



Here we get to the crux of our disagreement - "*training in the here and now*." The poster was asking what sort of training they might experience in a BJJ school if they walked in and signed up and what it would be suited for. The correct (short) answer is that depending on the school they might get
a) training in tactics and techniques suitable for street fights and challenge matches *or*
b) training in tactics and techniques suitable for BJJ grappling competition *or*
c) some mish-mash of both in different orders or proportions (sport first, then street or street first, then sport or both mixed up randomly).
The correct _long_ answer would be a bit more involved.





> But you know what? Let's take this back to where you started this revival of an old conversation&#8230; you were saying that mat hours were more accurate a measure of your depth of understanding. Tell me&#8230; what portion of your 5,000 hours of mat-time in BJJ dealt with the early history and development, as well as the modern expression, and where that has developed from, as well as how? How are you getting that from rolling and training drills and flows?



Not sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?  Are you asking...
What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?
What portion of my mat time was spent on the older ("street") techniques & tactics vs what portion was spent on the newer ("sport") techniques and tactics?
How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?
Something else entirely?

I'm happy to answer whatever I can, I just want to make sure I'm answering whatever it is your actually asking.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> How about: developed/invented/refined/copied/stolen and then added?



I would agree with developed, and I'd agree with refined. I don't agree with "added", "copied", or "stolen".



Tony Dismukes said:


> Absolutely, which is why I acknowledged that even street fights and challenge matches could be viewed as "sportive" if you take a broad enough view of the term.  The only thing I would add is that they also had plenty of testing against guys who were big and strong, but not necessarily skilled martial artists as well.



Here's the thing, Tony&#8230; I have never, not once, disagreed with your expression of the history (I might have some different interpretations of a few aspects, but that's about it). And you haven't disagreed with anything I've said&#8230; you've just tried applying it to something that I wasn't addressing, even when that was pointed out.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Here we get to the crux of our disagreement - "*training in the here and now*." The poster was asking what sort of training they might experience in a BJJ school if they walked in and signed up and what it would be suited for. The correct (short) answer is that depending on the school they might get
> a) training in tactics and techniques suitable for street fights and challenge matches *or*
> b) training in tactics and techniques suitable for BJJ grappling competition *or*
> c) some mish-mash of both in different orders or proportions (sport first, then street or street first, then sport or both mixed up randomly).
> The correct _long_ answer would be a bit more involved.



No, that's not what he was asking. The exact question posed was "what are the appropriate environments to use Judo/BJJ?" There was no instance in the entire thread where he asked what sort of training he might expect&#8230; he was looking purely at application.

So, in short, no, that is not the "correct" answer at all&#8230; as it's an answer to a completely different question that you decided was being asked, despite there being no evidence for that.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Not sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?  Are you asking...
> What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?



In part, yes.



Tony Dismukes said:


> What portion of my mat time was spent on the older ("street") techniques & tactics vs what portion was spent on the newer ("sport") techniques and tactics?



In part, yes.



Tony Dismukes said:


> How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?



In part, yes.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Something else entirely?
> 
> I'm happy to answer whatever I can, I just want to make sure I'm answering whatever it is your actually asking.



We'll start with those aspects, and might expand from there.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris, just a quick note - I'm heading out to visit the In-Laws for Thanksgiving. I'm not sure if I'll have internet access while travelling. If not, I'll address your questions when I get back this weekend.


----------



## Chris Parker

Not a problem, Tony. All the best to you and yours for the holidays over there!


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Not taking any sides here but I wanted to point out:*
> 
> Actually on the current front the Gracie Academy and Rorion and his son's have actually added several things into their self defense curriculum through the years.  Gracie Combatives actually has at least one thing in it that you would not find in older BJJ or in other lines of BJJ. (it was codified specifically for Gracie Combatives)  They have also addressed certain things for law enforcement and military that again has added to their curriculum and taken into account things that were not taken into account previously.  This is an area that they specifically have moved into in a big way.  Not to mention their BullProof program is new as well.  Some of it is good, some bad but hey that is just my opinion!
> 
> So there are some areas in BJJ that specifically are not or were currently not developed through sporting competition.  Though I will readily agree that the vast majority of training and technique advancement is from competition training.  So much so that if you are not researching and training with different people all the time you will miss new developments quickly!  Though of course the best way to counter anything you have not seen before is to have good fluid BJJ fundamentals.



Actually the combatives stuff has been in Gjj for decades. Its almost exactly how Helio and Carlos taught the art to their students, because a lot of the Gracie family (Relson, Rickson, Royler, etc.) teach it at their academies. Honestly, its probably how Maeda taught the art to them as well, because the Fadda line also has a pretty extensive self-defense program as well, and there's footage of Maeda demonstrating very self defense oriented grappling. I will agree that its definitely been modified for police and military purposes, but the combatives is certainly not a new addition.

If anything, the Bjj vs Bjj competitive side is the newer addition. Old school Bjj "competition" was almost entirely about NHB challenge matches and street fighting against other fighting systems. You really can't compare that to Judo or Boxing (for example) that was structured for Judo vs Judo or Boxing vs Boxing competition at a very early stage.

The reality is that there's two very different Bjjs emerging in the modern era. On one side, you have the more traditional Bjj taught by the Gracies, and others, and you have the more competitive side where the only thing you're really learning is how to fight on the ground. There was one hell of a video shown recently where Rickson Gracie was discussing the more self defense based side of Bjj with a black belt instructor, and the latter looked like it was his first day in school.

To be fair though, Rickson does that to anyone.


----------



## Hanzou

Found the vid.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Hey Hanzou if you look carefully I said their was at least one thing added*.  So the overall combatives was in most lines of BJJ but not everything as Rorion and his son's tweaked it a bit.  You have to remember I was there when BJJ was pretty young in the States (or at least very, very young in Michigan) so I have a windows eye to exactly what was taught and how it was taught in comparison to now.  Also how the associations were set up, how training quality was maintained, who came around to check up on the Associations schools, etc, etc.

You are absolutely right though in that their are two ways of doing things now in BJJ.  More of a sporting aspect which seems to be found in most academy's and the more of the old school or traditional method being taught by the Gracies which mixed self defense and the competitive side. (which is what the school I was at focused on as it was original affiliated with Rorion and the Gracie Academy)

Nice video with Rickson!


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Hey Hanzou if you look carefully I said their was at least one thing added*.  So the overall combatives was in most lines of BJJ but not everything as Rorion and his son's tweaked it a bit.  You have to remember I was there when BJJ was pretty young in the States (or at least very, very young in Michigan) so I have a windows eye to exactly what was taught and how it was taught in comparison to now.  Also how the associations were set up, how training quality was maintained, who came around to check up on the Associations schools, etc, etc.
> 
> You are absolutely right though in that their are two ways of doing things now in BJJ.  More of a sporting aspect which seems to be found in most academy's and the more of the old school or traditional method being taught by the Gracies which mixed self defense and the competitive side. (which is what the school I was at focused on as it was original affiliated with Rorion and the Gracie Academy)
> 
> Nice video with Rickson!



ok so 10th planet. Which has their own take on bjj.

where do they fit?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I have little first hand training experience with 10th planet.  Though I have several friends now in a 10th planet gym.  They seem more sport oriented but like I said that is a comment with limited exposure!


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Hey Hanzou if you look carefully I said their was at least one thing added*.  So the overall combatives was in most lines of BJJ but not everything as Rorion and his son's tweaked it a bit.  You have to remember I was there when BJJ was pretty young in the States (or at least very, very young in Michigan) so I have a windows eye to exactly what was taught and how it was taught in comparison to now.  Also how the associations were set up, how training quality was maintained, who came around to check up on the Associations schools, etc, etc.
> 
> You are absolutely right though in that their are two ways of doing things now in BJJ.  More of a sporting aspect which seems to be found in most academy's and the more of the old school or traditional method being taught by the Gracies which mixed self defense and the competitive side. (which is what the school I was at focused on as it was original affiliated with Rorion and the Gracie Academy)
> 
> Nice video with Rickson!



Yeah, sorry I misread that Brian. I thought you were saying something else. No worries.

And yeah, I'm always happy to share that Rickson vid. 



drop bear said:


> ok so 10th planet. Which has their own take on bjj.
> 
> where do they fit?



10th planet is sport-oriented. Mainly Bjj developed for use in MMA.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> It's not an accusation, it's an observation. And it's about as far from a "cop out" as you can get&#8230; I'm not avoiding anything, it gets pointed out after your continual missing of what you're being told.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want to go back there? After you got that thread locked? Seriously?
> 
> You were given the evidence. You started from a ridiculous hypothetical (that samurai might have been killing each other in practice all the time), that was denied, and the denial was supported with existing training methods, taken directly from the methods the samurai used, as maintained, preserved, and codified in "samurai" arts (that still exist, for the record), as well as pointing out that there are documents and records from the time (the densho and other forms) that continue to support just how incorrect your hypothetical was, and, if that wasn't enough, it was demonstrated just how unrealistic your idea was.
> 
> In other words, you had documentary evidence, direct (first-hand) experience evidence, logical evidence, contemporary evidence, and current training evidence&#8230; and your response? "So&#8230; no proof?". Dude, you got nothing but proof&#8230; and completely ignored it all.
> 
> 
> 
> How would that be funny? Are you thinking that I don't have an understanding of your side of things here? Dude&#8230; way off&#8230; I've made numerous comments in favour of the more "sport" training methods, depending on the aims and context.
> 
> But, for your edification, my background includes Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do (a branch of Shito Ryu that was formed basically to win tournaments), Rhee Tae-Kwon Do, BJJ (Gracie affiliated, including some training under Royce), boxing, and kickboxing. I've also spent some time (occasional visits, really) in a couple of MMA dojo, done some wrestling, and explored Judo. Add to that my traditional work (the semi-traditional side of the Ninjutsu arts, my Koryu training, Iai, Kyudo, as well as some time in Aikido, and more), and my RBSD training (both in various training environments, and as a teacher of RBSD methods within my Ninjutsu classes), my range of friends and associates who train in many of the above, and more (sporting and other systems) with whom I communicate regularly, and my last 3 decades or so reading, learning, and training, and you end up with, quite frankly, one of the most well-rounded persons on this forum.
> 
> Why is my perspective "all martial arts"? It's not&#8230; but it is one that takes each art from it's own perspective, rather than from one that has nothing to do with it. Oh, but it is far more "all martial arts" than yours, for the record.



ok your observations are wrong.

and i think there are some basic ideas you don't understand.

so i will do this more simply. Fighting is physical. There is no getting around this. And physical attributes of the person apply. Strength speed athleticism fitness all play a part. there is this idea that fighting exists in some sort of area separate to other physical activities and this is wrong.

technique is not vs strength. This is also a wrong concept. Because fighting is physical,technique is also physical. So the stronger you are the better you can perform technique. 

there is your rsbd idea that technique is separate to strength meaning that a certain style is more suited to older,weaker,female and so on. this either hinges on fighting someone who is compliant, or someone who is stronger but can't fight. It is certainly not a more martial arts than me concept.

now i can see why you have these wrong ideas. I had them as well untill i had to fight strong people. Once you go 100% against someone the mechanics of fighting change. Other factors like strength become more prevalent and managing strength more important.

theoretically you can argue technique vs strength but practically it becomes a different concept.

so in a competitive sense this idea that there is a strength based art and a technique based art is not really true both arts are using every advantage they can. If one art wants to complain they got out muscled in competition that is their fault not the other guys.

and if a thread got locked because i don't believe you are a samurai well that is pretty funny as well. 

opinion is not proof.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> ok your observations are wrong.



