# BJJ bluebelt



## streetblaster (Feb 17, 2004)

how long does it take to be a blue belt in bjj?


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 17, 2004)

I've heard of schools that give it after about 6 months.  It takes about 2 years at the school I'm at -- if you train 3 or more times a week and are fit and talented.


----------



## FunSPE (Mar 10, 2004)

Here in the US, it can take up to two years.  Sometimes longer, sometimes shorter.  In Brazil it usually doesnt take as long but there are reasons for that.  Its all based on your performance.  If you train hard, often and everything just "clicks on" then it might not take very long.  


RDS


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 20, 2004)

At the GJJ in Torrance in the early '90's, it was about 1-2 years. There weren't any tests or set cirriculum, it was just skill based. You showed up to train, and someone said, "Here, wear this now" and tossed you a blue belt. If you were unfortunate enough to ask how long to purple, you were told something like "you'll be a blue belt so long, it doesn't matter". 

For promotions in general, you'll know you're getting close when you can beat most (if not all) of the guys in your current rank, and can make the guys in the rank above you struggle to get you in something, and occasionally make _them_ nervous or "catch" them.  Another sign you're getting close is when a lot of the upper belts push classmates out of the way to roll with you during drills and randori. Learned in retrospect it means you're being evaluated, and yes they talk about you behind your back.

Forget about rank, train hard, have fun, and you'll get it when you're ready.

Dr. Dave


----------



## Kyle (Apr 3, 2004)

Every BJJ instructor has different standards of what means to be a blue-belt.  I think there is somewhat more consistency for higher ranks.

For myself, you can expect to it to take, on average, 12 to 24 months, training about 4 to 6 hours a week.

    - Kyle


----------



## CrushingFist (May 14, 2004)

I heard of a school that you earn your belt while you can beat most people from your same belt. You beat most white, you go to blue, you beat most blue you go to purple, you beat most purple brown, and so oN BUT i DON't know about black and black red stripes


----------



## MJS (May 15, 2004)

CrushingFist said:
			
		

> I heard of a school that you earn your belt while you can beat most people from your same belt. You beat most white, you go to blue, you beat most blue you go to purple, you beat most purple brown, and so oN BUT i DON't know about black and black red stripes



By the time someone reaches purple in BJJ, they should have no problem beating a BB from another style.

Mike


----------



## TCJitsu (May 24, 2004)

> By the time someone reaches purple in BJJ, they should have no problem beating a BB from another style.
> 
> Mike


That use to be true of BJJ Blue Belts. The standards have lowered a little bit in terms of mat time/experience because the number of BJJ Black Belts to teach here in the states are higher. But you are definately correct about purple belts. Purple Belt is a huge leap in ability.

TCJitsu


----------



## CrushingFist (May 24, 2004)

Can't wait to see what BJJ is when I have time to go see Renzo Gracie


----------



## Shogun (May 29, 2004)

> By the time someone reaches purple in BJJ, they should have no problem beating a BB from another style.


 
This is kinda false. I think what you should have said is " should have no problem beating "MOST" BB from another style". I am never one to correct these things, nor do I want to sound conceded, but I think of myself as a pretty good grappler, and I study Japanese Ninjutsu, aikijutsu, and Jujutsu.


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2004)

Shogun said:
			
		

> This is kinda false. I think what you should have said is " should have no problem beating "MOST" BB from another style". I am never one to correct these things, nor do I want to sound conceded, but I think of myself as a pretty good grappler, and I study Japanese Ninjutsu, aikijutsu, and Jujutsu.



Big difference here though.  Keep in mind that you can have 2 people...a stand up fighter and a grappler.  The stand up guy focuses the majority of time on striking and the grappler on grappling.  Look at the UFC.  I use this because in the first one, you had 1 style fighters.  And what happened?  All of the strikers got beat by the grappler.  What its going to come down to is who spends more time on what?  I would think that if you went to roll with Rickson Gracie, it wouldnt matter how much ninjutsu, aikijujitsu and jujitsu that you do...odds are you're gonna get twisted in knots!!!  I'd wager a very good bet that the same could be said for his purple belts.  In addition, keep in mind that the grappler not only focuses on grappling, but also the clinch and takedowns, all of which the stand up fighter probably does not spend much time on, if any at all.

Mike


----------



## TCJitsu (May 31, 2004)

Shogun,

More than likely you have built yourself a well-rounded background. But please do not confuse this with the very detail specific and tecnically smooth grappling game of a BJJ Purple Belt. On the ground, BJJ Practioners are in an element all to themselves, on their feet is another story. You and your style may make you a rhinosaurus on the land but don't jump into the waters with the sharks and think you can always swim out,  if you know what I mean.