No, they're not. You have demonstrated, again and again, that you have no clue what you're talking about in anything other than some aspects of some modern competitive training systems. 



drop bear said:


> and i think there are some basic ideas you don't understand.



Yeah… you're a long way from talking about anything I don't understand, you realise… 



drop bear said:


> so i will do this more simply. Fighting is physical. There is no getting around this. And physical attributes of the person apply. Strength speed athleticism fitness all play a part. there is this idea that fighting exists in some sort of area separate to other physical activities and this is wrong.



Firstly, "fighting" ain't fighting… there's a large number of ways fighting can be defined and various forms that it can take. Next, fighting can have a physical component, but to reduce it to "fighting is physical" is such a basic, low-level understanding that it's really bordering of flat-out wrong. Thirdly, I have never denied that physical attributes are anything but an advantage… but none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed in the post of mine you quoted, other than you still not having a clue about what RBSD is about.

So… no. 



drop bear said:


> technique is not vs strength. This is also a wrong concept. Because fighting is physical,technique is also physical. So the stronger you are the better you can perform technique.



Yeah, you're still going on a beginners mentality there… and a young mans idea. You do get that there's a lot more to the idea and concept of fighting than you are suggesting here, yeah?

But, when it comes to "the stronger you are, the better you can perform the technique", uh, no. Completely unrelated ideas there… in fact, it's the stronger people who often have the bigger issues with "technique"… as they can simply muscle it, and force something to work, they don't get the technique in the first place. I'll put it this way… I have a number of students that I can't possibly out-muscle… they're taller than me, heavier than me, stronger than me… but not one of them has much of a chance against me, as I can out-technique the lot of them. So, by the way, does your coach. He doesn't beat you with strength, he out-techniques you… you might want to look at that.



drop bear said:


> there is your rsbd idea that technique is separate to strength meaning that a certain style is more suited to older,weaker,female and so on. this either hinges on fighting someone who is compliant, or someone who is stronger but can't fight. It is certainly not a more martial arts than me concept.



For the twentieth time in this thread, that is not an "RBSD" idea. It's a very common martial art idea… it's a fundamental tenet of BJJ (application of leverage rather than strength to enable a smaller person to beat a larger one, if you want an example), among many, many other systems… in fact, pretty much any I can think of. Very few emphasise anything close to "stronger is the key", if at all.

But the biggest thing is that this is not, in any way, anything to do with RBSD methodologies, concepts, ideas, teachings, or anything else. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.



drop bear said:


> now i can see why you have these wrong ideas. I had them as well untill i had to fight strong people. Once you go 100% against someone the mechanics of fighting change. Other factors like strength become more prevalent and managing strength more important.



You really think I haven't done such things? Seriously? You think that my last three decades haven't included anything like that?

You might want to think again.

Oh, and I'd point out that what you're classing as "wrong ideas" are existing largely in your own relatively inexperienced mind… you're not stating anything that I've actually said, and are going down a path that I haven't shown you.



drop bear said:


> theoretically you can argue technique vs strength but practically it becomes a different concept.



Maybe when you get some more experience you'll change your feelings on this. Hopefully.



drop bear said:


> so in a competitive sense this idea that there is a strength based art and a technique based art is not really true both arts are using every advantage they can. If one art wants to complain they got out muscled in competition that is their fault not the other guys.



Completely besides the point, and still not anything to do with anything in the post you quoted.



drop bear said:


> and if a thread got locked because i don't believe you are a samurai well that is pretty funny as well.



Son, you got the thread locked for reporting a post of mine that pointed out, again, that you'd been given the evidence, and were simply too ignorant to recognise it, or were trolling the thread. The idea that you were believing that I was a "samurai" is ludicrous… but what is more ludicrous is the implication that I claimed to believe I was one myself. I'm going to caution you to take care how to twist people's comments, the reducto ad absurdium methodology only works so far… and here, it makes you look like a smarmy little brat who thinks he's smarter than he is. And yes, that's again an observation, not an opinion.



drop bear said:


> opinion is not proof.



Again, the evidence was presented, everyone saw, recognised, and acknowledged it as such, except you, with your completely childish responses, and refusal to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about. No opinion was given, you realise.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> For the twentieth time in this thread, that is not an "RBSD" idea. It's a very common martial art idea… it's a fundamental tenet of BJJ (application of leverage rather than strength to enable a smaller person to beat a larger one, if you want an example), among many, many other systems… in fact, pretty much any I can think of. Very few emphasise anything close to "stronger is the key", if at all.


In BJJ, there is technique and then there is everything else.  We tell strong guys to focus on technique, don't muscle it.  We tell athletic guys to slow down a little and focus on technique.  The lesson isn't that strength or athleticism are irrelevant.  Rather, the lesson is that you aren't in the school to learn to be strong or athletic.  Those are traits you have or you don't have. 

Good technique can overcome strength.  But technical skill being equal, the rest of the package comes into play.  Strength, intelligence, athleticism and good looks are all part of that package (well, maybe not the last one).   


> You really think I haven't done such things? Seriously? You think that my last three decades haven't included anything like that?


You understand that this is deflection, not a statement.  





> You might want to think again.
> 
> Oh, and I'd point out that what you're classing as "wrong ideas" are existing largely in your own relatively inexperienced mind… you're not stating anything that I've actually said, and are going down a path that I haven't shown you.


It's just strange to me how anyone who disagrees with you must be inexperienced.  From the outside, _on this topic_, Drop Bear is (IN MY OPINION) as credible as you.  There are several others on the forum who are as credible as you, IMO, including Brian VanCise and Tony Dismukes.  Continuing to call him inexperienced reflects poorly on you.  





> Son, you got the thread locked for reporting a post of mine that pointed out, again, that you'd been given the evidence, and were simply too ignorant to recognise it, or were trolling the thread. The idea that you were believing that I was a "samurai" is ludicrous… but what is more ludicrous is the implication that I claimed to believe I was one myself. I'm going to caution you to take care how to twist people's comments, the reducto ad absurdium methodology only works so far… and here, it makes you look like a smarmy little brat who thinks he's smarter than he is. And yes, that's again an observation, not an opinion.


Using "Son" is a great way to drive a thread down.  As I and others have pointed out, it's disrespectful, and I notice you only use it when you're fully engaged in a personal attack on a poster you deem unworthy.  I would also like to suggest to you that your "observations" of Drop Bear could equally apply to you.  But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

As Steve mentioned using "son" is a great way to not only hurt a good thread but also to make your posts look bad to everyone.  

Let's all move forward on the OP!


----------



## drop bear

Interesting kudo update. Australia didn't do so well. It was a fight between Russia who are the example of tough vs Japan who are the example of technical.

Russia dominated this year.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Interesting kudo update. Australia didn't do so well. It was a fight between Russia who are the example of tough vs Japan who are the example of technical.
> 
> Russia dominated this year.



there was a Japanese judo chap who smashed people though.

(couldn't edit)


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> and i think there are some basic ideas you don't understand.


Your numerous posts on the subject clearly demonstrate that* you* are the one that has no understanding what-so-ever of what RBSD is or means.  

Chris has pointed this out to you repeatedly, but for some reason the message is not sinking in.  To quote Bubba Sparxx "How else can I say it? I don't speak no other languages"


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Your numerous posts on the subject clearly demonstrate that* you* are the one that has no understanding what-so-ever of what RBSD is or means.
> 
> Chris has pointed this out to you repeatedly, but for some reason the message is not sinking in.  To quote Bubba Sparxx "How else can I say it? I don't speak no other languages"




so Chris can point something out repeatedly but i cant?

that doesn't sound very fair.

seriously where would these discussions go if i just sat back and said you don't understand rbsd.

and rbsd is pretty famously marketed to non athletes using all of Chris,s arguments. And surprisingly he is an rbsd guy. Making arguments i claim are rbsd.

you don't see that as a bit coincidental?


----------



## drop bear

Yahoo answers why krav is better than kickboxing.

"take krav maga. its great for self defense. if you are not really strong its gonna be veeeery tough to defend yourself successfully just with kickboxing. krav maga attacks the human weakpoints. even the strongest men could be hurt by you if you know how to use krav maga techniques. it also teaches you how to react on a knife attack."

classic rbsd argument.

it is not something i have made up it is a really real thing.

and it is funny when competitive fighters use it as they are usually the victims of it.


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> In BJJ, there is technique and then there is everything else.  We tell strong guys to focus on technique, don't muscle it.  We tell athletic guys to slow down a little and focus on technique.  The lesson isn't that strength or athleticism are irrelevant.  Rather, the lesson is that you aren't in the school to learn to be strong or athletic.  Those are traits you have or you don't have.



And was that to support, or counter my comments? To be frank, it comes across as largely besides the point… I commented that all martial systems I have ever come across do not emphasise being stronger as the primary tactic/methodology, and gave an example of one of the basic concepts behind BJJ to support that (really just to have us all speaking the same language, so to speak)… here, you mention that technique is highlighted beyond any natural attributes someone might have. While that's true, you're missing the reason that technique is emphasised in each case… and none of my comments were really anything to do with natural attributes of an individual. It's really not a part of what I was saying.



Steve said:


> Good technique can overcome strength.  But technical skill being equal, the rest of the package comes into play.  Strength, intelligence, athleticism and good looks are all part of that package (well, maybe not the last one).



Er… okay… again, are you arguing against me, or are you just stating the obvious? There's no question that those factors can help… and, if all else is equal, sure, they can give you the edge… but no system relies on being bigger and stronger, the focus is on being better (technically)… well, maybe the WWE… but that's about as close as I can get.



Steve said:


> You understand that this is deflection, not a statement.



Yeah, and maybe I would have offered a more direct answer if I hadn't already listed my background, which includes a number of systems that do exactly what drop bear was talking about… a list he asked for, but has ignored since.

In other words, the answer was already given, and if he didn't listen then, I didn't see much hope in him listening now.



Steve said:


> It's just strange to me how anyone who disagrees with you must be inexperienced.


 
No, Steve, when someone lists only a couple of years (at the most) training in their system, and all previous training seems to be missed or misunderstood, then I will consider the lack of experience to be an indication of the lack of experience. In addition, when all of the posters comments show such lack of experience/understanding, that's when I'll comment as such. Disagreeing with me is not the reason I came to that observation and conclusion. You might want to step back a bit before you decide why I say what I say… it's never without reason, or basis.



Steve said:


> From the outside, _on this topic_, Drop Bear is (IN MY OPINION) as credible as you.