TCJitsu


----------



## MJS (May 31, 2004)

TCJitsu said:
			
		

> Shogun,
> 
> More than likely you have built yourself a well-rounded background. But please do not confuse this with the very detail specific and tecnically smooth grappling game of a BJJ Purple Belt. On the ground, BJJ Practioners are in an element all to themselves, on their feet is another story. You and your style may make you a rhinosaurus on the land but don't jump into the waters with the sharks and think you can always swim out,  if you know what I mean.
> 
> TCJitsu



Very good point!! :asian: 

Mike


----------



## Shogun (Jun 1, 2004)

> You and your style may make you a rhinosaurus on the land but don't jump into the waters with the sharks and think you can always swim out, if you know what I mean.


This is the coolest saying.
I suppose that if I was on the ground, in the ring, with no nerve strikes (or striking at all) that I would get totally wiped by a BJJ purple belt. What I did'nt get to say (I ran out of time) is that BJJ is awesome, but other grappling styles, deserve there respect. it is (mostly) the individual in the fight, and not the art they are representing (most of the time). My Bujinkan Ninjutsu instructor puts a lot of emphasis into Jutaijutsu, which is basically what BJJ is built on.

But yes, BJJ purple belts are good. not saying they are'nt. I just think that some BJJ practitioners dont realize that there is people out there that can beat them.

PS did anyone pick up, I think its June, issue of black belt mag? It shows that only 38% of fights go to the ground, as opposed to the rumored 90%. and 15% of those ground fights, were between sobers. the rest were slammed.


----------



## gusano (Jun 3, 2004)

How do they figure out what percentage of fights go to the ground anyway?
I have no idea where anyone gets these figures from but I would venture that if you really want to know what percentage of fights go to the ground then you should look at all the no holds barred fights and calculate how many of those fights ended up on the ground. It still doesn't prove a whole lot either way. The fight can go to the ground and back to the feet and back to the ground again. You can get knocked out trying for the takedown also. You can get knocked out on the ground as well. Todays no holds barred fighters are well rounded in all aspects of fighting from punching, kicking, clinching, takedowns, grappling, and submissions. 

The original statement was : *By the time someone reaches purple in BJJ, they should have no problem beating a BB from another style. *
*Mike*

Beat them at what? A submission grappling match? If that is what was being stated then I would say it depends on the opponent and his familiarity with grappling and finishing holds. I've seen my then 14 year old son tap grown men with black belts in standup styles with no problem whatsoever. If you put a BJJ guy against a wrestler in a wrestling match with wrestling rules, he would not fare well either. If you put a BJJ guy against a boxer in a boxing match with boxing rules, he would not fare well (unless he boxed also). So it's no great miracle that you put a standup guy against a BJJ guy in a submission grappling match and it's not even fair.


----------



## MJS (Jun 3, 2004)

gusano said:
			
		

> The original statement was : *By the time someone reaches purple in BJJ, they should have no problem beating a BB from another style. *
> *Mike*
> 
> Beat them at what? A submission grappling match? If that is what was being stated then I would say it depends on the opponent and his familiarity with grappling and finishing holds. I've seen my then 14 year old son tap grown men with black belts in standup styles with no problem whatsoever. If you put a BJJ guy against a wrestler in a wrestling match with wrestling rules, he would not fare well either. If you put a BJJ guy against a boxer in a boxing match with boxing rules, he would not fare well (unless he boxed also). So it's no great miracle that you put a standup guy against a BJJ guy in a submission grappling match and it's not even fair.



In the above statement, I was making a general statement towards a fight.  Granted, you changed the odds a little when you started talking about wrestling rules vs. BJJ rules, boxing vs. BJJ, etc.  Sorry for any confusion on my end.  Again, I was making a general statement towards a fight.  Now, what falls under that statement?  A challenge match at the Gracie school.  A MMA event.  In the MMA events, the boxer can do what he wants and the BJJ guy can do what we wants.  Nobody is limited with what they can do, with the exception of the rules for the event.  If the BJJ wants to box he can, if not, he doesnt.  

Mike


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Jun 4, 2004)

I was on Roy Harris's web site, minimum requirement is 400 hours of training time to reach Blue Belt. Purple Belt was 800 hours.


----------



## LiteBlu (Jun 4, 2004)

In a 1 on 1 fight (no rules), a 1 dimensional grappler will win over a 1 dimensional striker of the same skill level, most of the times (as proven in the early UFCs, where 1 dimensional fighting styles where the norm, Royce Gracie was one of the most 1 dimensional fighters. He had crap striking, crap takedowns, even though he had excellent ground control and submissions, Royce was not the best in BJJ, he still managed to beat everyone he fought.


----------



## Jissen (Jun 27, 2004)

The famous percentage figures are taken from police report statistics. When a police officer apprehends a suspect, he has to file a written report about the events. These reports are source material for all kinds of statistics and research.

The fact that most fights in these statistics go to the ground is due to the fact that the priority task of the officer is to subdue and restrain the suspect, instead of getting away safe as a civilian would try to do in a self defence situation.

Grappling arts are the most important unarmed tool for a police officer, nightclub doorman, security guard, and so on because of this subdue and restraint priority. For civilian self defence purposes your needs are a bit different, you try to escape instead of handcuffing the attacker. And the needs of the military are again quite different. This is why no one art is perfect for everyone. One must evaluate what purpose he is training for and choose the art(s) accordingly.