What topic? BJJ? Sure, I'd agree with that… RBSD? Nope, not a chance. Traditional martial arts? Ditto… not a chance. That's from the inside, you understand.



Steve said:


> There are several others on the forum who are as credible as you, IMO, including Brian VanCise and Tony Dismukes.  Continuing to call him inexperienced reflects poorly on you.



Only if you think I'm saying it as an insult, a put-down, or similar. I'm not. That's your take on it.



Steve said:


> Using "Son" is a great way to drive a thread down.  As I and others have pointed out, it's disrespectful, and I notice you only use it when you're fully engaged in a personal attack on a poster you deem unworthy.



Again, I'd advise looking at why I say things when I do… it's not a personal attack (trust me, I hold myself back from plenty of those), and it's got nothing to do with anyone being "unworthy". It's a sign of frustration from my side, more than anything else… and comes about when I've already explained something numerous times, and feel I'm not being listened to, but am still being argued against. In short, it's a word used to say "You really need to hear this, as so far, you haven't listened"… among other reasons. 

Tell you what, if you want to get the inflection, watch The Avengers… when Cap. America, Hawkeye and Black Widow commandeer a Quinjet, and Cap tells the pilot (who tries to stop them) "Son, just don't"… that's the tone. Not patronising, not condescending, just someone who knows that they're talking about trying to get through to someone who doesn't… after already trying time and time again.



Steve said:


> I would also like to suggest to you that your "observations" of Drop Bear could equally apply to you.  But that's just my opinion.



My observation was that his posts did not indicate any real understanding of the topics he was trying to discuss with me… do you really think that that could equally be applied to myself? If so, I hardly know where to start… 



drop bear said:


> so Chris can point something out repeatedly but i can't?



When Chris is correcting your misunderstandings, yes. 



drop bear said:


> that doesn't sound very fair.



It's not meant to be. It's a conversation between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who continues to argue despite not having a clue. It's not a "fair fight" to begin with… 



drop bear said:


> seriously where would these discussions go if i just sat back and said you don't understand rbsd.



You'd be asked to back it up. Hang on a second… that's happened. You've been asked to back up, or at least clarify and expand on what you think RBSD is a number of times, since the first page here… the fact that you've been picking poster-children for idiocy who have no connection or correlation to RBSD as examples to back up your argument, among other things, have been why we've (well, I've) been saying you don't actually know what RBSD is. You continue that here, by the way… we'll get to it in a moment.



drop bear said:


> and rbsd is pretty famously marketed to non athletes using all of Chris,s arguments. And surprisingly he is an rbsd guy. Making arguments i claim are rbsd.



What arguments?!?! I'm serious here, what arguments do you think I'm making??? All I've really said is that what you are constantly calling "RBSD arguments" aren't RBSD arguments, concepts, traits, or anything else… they're martial art concepts, ideas, arguments, and so on.

And who on earth said I was an "RBSD guy"?? While there is an RBSD component to what I do, I'm very much a traditional martial artist… in fact, I'd be one of the most traditional on the board… so… swing and a miss, there.

Oh, and for the record, actual RBSD isn't "marketed" at anyone like "non-athletes"… it's actually marketed at martial artists… both traditional and sports… so you're missing the mark yet again.



drop bear said:


> you don't see that as a bit coincidental?



No, I see it as another demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about, and are refusing to listen.



drop bear said:


> Yahoo answers why krav is better than kickboxing.



Good god, you went to Yahoo Answers for backup?!?! Really??



drop bear said:


> "take krav maga. its great for self defense. if you are not really strong its gonna be veeeery tough to defend yourself successfully just with kickboxing. krav maga attacks the human weakpoints. even the strongest men could be hurt by you if you know how to use krav maga techniques. it also teaches you how to react on a knife attack."



Yeah… the credibility is literally dripping off that… ha!

I'll put it another way. That anonymous comment on a page where answers aren't rated based on accuracy, but on preferred votes and popularity, really means absolutely nothing, is incorrect on a number of levels, and is little more than a fanboy waxing lyrical about something they'd most likely just started, if they'd done at all.

It's really no different to someone who watches UFC telling people that BJJ is the best martial art ever, despite having no clue about BJJ, or anything else.



drop bear said:


> classic rbsd argument.



Twenty-fifth time now… no, it's not.

You do realise that Krav Maga isn't RBSD, yeah…? This is why I was asking what you think RBSD is… cause… this ain't it.



drop bear said:


> it is not something i have made up it is a really real thing.



Er… in a way, yeah, it is something you made up… as you're misunderstanding everything from every side… you're claiming things that aren't RBSD are… and deciding what you think their "arguments" are… none of which are actually correct or accurate. So, yeah, it is something you've made up… and are looking for some form of support, by looking in the wrong places, at largely non-credible sources. 



drop bear said:


> and it is funny when competitive fighters use it as they are usually the victims of it.



When they use what? I really can't see the context of this last statement here… I don't know what you're referring to when you say "competitive fighters use it", or "they are usually the victims of it"… use what? Victims of what?

But, most importantly, can you finally say what you think RBSD is? When you finally put that down, I can point out where you're off base, and maybe, maybe you can start to broaden your knowledge.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> And was that to support, or counter my comments? To be frank, it comes across as largely besides the point… I commented that all martial systems I have ever come across do not emphasise being stronger as the primary tactic/methodology, and gave an example of one of the basic concepts behind BJJ to support that (really just to have us all speaking the same language, so to speak)… here, you mention that technique is highlighted beyond any natural attributes someone might have. While that's true, you're missing the reason that technique is emphasised in each case… and none of my comments were really anything to do with natural attributes of an individual. It's really not a part of what I was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Er… okay… again, are you arguing against me, or are you just stating the obvious? There's no question that those factors can help… and, if all else is equal, sure, they can give you the edge… but no system relies on being bigger and stronger, the focus is on being better (technically)… well, maybe the WWE… but that's about as close as I can get.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and maybe I would have offered a more direct answer if I hadn't already listed my background, which includes a number of systems that do exactly what drop bear was talking about… a list he asked for, but has ignored since.
> 
> In other words, the answer was already given, and if he didn't listen then, I didn't see much hope in him listening now.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Steve, when someone lists only a couple of years (at the most) training in their system, and all previous training seems to be missed or misunderstood, then I will consider the lack of experience to be an indication of the lack of experience. In addition, when all of the posters comments show such lack of experience/understanding, that's when I'll comment as such. Disagreeing with me is not the reason I came to that observation and conclusion. You might want to step back a bit before you decide why I say what I say… it's never without reason, or basis.
> 
> 
> 
> What topic? BJJ? Sure, I'd agree with that… RBSD? Nope, not a chance. Traditional martial arts? Ditto… not a chance. That's from the inside, you understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you think I'm saying it as an insult, a put-down, or similar. I'm not. That's your take on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'd advise looking at why I say things when I do… it's not a personal attack (trust me, I hold myself back from plenty of those), and it's got nothing to do with anyone being "unworthy". It's a sign of frustration from my side, more than anything else… and comes about when I've already explained something numerous times, and feel I'm not being listened to, but am still being argued against. In short, it's a word used to say "You really need to hear this, as so far, you haven't listened"… among other reasons.
> 
> Tell you what, if you want to get the inflection, watch The Avengers… when Cap. America, Hawkeye and Black Widow commandeer a Quinjet, and Cap tells the pilot (who tries to stop them) "Son, just don't"… that's the tone. Not patronising, not condescending, just someone who knows that they're talking about trying to get through to someone who doesn't… after already trying time and time again.
> 
> 
> 
> My observation was that his posts did not indicate any real understanding of the topics he was trying to discuss with me… do you really think that that could equally be applied to myself? If so, I hardly know where to start…
> 
> 
> 
> When Chris is correcting your misunderstandings, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be. It's a conversation between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who continues to argue despite not having a clue. It's not a "fair fight" to begin with…
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be asked to back it up. Hang on a second… that's happened. You've been asked to back up, or at least clarify and expand on what you think RBSD is a number of times, since the first page here… the fact that you've been picking poster-children for idiocy who have no connection or correlation to RBSD as examples to back up your argument, among other things, have been why we've (well, I've) been saying you don't actually know what RBSD is. You continue that here, by the way… we'll get to it in a moment.
> 
> 
> 
> What arguments?!?! I'm serious here, what arguments do you think I'm making??? All I've really said is that what you are constantly calling "RBSD arguments" aren't RBSD arguments, concepts, traits, or anything else… they're martial art concepts, ideas, arguments, and so on.
> 
> And who on earth said I was an "RBSD guy"?? While there is an RBSD component to what I do, I'm very much a traditional martial artist… in fact, I'd be one of the most traditional on the board… so… swing and a miss, there.
> 
> Oh, and for the record, actual RBSD isn't "marketed" at anyone like "non-athletes"… it's actually marketed at martial artists… both traditional and sports… so you're missing the mark yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I see it as another demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about, and are refusing to listen.
> 
> 
> 
> Good god, you went to Yahoo Answers for backup?!?! Really??
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah… the credibility is literally dripping off that… ha!
> 
> I'll put it another way. That anonymous comment on a page where answers aren't rated based on accuracy, but on preferred votes and popularity, really means absolutely nothing, is incorrect on a number of levels, and is little more than a fanboy waxing lyrical about something they'd most likely just started, if they'd done at all.
> 
> It's really no different to someone who watches UFC telling people that BJJ is the best martial art ever, despite having no clue about BJJ, or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-fifth time now… no, it's not.
> 
> You do realise that Krav Maga isn't RBSD, yeah…? This is why I was asking what you think RBSD is… cause… this ain't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Er… in a way, yeah, it is something you made up… as you're misunderstanding everything from every side… you're claiming things that aren't RBSD are… and deciding what you think their "arguments" are… none of which are actually correct or accurate. So, yeah, it is something you've made up… and are looking for some form of support, by looking in the wrong places, at largely non-credible sources.
> 
> 
> 
> When they use what? I really can't see the context of this last statement here… I don't know what you're referring to when you say "competitive fighters use it", or "they are usually the victims of it"… use what? Victims of what?
> 
> But, most importantly, can you finally say what you think RBSD is? When you finally put that down, I can point out where you're off base, and maybe, maybe you can start to broaden your knowledge.



could you pretty please stop this" i am rubber you are glue posting"

it is like talking to a six year old. And it is getting pointless if only one side is trying to have an actual discussion.

so how exactly is anti strength a martial arts concept?

competitive fighters train strength,soldiers train strength,police,bouncers,bikers,prisoners,martial artist and plenty of people who forsee a fight in their future. Go out lift something heavy as a way to gain an advantage in a fight.

yet you have this idea that they don't have the complete understanding of martial arts that you do.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> could you pretty please stop this" i am rubber you are glue posting"



There was no such posting, mate. I was questioning Steve's comments, and pointing out (clarifying) why, as well as pointing out why I was asking.

You do know what the "rubber/glue" thing is about, yeah...?



drop bear said:


> it is like talking to a six year old. And it is getting pointless if only one side is trying to have an actual discussion.



I have answered all of your questions, you avoid mine. I have clarified my statements, you respond with denial and a fingers-in-the-ears attitude. I have elaborated and emphasised the points I've made, you just keep going on about the same misunderstandings again and again, despite it being pointed out to you since the first page (and before, if we're to be honest).

Think about the discussion… and previous ones… and ask yourself, who is really the side not willing to engage in an actual discussion? Here's a clue… it's not my side.



drop bear said:


> so how exactly is anti strength a martial arts concept?



And, once more, you miss what's being said to you. There isn't any "anti-strength" concept… there's a concept of technique over strength. Get the difference?



drop bear said:


> competitive fighters train strength,soldiers train strength,police,bouncers,bikers,prisoners,martial artist and plenty of people who forsee a fight in their future. Go out lift something heavy as a way to gain an advantage in a fight.



RIght… let's take these in order:

Competitive fighters train strength, but they also train cardio, endurance, and technique. And the least important is strength. But then again, they're competitive fighters… they're going up against someone else who is also a competitive fighter… and, when we're dealing elite levels, they're looking for every advantage they can get… they don't train strength over anything else, they train it in conjunction with the other aspects… and, one more time, the other aspects (endurance and technique) are far more important.

Soldiers train fitness over strength so they can carry out their duties… strength is part of it, but not the dominant aspect. 

Police, the same… and I gotta say, training strength is far from a high priority for police, so it'll come down to the individual.

Bouncers, again, comes down to the individual… I've known enough bouncers that don't really train in such a way at all… and those that do don't do it for fighting… but we'll get to that.

Bikers, same. And ditto for prisoners. Once again, we'll get to the actual reason in a moment.

Martial artists… really? All martial artists? Are you sure about that? How much strength training is done in, let's say, Kyudo? How about in Aikido? And while some systems (karate, for example) have a range of training methods that include strength training in various forms, it's often particular (to, say, grip strength).

"Plenty of people who foresee a fight in their future". Right, here's where we get to it… why do you think strength training is actually done in these situations? Here's a hint… it's not because it makes you a better fighter.

It's because it makes you a less-vulnerable-looking target… it's a way of avoiding a fight by looking like you'd be trouble. 

In other words, none of this is really showing anything at all about strength being the emphasis of any martial art… 



drop bear said:


> yet you have this idea that they don't have the complete understanding of martial arts that you do.



Please. You've missed the reality of almost everything you've posted… care to go back and actually answer at least one question yet? Or are you going to continue to act like a six-year old who isn't interested in having a real discussion?


----------



## Andrew Green

This is a strange argument, Josh Barnett is a person, not a style, and everything seems to be about him.  Apart from Barnett one of the most recognizable Catch fighters in MMA would probably Sakuraba who spent most of his career as the smaller guy.  Megumi Fuji is one of Barnetts top students and she is tiny.  Ask got known for his double wrist lock (aka Kimura) and Fuji for her toe hold.  Neither of those rely on weight, but are staple techniques of catch.

Catch is just a different philosophy.  It emphasizes top control and finishing a fight as quickly as possible in contrast to the "survival first" mentality of the Gracie brothers.  Guard wasn't really their historically as going on your back meant losing.

Any style should be adaptable to the person doing it, and any person should be able to apply their own strengths to the style they do.  If you are strong use your strength, if you are big use your size, if you are fast use your speed, if you are flexible use that, etc.  Barnett's Chest compression finish might not be a lot easier for heavier guys, but even small guys can use it to ride and tire out the bottom guy faster, even if it doesn't always get a tap.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Andrew, good to see you here!!!


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> There was no such posting, mate. I was questioning Steve's comments, and pointing out (clarifying) why, as well as pointing out why I was asking.
> 
> You do know what the "rubber/glue" thing is about, yeah...?
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered all of your questions, you avoid mine. I have clarified my statements, you respond with denial and a fingers-in-the-ears attitude. I have elaborated and emphasised the points I've made, you just keep going on about the same misunderstandings again and again, despite it being pointed out to you since the first page (and before, if we're to be honest).
> 
> Think about the discussion… and previous ones… and ask yourself, who is really the side not willing to engage in an actual discussion? Here's a clue… it's not my side.
> 
> 
> 
> And, once more, you miss what's being said to you. There isn't any "anti-strength" concept… there's a concept of technique over strength. Get the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> RIght… let's take these in order:
> 
> Competitive fighters train strength, but they also train cardio, endurance, and technique. And the least important is strength. But then again, they're competitive fighters… they're going up against someone else who is also a competitive fighter… and, when we're dealing elite levels, they're looking for every advantage they can get… they don't train strength over anything else, they train it in conjunction with the other aspects… and, one more time, the other aspects (endurance and technique) are far more important.
> 
> Soldiers train fitness over strength so they can carry out their duties… strength is part of it, but not the dominant aspect.
> 
> Police, the same… and I gotta say, training strength is far from a high priority for police, so it'll come down to the individual.
> 
> Bouncers, again, comes down to the individual… I've known enough bouncers that don't really train in such a way at all… and those that do don't do it for fighting… but we'll get to that.
> 
> Bikers, same. And ditto for prisoners. Once again, we'll get to the actual reason in a moment.
> 
> Martial artists… really? All martial artists? Are you sure about that? How much strength training is done in, let's say, Kyudo? How about in Aikido? And while some systems (karate, for example) have a range of training methods that include strength training in various forms, it's often particular (to, say, grip strength).
> 
> "Plenty of people who foresee a fight in their future". Right, here's where we get to it… why do you think strength training is actually done in these situations? Here's a hint… it's not because it makes you a better fighter.
> 
> It's because it makes you a less-vulnerable-looking target… it's a way of avoiding a fight by looking like you'd be trouble.
> 
> In other words, none of this is really showing anything at all about strength being the emphasis of any martial art…
> 
> 
> 
> Please. You've missed the reality of almost everything you've posted… care to go back and actually answer at least one question yet? Or are you going to continue to act like a six-year old who isn't interested in having a real discussion?



what questions?

ok so technique over strength akido kyudo?

how are they going as far as competitions like metamoris? 

ok with fighters,bouncers,etc. It doesn't have to be every single one. I am suggesting a trend. 

now you posted strength gives competitors an edge in a fight. But then you say it doesn't give the industry guys an edge in a fight. That makes no sense. 

 technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.


----------



## Andrew Green

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Andrew, good to see you here!!!



Got a little nostalgic I guess, decided to see if any of the older forums where still active


----------



## elder999

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Andrew, good to see you here!!!


 
I'll second that! Welcome back!!


----------



## Chris Parker

For god's sake… 



drop bear said:


> what questions?



We'll start with the one that's been repeated multiple times throughout this thread, starting on page one…

What do you think RBSD is?



drop bear said:


> ok so technique over strength akido kyudo?



What? Is there a sentence in there? Or a question? Or, you know… grammar? Structure? Syntax? Proper English? Context? 

I have no idea what you're referring to or trying to say here.



drop bear said:


> how are they going as far as competitions like metamoris?



Who the hell cares? Do you think that that is any indication of anything at all, other than how they'd go in a competition?

And dude, let's see how the other competitors go with arrows in them, if you want to put Kyudo into the ring… of course, you do realise how ridiculous this is, yeah?



drop bear said:


> ok with fighters,bouncers,etc. It doesn't have to be every single one. I am suggesting a trend.



Your suggestion is noted, and passed over in the light of other evidence.



drop bear said:


> now you posted strength gives competitors an edge in a fight. But then you say it doesn't give the industry guys an edge in a fight. That makes no sense.



You really don't get it, do you? In a competition, you're going against a similar skill set, trained to a similar level, against someone similarly matched, at a known time, and a known place (allowing for preparation). In that situation (all other things being roughly equal), little advantages in one area or another (which might include strength, although that is the most limiting "advantage" you can have) can make a real quantifiable difference… your industry guys don't have anything like the same situation… they don't know the skills, or skill level of potential aggressors, they don't know the time, they don't know even if there will be any skill, and so on… they aren't going up against someone "matched" (which is a major reason security works in teams, not solo), so technique is the defining factor, not strength.

This is what I (and others) have tried many, many times to explain to you… different contexts have different requirements and needs.



drop bear said:


> technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.



Good lord, technique over strength is not an "anti-strength platform", it's an argument for technique over strength. Not minimising strength (which would be anti-strength), but emphasising technique.

And, for the last goddamn time, that is not an RBSD argument! Get it yet?


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


>



That brings a tear to my eye....


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> what questions?
> 
> ok so technique over strength akido kyudo?
> 
> how are they going as far as competitions like metamoris?
> 
> ok with fighters,bouncers,etc. It doesn't have to be every single one. I am suggesting a trend.
> 
> now you posted strength gives competitors an edge in a fight. But then you say it doesn't give the industry guys an edge in a fight. That makes no sense.
> 
> technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.



I'm thinking that what we have here is a failure to communicate.  You seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making. It's as if someone said: 3 + 1 = 4 and you responded by saying: 3 x 1 isn't 4! 2 + 2 = 4!

To be clear: absolutely _no one_ in this thread is claiming that strength is not an advantage in a fight, whether in the ring or on the street.

_No one_ is saying that it's not a good idea to train to build up your strength.

_No one_ is saying that size and technique are mutually exclusive or that they can't support each other.

These are also not the arguments that Rener and Ryron  were making and they are not part of any RBSD system that I've ever come across.

(I have occasionally seen someone making the argument elsewhere that advanced skill in their chosen art makes size and strength completely irrelevant. I would agree with you that this is a mistaken belief. However I haven't noticed anyone making that argument here.)

The actual argument being made goes like this:

Being strong (both in absolute terms and relative to your opponent) is a good thing.  It definitely gives you an advantage in a fight. However, unless your name is Bob Sapp or Brock Lesnar, it is very likely that your opponent in a fight may be stronger than you. This is especially true in a self-defense situation where your assailant may select you as a victim partially based on his perception that he is bigger and stronger than you. Unless you want to just give up and take a beating in those situations, then it is a good idea to develop your technique (and other attributes) to the point where they have a chance of overcoming superior size and strength.

You can consider your options in a fight as divided into the following buckets:
a) techniques/tactics that you could make work against a larger/stronger opponent
b) techniques/tactics that you could make work against an opponent who is roughly equal in size and strength
c) techniques/tactics that will only work if you are bigger and stronger than your opponent.

Obviously, if you are the bigger/stronger combatant in a fight, you have all the techniques and tactics from all three categories available to you. This is an advantage.

However, if you train primarily in the tactics and techniques from category *c* or even categories* b* and* c*, then you are in trouble when you run into an opponent who is bigger and stronger than  you.

This is the foundation of Rener's and Ryron's argument. They are claiming that BJJ focuses exclusively on techniques and tactics from category *a*, while catch wrestling includes more techniques from categories *b* & *c*. (I don't have enough experience with catch to know whether this is a fair evaluation of that art.)