----------



## Littledragon (Jun 27, 2004)

LiteBlu said:
			
		

> In a 1 on 1 fight (no rules), a 1 dimensional grappler will win over a 1 dimensional striker of the same skill level, most of the times (as proven in the early UFCs, where 1 dimensional fighting styles where the norm, Royce Gracie was one of the most 1 dimensional fighters. He had crap striking, crap takedowns, even though he had excellent ground control and submissions, Royce was not the best in BJJ, he still managed to beat everyone he fought.


Many people keep saying it is the style that determines the winner which is false. The style is apart of the man, the man is the one that determines who wins the fight.

The Sakuraba vs. Royler Gracie fight, Sakuraba killed Royler with kicks and Royler lost but that does not mean Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu is bad or not good, it all depends on the man not which style is better than that style.

Tarek


----------



## LiteBlu (Jun 28, 2004)

"Many people keep saying it is the style that determines the winner which is false. The style is apart of the man, the man is the one that determines who wins the fight.

  The Sakuraba vs. Royler Gracie fight, Sakuraba killed Royler with kicks and Royler lost but that does not mean Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu is bad or not good, it all depends on the man not which style is better than that style."


 That's true today, with the high degree of athleticism, skill and cross training that both fighters and players have available. 

 BUT, back in 1993 it was the style that won the fight. Not the man. As my previous post stated, no one cross trained. Everyone was a 1 dimensional fighter. How do you think, that back in 1993, an anorexic Brazilian guy could man handle the crap out of a 220 pound shoot fighter from Pancrase. (Royce Gracie vs Kenneth Wayne Shamrock 1).

 And regarding your example above (Sakuraba vs Royler), you do know that in an MMA context, Sakuraba is the better grappler of the two and the better cross trained fighter of the two.


----------



## Littledragon (Jun 28, 2004)

LiteBlu said:
			
		

> "Many people keep saying it is the style that determines the winner which is false. The style is apart of the man, the man is the one that determines who wins the fight.
> 
> The Sakuraba vs. Royler Gracie fight, Sakuraba killed Royler with kicks and Royler lost but that does not mean Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu is bad or not good, it all depends on the man not which style is better than that style."
> 
> ...


Sakuraba vs. Royler I know that Royler was the better grappler without a doubt its just that Royler never fought some one like the way Sakuraba fought, he never in his life got a real kick in the face and that was a culture shock to him. I think because Sakuraba immobolized Royler so much with his kicks it took all his energy away from him, thats why he lost the fight but submission the referee should not have stopped the fight because Royler was in no pain.


----------



## LiteBlu (Jun 28, 2004)

Royler was the better "sports" grappler (multiple time Mundial and Abu Dhabi champion). But what you have to remember is that BJJ (MMA and cross training) was created and refined for the vale tudo (NHB, Anything Goes) and not for sports grappling. Many of us (including me) are only sports grapplers because of fitness, recreation and, yes, sports grappling is also good for self defence. But what BJJ is originally for is challenge matches and vale tudo. Royler's big mistake was that he thought he could come in and beat Sakuraba with sports grappling and no cross training and got severely punished for it. And, LOL, if he wasn't in pain during that submission, then he must've been on tranquilizers because his elbow was bending 90 degrees the wrong way when Saku applied that figure four kimura.


----------



## Littledragon (Jun 28, 2004)

LiteBlu said:
			
		

> Royler was the better "sports" grappler (multiple time Mundial and Abu Dhabi champion). But what you have to remember is that BJJ (MMA and cross training) was created and refined for the vale tudo (NHB, Anything Goes) and not for sports grappling. Many of us (including me) are only sports grapplers because of fitness, recreation and, yes, sports grappling is also good for self defence. But what BJJ is originally for is challenge matches and vale tudo. Royler's big mistake was that he thought he could come in and beat Sakuraba with sports grappling and no cross training and got severely punished for it. And, LOL, if he wasn't in pain during that submission, then he must've been on tranquilizers because his elbow was bending 90 degrees the wrong way when Saku applied that figure four kimura.


Ye thats true, like I said I think Royler lost because he never fought some one like Sakuraba. Sakuraba immobilized Royler with some extremley hard kicks and that wore him out. I think Royler should have used some strikes but it shows you no one art is superior and it shows you how effective a multi dimentional fighter and striking really is.


----------



## gusano (Jun 28, 2004)

Littledragon said:
			
		

> the referee should not have stopped the fight because Royler was in no pain.


It is the referee's *JOB* to stop the fight if the fighter is no longer able to intelligently defend himself. Refusing to tap is *NOT* intelligently defending yourself! Sakuraba broke Renzo's arm with the same kimura and that is exactly what would have happened to Royler if the ref had not stopped the fight. Royler is an awesome submission grappler and has no business fighting vale tudo.


----------