Note - saying a technique falls into category* a* does _not_ mean that size and strength are irrelevant. All other factors being equal, it is easier to choke or armlock someone who is a scrawny 120 pounds than someone who is 250 pounds of solid muscle. However, it is still _possible_ for me to choke or armlock someone who is 250 pounds of muscle. It's _not_ possible for me to escape the side mount of a 250 pound guy by just bench pressing him and throwing him off, whereas that would be a possibility for the big guy escaping a little guy. This is the difference between categories *a* and *c*.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I'm back! 3.5 days of driving (boo!), 2.5 days of visiting relatives (yay!), no days of training since last Sunday (boo!). Let's see if I'm rested and recovered enough to make a coherent argument... 



Chris Parker said:


> I would agree with developed, and I'd agree with refined. I don't agree with "added", "copied", or "stolen".



Eh, minor details to argue about another time.




Chris Parker said:


> Here's the thing, Tony&#8230; I have never, not once, disagreed with your expression of the history (I might have some different interpretations of a few aspects, but that's about it). And you haven't disagreed with anything I've said&#8230; you've just tried applying it to something that I wasn't addressing, even when that was pointed out.



Yep, I think we're mostly in agreement on the history.




Chris Parker said:


> No, that's not what he was asking. The exact question posed was "what are the appropriate environments to use Judo/BJJ?" There was no instance in the entire thread where he asked what sort of training he might expect&#8230; he was looking purely at application.
> 
> So, in short, no, that is not the "correct" answer at all&#8230; as it's an answer to a completely different question that you decided was being asked, despite there being no evidence for that.



You do realize that when I mentioned "training in the here and now" I was directly quoting your own words regarding what you said we were discussing?



			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> But even if I wanted to give a complete historical perspective, it would have been out of place, and not address the question and context of the poster *asking about training in the here and now*.



Let's look at the original exact question: "what are the appropriate environments to use Judo/BJJ?". If someone asks me "what is the appropriate environment to use martial art x?", then I understand the question as follows: "If someone were to train in art x and develop the skills, techniques, attributes, and knowledge which might reasonably be expected to come from that training, then what would be the appropriate environment for that person to use those skills, techniques, attributes and/or knowledge?"

I'm not sure I can think of another sensible way to interpret the question. It's not as if the martial art has any independent existence apart from the persons who are training in it. If you have a different interpretation of the question in mind, then please share it.

This also ties into my interpretation of your statement that BJJ is not well suited or designed for a street fighting environment, but rather for BJJ competition: (Present tense, as you noted)  "If someone were to train in BJJ today, then the techniques and tactics they would learn would not be well suited or designed for a street fighting environment. They would rather be well suited and designed for BJJ competition."

If you meant something different, then please elucidate.


Now on to your questions.

Q - What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?
A - Very little. Mat time is not usually the time for history lessons.

Q - What portion of my mat time was spent on the older ("street") techniques & tactics vs what portion was spent on the newer ("sport") techniques and tactics?
A - At a very, very rough guess, I'd say 30% street, 30% sport, and 40% fundamentals which apply to either environment.  I'm currently in the process of exploring the sport side of things more than I have in the past, so the balance may end up swinging more towards sport for the next couple of years. After that it may swing back the other way.

Q - How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?
A - Lots and lots of experience using those tactics and techniques and having them succeed or fail under different circumstances. Lots of experience figuring out what factors are necessary for success with these techniques and tactics.Lots of experience observing how those techniques and tactics interact with the outside environment and the state of my own body and mind.

Some  trivial examples:

A certain sweep works well for me when we are doing sport grappling with the gi. If I try that same sweep while we are including strikes, then I get punched in the face. This is clearly not a suitable technique for the street.

Certain top control positions involve my keeping my head very low and tight to my opponent. When I use these, it is easy to lose sight of the surrounding environment. Once again, these would be risky in any environment where there was the possibility of multiple opponents.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm thinking that what we have here is a failure to communicate.  You seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making. It's as if someone said: 3 + 1 = 4 and you responded by saying: 3 x 1 isn't 4! 2 + 2 = 4!
> 
> To be clear: absolutely _no one_ in this thread is claiming that strength is not an advantage in a fight, whether in the ring or on the street.
> 
> _No one_ is saying that it's not a good idea to train to build up your strength.
> 
> _No one_ is saying that size and technique are mutually exclusive or that they can't support each other.
> 
> These are also not the arguments that Rener and Ryron  were making and they are not part of any RBSD system that I've ever come across.
> 
> (I have occasionally seen someone making the argument elsewhere that advanced skill in their chosen art makes size and strength completely irrelevant. I would agree with you that this is a mistaken belief. However I haven't noticed anyone making that argument here.)
> 
> The actual argument being made goes like this:
> 
> Being strong (both in absolute terms and relative to your opponent) is a good thing.  It definitely gives you an advantage in a fight. However, unless your name is Bob Sapp or Brock Lesnar, it is very likely that your opponent in a fight may be stronger than you. This is especially true in a self-defense situation where your assailant may select you as a victim partially based on his perception that he is bigger and stronger than you. Unless you want to just give up and take a beating in those situations, then it is a good idea to develop your technique (and other attributes) to the point where they have a chance of overcoming superior size and strength.
> 
> You can consider your options in a fight as divided into the following buckets:
> a) techniques/tactics that you could make work against a larger/stronger opponent
> b) techniques/tactics that you could make work against an opponent who is roughly equal in size and strength
> c) techniques/tactics that will only work if you are bigger and stronger than your opponent.
> 
> Obviously, if you are the bigger/stronger combatant in a fight, you have all the techniques and tactics from all three categories available to you. This is an advantage.
> 
> However, if you train primarily in the tactics and techniques from category *c* or even categories* b* and* c*, then you are in trouble when you run into an opponent who is bigger and stronger than  you.
> 
> This is the foundation of Rener's and Ryron's argument. They are claiming that BJJ focuses exclusively on techniques and tactics from category *a*, while catch wrestling includes more techniques from categories *b* & *c*. (I don't have enough experience with catch to know whether this is a fair evaluation of that art.)
> 
> Note - saying a technique falls into category* a* does _not_ mean that size and strength are irrelevant. All other factors being equal, it is easier to choke or armlock someone who is a scrawny 120 pounds than someone who is 250 pounds of solid muscle. However, it is still _possible_ for me to choke or armlock someone who is 250 pounds of muscle. It's _not_ possible for me to escape the side mount of a 250 pound guy by just bench pressing him and throwing him off, whereas that would be a possibility for the big guy escaping a little guy. This is the difference between categories *a* and *c*.



the technique vs strength argument is the issue as they don't oppose each other.

the point i am making is technique is strength. As you said if you are stronger your technique will be more effective. Better technique equates to more strength.

people who compete train both generally. 

now because of that there is a misconception that any competitive art takes strength to be good at. Like that yahoo answers argument in that kickboxing is only suitable for strong people.

now observationally it works out. You go to a class get manhandled by a strong guy and you come out with this idea that the art is based on strength.

quite simply if you wrestle for example you will have to play the will game. Where the more determined fighter beats the less so.

now this is an argument as to why some arts are geared towards strong people and some arts aare not.

rbsd in general will claim they are designed towards weaker practitioners being more successful.

the rbsd argument


----------



## drop bear

By the way. I moved up to north Queensland a few years ago. They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm. Wrestling cows and killing pigs with knives for fun.

moving into that environment i have learnt how important the strength/technique game is played.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> For god's sake…
> 
> 
> 
> We'll start with the one that's been repeated multiple times throughout this thread, starting on page one…
> 
> What do you think RBSD is?
> 
> 
> 
> What? Is there a sentence in there? Or a question? Or, you know… grammar? Structure? Syntax? Proper English? Context?
> 
> I have no idea what you're referring to or trying to say here.
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell cares? Do you think that that is any indication of anything at all, other than how they'd go in a competition?
> 
> And dude, let's see how the other competitors go with arrows in them, if you want to put Kyudo into the ring… of course, you do realise how ridiculous this is, yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> Your suggestion is noted, and passed over in the light of other evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't get it, do you? In a competition, you're going against a similar skill set, trained to a similar level, against someone similarly matched, at a known time, and a known place (allowing for preparation). In that situation (all other things being roughly equal), little advantages in one area or another (which might include strength, although that is the most limiting "advantage" you can have) can make a real quantifiable difference… your industry guys don't have anything like the same situation… they don't know the skills, or skill level of potential aggressors, they don't know the time, they don't know even if there will be any skill, and so on… they aren't going up against someone "matched" (which is a major reason security works in teams, not solo), so technique is the defining factor, not strength.
> 
> This is what I (and others) have tried many, many times to explain to you… different contexts have different requirements and needs.
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord, technique over strength is not an "anti-strength platform", it's an argument for technique over strength. Not minimising strength (which would be anti-strength), but emphasising technique.
> 
> And, for the last goddamn time, that is not an RBSD argument! Get it yet?



ok rbsd is pretty much any of the hybrids that are non traditional and non sport.

freestyle would fit into this as well.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony, thanks for the reply… I'll come back to that in the next day or two… just have time to deal with this part first.



drop bear said:


> ok rbsd is pretty much any of the hybrids that are non traditional and non sport.
> 
> freestyle would fit into this as well.



No.

RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence) is a specific training ideology and methodology that is designed to work with any system. It focuses on an understanding of how violence actually happens, the effects of adrenaline and so forth, and is primarily concerned with surviving the initial aspects (the pre-fight and the initial assault) in a self defence situation. It is not a martial art, it is not a martial art approach, most RBSD approaches have no, or very minimalist "techniques" to them at all… it's expected that you (as the student) would apply what you learned in a martial art once the fight is "on".

RBSD doesn't deal in duels, nor does it deal with fighting, really. It deals with not being taken out by the initial assault, so that you can apply your martial techniques.

Nothing you have posted is close to what RBSD is.


----------



## Hanzou

RSBDs also consists of quite a few arts that couldn't cut it in MMA and NHB fronts, so they retreated to a "self defense" focus in order to hide their combat inefficiencies.

I won't name any names though.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> By the way. I moved up to north Queensland a few years ago. They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm. Wrestling cows and killing pigs with knives for fun.
> 
> moving into that environment i have learnt how important the strength/technique game is played.


A little off topic, but "They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm."  That is funny and true. A local MMA fighter is a farm boy, and per pound I swear he is the strongest person I have ever trained with.  He's about 170 lbs, but everything about him is powerful.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Tony, thanks for the reply… I'll come back to that in the next day or two… just have time to deal with this part first.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence) is a specific training ideology and methodology that is designed to work with any system. It focuses on an understanding of how violence actually happens, the effects of adrenaline and so forth, and is primarily concerned with surviving the initial aspects (the pre-fight and the initial assault) in a self defence situation. It is not a martial art, it is not a martial art approach, most RBSD approaches have no, or very minimalist "techniques" to them at all… it's expected that you (as the student) would apply what you learned in a martial art once the fight is "on".
> 
> RBSD doesn't deal in duels, nor does it deal with fighting, really. It deals with not being taken out by the initial assault, so that you can apply your martial techniques.
> 
> Nothing you have posted is close to what RBSD is.



well obviously you don't understand martial arts.

it cant be a specific training methodology there is more than one version of rbsd.  There is no governing body. They can have any methodology they want.

not a martial arts approach?

apart from the camo pants how does there approach differ?


----------



## Steve

Sometimes they wear black pants.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> A little off topic, but "They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm."  That is funny and true. A local MMA fighter is a farm boy, and per pound I swear he is the strongest person I have ever trained with.  He's about 170 lbs, but everything about him is powerful.


You cant beat functional strength.  One of the Strongest guys I ever struggled to arrest was a mason.  He was in his 60s was only 150 pounds max.  He was so strong it was crazy his grip from holding and moving bricks around was insane.  He grabbed my wrist it felt like he was going to crush my bones.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Functional strength is some thing every martial practitioner should be striving for!


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Sometimes they wear black pants.



yeah but they are cargoes.


----------



## drop bear

I tapped to a ride last night. Pretty sure I have to wear a dress now.


----------



## Chris Parker

Right, back to this.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm thinking that what we have here is a failure to communicate.  You seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making. It's as if someone said: 3 + 1 = 4 and you responded by saying: 3 x 1 isn't 4! 2 + 2 = 4!
> 
> To be clear: absolutely _no one_ in this thread is claiming that strength is not an advantage in a fight, whether in the ring or on the street.
> 
> _No one_ is saying that it's not a good idea to train to build up your strength.
> 
> _No one_ is saying that size and technique are mutually exclusive or that they can't support each other.
> 
> These are also not the arguments that Rener and Ryron  were making and they are not part of any RBSD system that I've ever come across.
> 
> (I have occasionally seen someone making the argument elsewhere that advanced skill in their chosen art makes size and strength completely irrelevant. I would agree with you that this is a mistaken belief. However I haven't noticed anyone making that argument here.)
> 
> The actual argument being made goes like this:
> 
> Being strong (both in absolute terms and relative to your opponent) is a good thing.  It definitely gives you an advantage in a fight. However, unless your name is Bob Sapp or Brock Lesnar, it is very likely that your opponent in a fight may be stronger than you. This is especially true in a self-defense situation where your assailant may select you as a victim partially based on his perception that he is bigger and stronger than you. Unless you want to just give up and take a beating in those situations, then it is a good idea to develop your technique (and other attributes) to the point where they have a chance of overcoming superior size and strength.
> 
> You can consider your options in a fight as divided into the following buckets:
> a) techniques/tactics that you could make work against a larger/stronger opponent
> b) techniques/tactics that you could make work against an opponent who is roughly equal in size and strength
> c) techniques/tactics that will only work if you are bigger and stronger than your opponent.
> 
> Obviously, if you are the bigger/stronger combatant in a fight, you have all the techniques and tactics from all three categories available to you. This is an advantage.
> 
> However, if you train primarily in the tactics and techniques from category *c* or even categories* b* and* c*, then you are in trouble when you run into an opponent who is bigger and stronger than  you.
> 
> This is the foundation of Rener's and Ryron's argument. They are claiming that BJJ focuses exclusively on techniques and tactics from category *a*, while catch wrestling includes more techniques from categories *b* & *c*. (I don't have enough experience with catch to know whether this is a fair evaluation of that art.)
> 
> Note - saying a technique falls into category* a* does _not_ mean that size and strength are irrelevant. All other factors being equal, it is easier to choke or armlock someone who is a scrawny 120 pounds than someone who is 250 pounds of solid muscle. However, it is still _possible_ for me to choke or armlock someone who is 250 pounds of muscle. It's _not_ possible for me to escape the side mount of a 250 pound guy by just bench pressing him and throwing him off, whereas that would be a possibility for the big guy escaping a little guy. This is the difference between categories *a* and *c*.



See, Tony, this is why I like you, mate…

Now, let's have an argument...



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm back! 3.5 days of driving (boo!), 2.5 days of visiting relatives (yay!), no days of training since last Sunday (boo!). Let's see if I'm rested and recovered enough to make a coherent argument…



Cool, glad you made the trip safely.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Eh, minor details to argue about another time.



Yes and no… we'll stick with yes for now… as you say, another time, perhaps.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep, I think we're mostly in agreement on the history.



Sure… but that was only half of what I said there…



Tony Dismukes said:


> You do realize that when I mentioned "training in the here and now" I was directly quoting your own words regarding what you said we were discussing?



Yeah, but you missed the point and context of what I was saying. I was pointing out that discussions of the origins, the earlier focus, and the historical aspects weren't what was being asked about… it was like discussing the US Army, and what it's like today, and you talking about the equipment for the Revolutionary army...



Tony Dismukes said:


> Let's look at the original exact question: "what are the appropriate environments to use Judo/BJJ?". If someone asks me "what is the appropriate environment to use martial art x?", then I understand the question as follows: "If someone were to train in art x and develop the skills, techniques, attributes, and knowledge which might reasonably be expected to come from that training, then what would be the appropriate environment for that person to use those skills, techniques, attributes and/or knowledge?"
> 
> I'm not sure I can think of another sensible way to interpret the question. It's not as if the martial art has any independent existence apart from the persons who are training in it. If you have a different interpretation of the question in mind, then please share it.



To be frank, that's not the original question… it's where we ended up from the original question. The original question was more about "what's more effective, BJJ or Judo?", which eventually made it's way to the above question… via myself pointing out that "effective", by itself, didn't really mean anything… the OP needed to clarify what he meant by "effective" first… part of which was my prompting him to think about what the systems were designed/developed for… as, despite the wishes of many, there is no such thing as an art that is designed for everything. That directly lead to him asking what BJJ and Judo were best suited for… which is a present tense, general over-view, dominant focus question. Which is what I answered.

Thing is, the question was not "in what environments can I use BJJ/Judo?", it was "what is it designed/suited for?"… and, really, I can't stress this enough… I specifically pointed out in my answer that the competitive side was not what either of these systems were limited to. So your argument that I was ignoring, or not acknowledging such ideas is not supported by my very first answer in that thread after the question of "what environment?"…

I will say, though, that the idea of a martial art not having any independent existence apart from the persons training it, well… yeah, they absolutely do. The arts are independent of the student, really, and are brought to the individual, rather than the other way around.



Tony Dismukes said:


> This also ties into my interpretation of your statement that BJJ is not well suited or designed for a street fighting environment, but rather for BJJ competition: (Present tense, as you noted)  "If someone were to train in BJJ today, then the techniques and tactics they would learn would not be well suited or designed for a street fighting environment. They would rather be well suited and designed for BJJ competition."
> 
> If you meant something different, then please elucidate.



Your interpretation of my statement is, bluntly, incorrect. My exact words were:


Chris Parker said:


> Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... *sure, they can be used in other situations*, but that's what they're really *best suited* for, when all's said and done.





AJH40 said:


> So You wouldn't say that BJJ and Judo would be well suited for some kind of street fighting environment ?





Chris Parker said:


> No, I wouldn't. *I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.*
> 
> Look, the real issue here is that you're asking a question that can't be answered... none of them are "best", or "most effective" in comparison to any other. How well trained in the system are you? How well do you understand how it needs to be adapted? How naturally skilled are you? What's your training been like? All of that is far, far more important than "which system"... as "which system" really means nothing.



Note here, bolded, that I talk about what the systems are best suited for… not only suited for, not that they're not suited for other applications and environments/contexts, but I'm pointing out what they're best suited for… at the same time, highlighting that it's not as mono dimensional as just asking what is most "effective".



Tony Dismukes said:


> Now on to your questions.
> 
> Q - What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?
> A - Very little. Mat time is not usually the time for history lessons.



Okay.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Q - What portion of my mat time was spent on the older ("street") techniques & tactics vs what portion was spent on the newer ("sport") techniques and tactics?
> A - At a very, very rough guess, I'd say 30% street, 30% sport, and 40% fundamentals which apply to either environment.  I'm currently in the process of exploring the sport side of things more than I have in the past, so the balance may end up swinging more towards sport for the next couple of years. After that it may swing back the other way.



Okay.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Q - How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?
> A - Lots and lots of experience using those tactics and techniques and having them succeed or fail under different circumstances. Lots of experience figuring out what factors are necessary for success with these techniques and tactics.Lots of experience observing how those techniques and tactics interact with the outside environment and the state of my own body and mind.



Okay.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Some  trivial examples:
> 
> A certain sweep works well for me when we are doing sport grappling with the gi. If I try that same sweep while we are including strikes, then I get punched in the face. This is clearly not a suitable technique for the street.
> 
> Certain top control positions involve my keeping my head very low and tight to my opponent. When I use these, it is easy to lose sight of the surrounding environment. Once again, these would be risky in any environment where there was the possibility of multiple opponents.



Cool.

Completely besides the point, though. None of that is anything close to what I was talking about, and is nothing to do with gaining the form of understanding I am applying… which, frankly, has little to do with mat-time, very little to do with application of technique (other than having the ability to recognise and interpret, which is not system-specific), and so on.

Right. The next bit.



drop bear said:


> well obviously you don't understand martial arts.



I'm not entirely sure if you're being facetious, if you think you're being cute (and think you're throwing my words back at me… here's the thing, when they have weight, it's a different story), and are deliberately trying to antagonise me… or if you genuinely think that I don't understand martial arts… if the last of those, then I hardly know where to start with just how ludicrously insane, stupendously ignorant, and completely off base you are… trust me, son, you don't have a goddamn clue either about my level of understanding, or about martial arts yourself. That's been shown over and over again through your posts, showing no understanding of anything to do with self defence, traditional martial arts, different contexts, kata training, or anything beyond a small amount of a grasp on some sporting, dominantly grappling/ground work, systems.

If you are being less genuine, whether an attempt to be cute, funny, or antagonistic, then you're either bordering on trolling, or you're actively engaging in it.

In other words, there is no way you could have written that with any credibility or good intent… despite Steve suggesting we should always look for it…



drop bear said:


> it cant be a specific training methodology there is more than one version of rbsd.  There is no governing body. They can have any methodology they want.



Wow, you're really bad at this… of course there's a specific training methodology… or, more particularly, there's a specific categorisation of a range of methodologies… that's the entire damn point of having a specific classification. You might as well say that leaping spinning kicks and slingshots being the exclusive techniques of a school of BJJ, as there's no "specific training methodology", and they can have whatever they want… dude… just no. Completely ignorant statement on every level.



drop bear said:


> not a martial arts approach?



No, it's not a martial arts approach… in many ways, it's an opposite approach to martial arts… but, then again, you still don't get anything you've been told.



drop bear said:


> apart from the camo pants how does there approach differ?



Read my earlier post. It's all spelled out there. Your complete inability to comprehend is either terribly worrying, as it's showing all kinds of issues, or it's deliberately antagonistic… which, again, takes us back to the idea that you're trolling.

So… which one is it?

EDIT: Just gotta add this one…



drop bear said:


> I tapped to a ride last night. Pretty sure I have to wear a dress now.



What on earth does that have to do with anything, other than you adding a rather misogynistic slur with the implication of "I did something I consider weak, that makes me a girl"… couple that with your veiled homophobic posts in earlier threads, along with the patterns in a range of your other posts, and I really start wondering what you think you're doing.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Right, back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> See, Tony, this is why I like you, mate…
> 
> Now, let's have an argument...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, glad you made the trip safely.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no… we'll stick with yes for now… as you say, another time, perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure… but that was only half of what I said there…
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you missed the point and context of what I was saying. I was pointing out that discussions of the origins, the earlier focus, and the historical aspects weren't what was being asked about… it was like discussing the US Army, and what it's like today, and you talking about the equipment for the Revolutionary army...
> 
> 
> 
> To be frank, that's not the original question… it's where we ended up from the original question. The original question was more about "what's more effective, BJJ or Judo?", which eventually made it's way to the above question… via myself pointing out that "effective", by itself, didn't really mean anything… the OP needed to clarify what he meant by "effective" first… part of which was my prompting him to think about what the systems were designed/developed for… as, despite the wishes of many, there is no such thing as an art that is designed for everything. That directly lead to him asking what BJJ and Judo were best suited for… which is a present tense, general over-view, dominant focus question. Which is what I answered.
> 
> Thing is, the question was not "in what environments can I use BJJ/Judo?", it was "what is it designed/suited for?"… and, really, I can't stress this enough… I specifically pointed out in my answer that the competitive side was not what either of these systems were limited to. So your argument that I was ignoring, or not acknowledging such ideas is not supported by my very first answer in that thread after the question of "what environment?"…
> 
> I will say, though, that the idea of a martial art not having any independent existence apart from the persons training it, well… yeah, they absolutely do. The arts are independent of the student, really, and are brought to the individual, rather than the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of my statement is, bluntly, incorrect. My exact words were:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note here, bolded, that I talk about what the systems are best suited for… not only suited for, not that they're not suited for other applications and environments/contexts, but I'm pointing out what they're best suited for… at the same time, highlighting that it's not as mono dimensional as just asking what is most "effective".
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.
> 
> Completely besides the point, though. None of that is anything close to what I was talking about, and is nothing to do with gaining the form of understanding I am applying… which, frankly, has little to do with mat-time, very little to do with application of technique (other than having the ability to recognise and interpret, which is not system-specific), and so on.
> 
> Right. The next bit.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely sure if you're being facetious, if you think you're being cute (and think you're throwing my words back at me… here's the thing, when they have weight, it's a different story), and are deliberately trying to antagonise me… or if you genuinely think that I don't understand martial arts… if the last of those, then I hardly know where to start with just how ludicrously insane, stupendously ignorant, and completely off base you are… trust me, son, you don't have a goddamn clue either about my level of understanding, or about martial arts yourself. That's been shown over and over again through your posts, showing no understanding of anything to do with self defence, traditional martial arts, different contexts, kata training, or anything beyond a small amount of a grasp on some sporting, dominantly grappling/ground work, systems.
> 
> If you are being less genuine, whether an attempt to be cute, funny, or antagonistic, then you're either bordering on trolling, or you're actively engaging in it.
> 
> In other words, there is no way you could have written that with any credibility or good intent… despite Steve suggesting we should always look for it…
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're really bad at this… of course there's a specific training methodology… or, more particularly, there's a specific categorisation of a range of methodologies… that's the entire damn point of having a specific classification. You might as well say that leaping spinning kicks and slingshots being the exclusive techniques of a school of BJJ, as there's no "specific training methodology", and they can have whatever they want… dude… just no. Completely ignorant statement on every level.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a martial arts approach… in many ways, it's an opposite approach to martial arts… but, then again, you still don't get anything you've been told.
> 
> 
> 
> Read my earlier post. It's all spelled out there. Your complete inability to comprehend is either terribly worrying, as it's showing all kinds of issues, or it's deliberately antagonistic… which, again, takes us back to the idea that you're trolling.
> 
> So… which one is it?
> 
> EDIT: Just gotta add this one…
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth does that have to do with anything, other than you adding a rather misogynistic slur with the implication of "I did something I consider weak, that makes me a girl"… couple that with your veiled homophobic posts in earlier threads, along with the patterns in a range of your other posts, and I really start wondering what you think you're doing.



lol. Not trolling i am making an observation based on your posts. 

now ignoring the angry bits. 

ok you are being too specific in your classification. Rbsd especially can be anything it wants to be. If we were to. Say jujitsu rather than bjj there incorporates a huge range of methodology. Same with rbsd. There is no cohesive mindset. Nobody but the people who have decided to call their systems rbsd. Really are deciding what that actually means.

now. I am interested how they are the opposite of martial arts?


Which leaves the last bit. It is a grappling thing that relates to the op

you wouldn't understand.


----------



## Chris Parker

Missed this one… 



Hanzou said:


> RSBDs also consists of quite a few arts that couldn't cut it in MMA and NHB fronts, so they retreated to a "self defense" focus in order to hide their combat inefficiencies.
> 
> I won't name any names though.



No.

In fact, I really don't know where to start with this tripe. You're making accusations of arts that couldn't "cut it" in your tough man contests, and then refuse to actually say what systems you're talking about?!?! 

Either back up what you're saying, or retract it. I've been dealing with RBSD for two decades, and can think of exactly no system or approach that comes anywhere near your description… absolutely nothing at all.



drop bear said:


> lol. Not trolling i am making an observation based on your posts.



You do know that that just sounds more like the same trolling (deliberately antagonising) posting, thinking you're throwing my words back at me, yeah? And, once again, when the words have weight, they have meaning… you're missing a lot to even begin to come at me like that.



drop bear said:


> now ignoring the angry bits.



No, read the angry bits. You need to understand them. Of course, if you are trolling, then they're going to be the more relevant parts for you… 



drop bear said:


> ok you are being too specific in your classification. Rbsd especially can be anything it wants to be. If we were to. Say jujitsu rather than bjj there incorporates a huge range of methodology. Same with rbsd. There is no cohesive mindset. Nobody but the people who have decided to call their systems rbsd. Really are deciding what that actually means.



Wow… no. RBSD is a specific categorisation. Jujutsu is a specific categorisation. Karate is a specific categorisation. Yes, there's a wide array of approaches within that categorisation, but when it comes down to it, if it's not RBSD (not suiting the categorisation), it's not RBSD.

You do get how categorisations work, yeah?



drop bear said:


> now. I am interested how they are the opposite of martial arts?



Read the description I already posted. You've been directed to it twice now.

But, to give you some idea, RBSD systems aren't actually particularly concerned with "the fight" aspect… they're concerned with the pre-fight… the post-fight… the initial assault… soft skills… de-escalation… avoidance and awareness… understanding of pre-fight indicators and triggers… but not really the "fight" itself (that is dealt with, but not to any major depth, for good reason).

Martial arts, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively with "the fight"… they look at a wide range of engaging skills, whether grappling, striking, weapons, or any combination… there is little attention paid to pre or post-fight aspects… including pre-fight triggers and indicators… avoiding fighting isn't really part of it… nor is de-escalating  away from one… same with soft skills.

Opposite to each other.



drop bear said:


> Which leaves the last bit. It is a grappling thing that relates to the op
> 
> you wouldn't understand.



I understood what you said, but the connection to the OP was tenuous at best, and there was no real coherent connection made… no contextual reason for you to bring it up at this point in the conversation… and the tag was, again, misogynistic.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Missed this one…
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, I really don't know where to start with this tripe. You're making accusations of arts that couldn't "cut it" in your tough man contests, and then refuse to actually say what systems you're talking about?!?!
> 
> Either back up what you're saying, or retract it. I've been dealing with RBSD for two decades, and can think of exactly no system or approach that comes anywhere near your description… absolutely nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that that just sounds more like the same trolling (deliberately antagonising) posting, thinking you're throwing my words back at me, yeah? And, once again, when the words have weight, they have meaning… you're missing a lot to even begin to come at me like that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, read the angry bits. You need to understand them. Of course, if you are trolling, then they're going to be the more relevant parts for you…
> 
> 
> 
> Wow… no. RBSD is a specific categorisation. Jujutsu is a specific categorisation. Karate is a specific categorisation. Yes, there's a wide array of approaches within that categorisation, but when it comes down to it, if it's not RBSD (not suiting the categorisation), it's not RBSD.
> 
> You do get how categorisations work, yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> Read the description I already posted. You've been directed to it twice now.
> 
> But, to give you some idea, RBSD systems aren't actually particularly concerned with "the fight" aspect… they're concerned with the pre-fight… the post-fight… the initial assault… soft skills… de-escalation… avoidance and awareness… understanding of pre-fight indicators and triggers… but not really the "fight" itself (that is dealt with, but not to any major depth, for good reason).
> 
> Martial arts, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively with "the fight"… they look at a wide range of engaging skills, whether grappling, striking, weapons, or any combination… there is little attention paid to pre or post-fight aspects… including pre-fight triggers and indicators… avoiding fighting isn't really part of it… nor is de-escalating  away from one… same with soft skills.
> 
> Opposite to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> I understood what you said, but the connection to the OP was tenuous at best, and there was no real coherent connection made… no contextual reason for you to bring it up at this point in the conversation… and the tag was, again, misogynistic.



so the angry bits. You are really suggesting it is ok to dish it out but trolling when you have to take it. I think that is mostly bluster. Which of course is also not trolling untill i say it. 

right?

so these rbsd systems that can bee seen on youtube constantly handing out the kick ***. Are not representing the reality of their training. That the bulk of their training is pre fight?

how much training in rbsd is spent pre fight?

because for me when i did hocks system for 4 years it was ver little. When i did industry training it was a greater percentage. But the industry training is not very realistic.

in my opinion of applying it.

now bear in mind i have spent 20 years de-escalating real angry people who want to hurt me and know a thing or two about how to do it.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> so the angry bits. You are really suggesting it is ok to dish it out but trolling when you have to take it. I think that is mostly bluster. Which of course is also not trolling untill i say it.
> 
> right?



No.

It's trolling when you are posting specifically to provoke, start a fight, harass, insult, or similar. Your posting style very much matches that… and with your recent claim that all conversation is sparring, and you're looking to "smash" people in it, that really is trolling… as well as a hell of an ego problem.



drop bear said:


> so these rbsd systems that can bee seen on youtube constantly handing out the kick ***. Are not representing the reality of their training. That the bulk of their training is pre fight?



You're going to have to be far more specific there… which RBSD systems? Which aspects of their training are you seeing on you-tube clips? Do you really think that that's the reality of their training, or even the majority of it?



drop bear said:


> how much training in rbsd is spent pre fight?



Depends on the system itself… in some, it's the major part, for others, it's the initial engagement… for others it's handling that, and moving onto the "fight" portion itself… but even in those, the physical aspect tends to be minimalist (gross motor, able to be adapted to pretty much any physical pre-established systems etc).



drop bear said:


> because for me when i did hocks system for 4 years it was ver little.



Hock tends to focus more on the physical side of things, but that's not all he covers…. but yeah, he tends towards more of a "Bas Reuten" approach… and, bluntly, his approach is far more "martial arts" than "RBSD".



drop bear said:


> When i did industry training it was a greater percentage. But the industry training is not very realistic.
> 
> in my opinion of applying it.



I'd say that Industry training is more geared towards a different idea, context, and application… it might not have matched your expectations, but that's not a failing of the training itself. That said, the minimalist amount of training is probably one of the bigger issues there… 



drop bear said:


> now bear in mind i have spent 20 years de-escalating real angry people who want to hurt me and know a thing or two about how to do it.



Sure… and bear in mind that my background has included this kind of thing for longer.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Captain Chris Pizzo World Leader In Self Defense Udemy
> 
> "Regardless of size speed or experience"



"After several years abroad, and training under everyone from the violent Arabian assassins in Egypt to the last remaining Samurai in Japan,"

I seem to remember one or two people on this forum complaining about  traditional martial arts masters claiming to have been taught by a mysterious man in a cave or something like that.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> No.
> 
> It's trolling when you are posting specifically to provoke, start a fight, harass, insult, or similar. Your posting style very much matches that… and with your recent claim that all conversation is sparring, and you're looking to "smash" people in it, that really is trolling… as well as a hell of an ego problem.
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to be far more specific there… which RBSD systems? Which aspects of their training are you seeing on you-tube clips? Do you really think that that's the reality of their training, or even the majority of it?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the system itself… in some, it's the major part, for others, it's the initial engagement… for others it's handling that, and moving onto the "fight" portion itself… but even in those, the physical aspect tends to be minimalist (gross motor, able to be adapted to pretty much any physical pre-established systems etc).
> 
> 
> 
> Hock tends to focus more on the physical side of things, but that's not all he covers…. but yeah, he tends towards more of a "Bas Reuten" approach… and, bluntly, his approach is far more "martial arts" than "RBSD".
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that Industry training is more geared towards a different idea, context, and application… it might not have matched your expectations, but that's not a failing of the training itself. That said, the minimalist amount of training is probably one of the bigger issues there…
> 
> 
> 
> Sure… and bear in mind that my background has included this kind of thing for longer.



so you are not deliberately provoking people with your posts. You are suggesting it is incidental. Scary as that idea my be i think you could be right.

which of course would mean the misquote about me looking to smash people was just an accident.

ok you tube. You are suggesting that the physical application of technique is not the main focus of rbsd. Lets specifically look at krav just because it is one of the most famous. I have done a couple of days of krav. I spent most of it learning to hurt people. Youtube videos of krav is mostly hurting people. Unless kicking people in the groin is de-escalation. They are not doing much of it.

now you may have a different system in mind. And can present that.

industry training fails to do what it is supposed to do. From a person who has to actually use it. In other words it is my head on the block so my opinion counts.

Minimalist training is one issue. The 10 days or so to become an instructor is another. The insane idea you can stop punches with arm locks might be another.

ok so you have deescalated how many fights exactly?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> "After several years abroad, and training under everyone from the violent Arabian assassins in Egypt to the last remaining Samurai in Japan,"
> 
> I seem to remember one or two people on this forum complaining about  traditional martial arts masters claiming to have been taught by a mysterious man in a cave or something like that.



yeah it becomes a tricky thing here as we would either have to engage in fraud busting or fight the guy to see if he is legit.

both are frowned upon here.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> so you are not deliberately provoking people with your posts. You are suggesting it is incidental. Scary as that idea my be i think you could be right.



You're missing the nuance again. "To provoke", with regards to trolling, is to deliberately post something that is aimed at garnering an outburst, or to frustrate/upset someone. Telling someone the truth is not the same thing… no matter how little someone might want to hear it.



drop bear said:


> which of course would mean the misquote about me looking to smash people was just an accident.



What misquote? You stated that your take on conversation here is that it's like sparring, and in that context, you're looking to "smash" people (in conversation), as well as watching for them to try to "smash" you it might be said… so how is that a misquote? Do you want me to give you the actual quote you typed?



drop bear said:


> ok you tube. You are suggesting that the physical application of technique is not the main focus of rbsd. Lets specifically look at krav just because it is one of the most famous. I have done a couple of days of krav. I spent most of it learning to hurt people. Youtube videos of krav is mostly hurting people. Unless kicking people in the groin is de-escalation. They are not doing much of it.



Krav Maga is not an RBSD… it's a modern, military derived combatives system… for the record, Hock's system is really a modern civilian combatives system as well… and, here's the thing, combatives systems are not RBSD systems. 

One more time, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about when you mention RBSD. At all.



drop bear said:


> now you may have a different system in mind. And can present that.



Look to Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri and so forth.



drop bear said:


> industry training fails to do what it is supposed to do. From a person who has to actually use it. In other words it is my head on the block so my opinion counts.



Fair enough… I'd still say that you're looking at a very mono-dimensional approach, but that's another issue.



drop bear said:


> Minimalist training is one issue. The 10 days or so to become an instructor is another. The insane idea you can stop punches with arm locks might be another.



Hmm… "insane"? I can think of a few ways that aren't so insane… but it depends on a few things… 



drop bear said:


> ok so you have deescalated how many fights exactly?



You know, I don't really keep count… there's a few that stand out, for a few reasons, but I don't keep count. So no idea.



drop bear said:


> yeah it becomes a tricky thing here as we would either have to engage in fraud busting or fight the guy to see if he is legit.
> 
> both are frowned upon here.



No, the way to tell if he's legit is not by "fighting" him… that frankly proves absolutely nothing with regards to legitimacy. Of course, the fact that he's a delusional lunatic is a bit more relevant… 

As far as fraud busting… well, there can be certain exceptions… such as when someone claims to have studied under people that don't exist… it becomes less fraud busting, and more just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, but you missed the point and context of what I was saying. I was pointing out that discussions of the origins, the earlier focus, and the historical aspects weren't what was being asked about… it was like discussing the US Army, and what it's like today, and you talking about the equipment for the Revolutionary army...



Right. Now imagine that there were units within the U.S. Army that still used muskets and trained/fought using the tactics and strategies from the Revolutionary era and didn't use modern equipment. That's a decent analogy to BJJ - there are still schools and practitioners that practice the same techniques and tactics that Helio and Rickson did back in their street fighting days.



Chris Parker said:


> To be frank, that's not the original question… it's where we ended up from the original question. The original question was more about "what's more effective, BJJ or Judo?", which eventually made it's way to the above question… via myself pointing out that "effective", by itself, didn't really mean anything… the OP needed to clarify what he meant by "effective" first… part of which was my prompting him to think about what the systems were designed/developed for… as, despite the wishes of many, there is no such thing as an art that is designed for everything. That directly lead to him asking what BJJ and Judo were best suited for… which is a present tense, general over-view, dominant focus question. Which is what I answered.



I had no problem with your original answer to his original question. I thought it was pretty good. If I take the time to quote everything you say that I agree with, then we'll be here all week. 



Chris Parker said:


> Thing is, the question was not "in what environments can I use BJJ/Judo?", it was "what is it designed/suited for?"… and, really, I can't stress this enough… I specifically pointed out in my answer that the competitive side was not what either of these systems were limited to. So your argument that I was ignoring, or not acknowledging such ideas is not supported by my very first answer in that thread after the question of "what environment?"…



I appreciate your acknowledgment that BJJ/Judo can be used in environments other than the one they were primarily designed for. My disagreement is with the issue of what they are designed for.

I could say (and you would probably agree) that a collegiate wrestler would have a decent chance of using his art effectively in a street fight, even though that is absolutely not what the sport was designed for.

On the other hand, suppose a student signs up to study BJJ and ends up with an old school teacher who focuses on the original curriculum (distance control, punch defense, elbows, the Pisão, head lock defenses, etc, etc) that Helio and his family used in the streets for years - how is the art that student is learning _not_ primarily designed for street fighting? How is it designed for BJJ competition, when a large percentage of the techniques are illegal or useless in tournaments?



Chris Parker said:


> I will say, though, that the idea of a martial art not having any independent existence apart from the persons training it, well… yeah, they absolutely do. The arts are independent of the student, really, and are brought to the individual, rather than the other way around.



I suspected that you might object to this. I wonder if this isn't a fundamental difference in philosophy that might explain some of our disagreements.

From my standpoint, martial arts training is just a tool that human beings use for various purposes. "Styles" and "arts" are just convenient ways of compartmentalizing and categorizing the huge variety of approaches people can take to using that tool. If a mutant staph infection were to suddenly wipe out every BJJ practitioner in the world, then BJJ would no longer exist. It would make no sense to debate the specific qualities of some platonic essence of BJJ floating in the ether with no human beings practicing it.

On the other hand, I've seen comments from you in other threads which seem to indicate that you do seem to have a more Platonic take on martial arts - that a given martial art has one correct purpose and set of principles and exists independently of its practitioners. If you see things that way, then it would explain why you don't seem to accept that BJJ as practiced by some people is an art designed for street fighting and as practiced by other people is an art designed as a pure grappling sport and as practiced by other people may have a different purpose altogether.



Chris Parker said:


> Completely besides the point, though. None of that is anything close to what I was talking about, and is nothing to do with gaining the form of understanding I am applying… which, frankly, has little to do with mat-time, very little to do with application of technique (other than having the ability to recognise and interpret, which is not system-specific), and so on.



Fair enough. There are a lot of kinds of understanding regarding martial arts, and you haven't specified exactly which type you are talking about. Some possible examples ...

Understanding the history of an art (both the "official" mythology and the actual events)
Understanding the physical principles that make an art work (distancing, leverage, body alignment, etc) on an intuitive level.
Understanding those same principles on an intellectual, analytical level.
Understanding the tactics and strategies that make an art work on an intellectual level.
Understanding those same tactics and strategies on an instinctive level
Understanding the technical specifics of an art.
Understanding the stated philosophy behind an art as stated by the founder.
Understanding the much messier and more complicated reality of how those philosophies run into actual application.
Understanding how a specific art is actually practiced in different times and places by different individuals
Understanding the different contexts of violence as an overview.
Understanding a specific context of violence from an intellectual standpoint.
Understanding a specific context of violence from personal experience.
Understanding how a certain type of martial arts training may lead to certain results in a specific context of violence, either from a theoretical basis or from personal experience
Understanding how certain types of training can develop certain attributes and certain mindsets
Understanding how to effectively learn certain skills, knowledge, and attributes related to different arts
Understanding how to effectively teach certain skills, knowledge and attributes related to different arts
... and many more.

Which form of understanding were you speaking of applying?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> You are suggesting that the physical application of technique is not the main focus of rbsd. Lets specifically look at krav just because it is one of the most famous.





Chris Parker said:


> Krav Maga is not an RBSD… it's a modern, military derived combatives system… for the record, Hock's system is really a modern civilian combatives system as well… and, here's the thing, combatives systems are not RBSD systems.



Yeah, I haven't heard of Krav Maga being called RBSD. Are there Krav teachers out there using that term for what they do?



Chris Parker said:


> Look to Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri and so forth.



I was thinking about Peyton Quinn, Rory Miller, and Marc MacYoung offhand, but I'm not really too up on the RBSD world.


----------

