# What do BJJ, Judo, and Wrestling specialize in?



## skribs

Probably the three most popular grappling arts (at least in my mind), what is it that each of these specialize in?

Why would someone want to pick one over the other, if all other factors (location, cost, pedigree of instruction, etc) are equal?

I know that BJJ has an emphasis on the ground game, but what do Judo and Wrestling do that BJJ doesn't?  What do each of them do that the other doesn't?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I don't know enough of wrestling to speak to it, at all. Of BJJ, I know only what I see of it currently. Of Judo, I mainly know what it was when I studied it briefly more than 30 years ago. Those caveats given, here's my take:

BJJ specializes in controlling from guard and escaping (or submitting) from mount. Side mount/control is a variation on this theme. That's probably a gross over-simplification.

Judo specializes in throwing and avoiding being thrown. When I studied, that wasn't as deep a specialization - we spent significant time studying ground work that you now see more in BJJ, so there were a lot of arm locks and ground control.


----------



## Hanzou

Judo is Japanese Jacket wrestling. They specialize in upright throws, but they do have newaza and chokes. However, the highest goal in judo is the perfect five point throw where the opponent lands on their back for an ippon. 

There's multiple types of Wrestling all around the world. Typically Wrestling involves takedowns and throws where the goal is to pin your opponent to the mat.

Bjj specializes in ground fighting and submissions. The logic behind the art is that an opponent is weaker on the ground than on their feet. 

Bjj is rapidly becoming a one-stop grappling shop, absorbing aspects of every grappling style and applying it to its transitions and positional system. They're absorbing throws from Judo, takedowns from Wrestling, and leg locks from CACC, all while refining their guard system.

Not to knock Judo and Wrestling, but you'd be hard-pressed to find something in Judo or Wrestling that isn't in Bjj on some level. That isn't true vice-versa, especially with Judo's ever-increasingly absurd rule system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Judo is Japanese Jacket wrestling. They specialize in upright throws, but they do have newaza and chokes. However, the highest goal in judo is the perfect five point throw where the opponent lands on their back for an ippon.
> 
> There's multiple types of Wrestling all around the world. Typically Wrestling involves takedowns and throws where the goal is to pin your opponent to the mat.
> 
> Bjj specializes in ground fighting and submissions. The logic behind the art is that an opponent is weaker on the ground than on their feet.
> 
> Bjj is rapidly becoming a one-stop grappling shop, absorbing aspects of every grappling style and applying it to its transitions and positional system. They're absorbing throws from Judo, takedowns from Wrestling, and leg locks from CACC, all while refining their guard system.
> 
> Not to knock Judo and Wrestling, but you'd be hard-pressed to find something in Judo or Wrestling that isn't in Bjj on some level. That isn't true vice-versa, especially with Judo's ever-increasingly absurd rule system.


Do you think BJJ really is incorporating a lot of Judo throws? I haven't paid much attention, but don't see a lot of takedowns in my research. I'd like to think it is, because (as you pointed out) the rule changes are changing Judo in a way I don't like.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Do you think BJJ really is incorporating a lot of Judo throws? I haven't paid much attention, but don't see a lot of takedowns in my research. I'd like to think it is, because (as you pointed out) the rule changes are changing Judo in a way I don't like.



It depends on the desires of the head instructor. Some prefer Judo throws, others prefer wrestling, while others prefer old school Gracie takedowns, while still others prefer sport-based Bjj takedowns like Jump Guard and the Imanari Roll, while others prefer a mixture of all the above.

Guerilla Jiujitsu is a version of Bjj that incorporates Judo throws into the system entirely.

Home

However, I think that the vast majority of the Bjj community is moving towards wrestling takedowns because wrestling is evolving alongside Bjj and MMA while Judo is sorta stagnating. Most Bjj guys looking towards Judo are closely tied with gi competition. Everyone else is focused on MMA, No-gi, and Self defense, and wrestling helps a lot in those arenas.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

skribs said:


> what do Judo and Wrestling do that BJJ doesn't?


I don't think there is any difference between Chinese wrestling hip throw and Judo hip throw. I don't know whether western wrestling  and BJJ have hip throw or not. So the difference may not be in the technique but in the strategy.

The main strategy difference used in the Chinese wrestling is "tearing - tear apart your opponent's grip and drag him around to create opportunity". You want to have a grip on your opponent, but you don't want your opponent to have any grip on you". You don't see this strategy used in BJJ, Judo, or western wrestling.

You can do dragging with jacket.





















You can also do dargging without jacket.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't think there is any difference between Chinese wrestling hip throw and Judo hip throw. I don't know whether western wrestling  and BJJ have hip throw or not. So the difference may not be in the technique but in the strategy.
> 
> The main strategy difference used in the Chinese wrestling is "tearing - tear apart your opponent's grip and drag him around to create opportunity". You want to have a grip on your opponent, but you don't want your opponent to have any grip on you". You don't see this strategy used in BJJ, Judo, or western wrestling.
> 
> You can do dragging with jacket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also do dargging without jacket.


I think current Judo rules penalize holding the jacket unless you are throwing. I learned more prolonged jacket grabbing and pulling than I see in Judo today.


----------



## TMA17

BJJ from what I was told is borrowing more from wrestling for takedowns than Judo.  BJJ is more ground and submissions, wrestling is more takedowns/takedown defense and control and Judo is mostly the art of throwing.  Judo throws and takedowns are wicked.  But if you're a good wrestler or BJJ player, you don't need to know the vast majority of Judo throws I would think.  Non-expert here just giving you my two cents.

Judo is ideal in winter time when someone comes up to you and gets in your space then you flip them on the ground fast and you're done. LOL


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TMA17 said:


> BJJ from what I was told is borrowing more from wrestling for takedowns than Judo.


BJJ tries to use "pull guard" and "jump guard" as a short cut to replace the throwing skill training.

It all depends on the rule set. If to lift your opponent over your shoulder can end the fight, The throwing skill will be more emphasized in BJJ.

If you can use firemen's carry to lift your opponent over your shoulder, you can smash his head on the wall over and over. IMO, it should be considered as effective finish move in all MA "sport".

It's much easier to drag your opponent down than to lift him up.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> BJJ tries to use "pull guard" and "jump guard" as a short cut to replace the throwing skill training.
> 
> It all depends on the rule set. If to lift your opponent over your shoulder can end the fight, The throwing skill will be more emphasized in BJJ.
> 
> If you can use firemen's carry to lift your opponent over your shoulder, you can smash his head on the wall over and over. IMO, it should be considered as effective finish move in all MA "sport".
> 
> It's much easier to drag your opponent down than to lift him up.



Throwing skill isn't emphasized in Bjj because of its history in Vale Tudo, Challenge fights, and street fighting where a jacket/Gi wasn't always available. Thus takedowns and throws in Bjj are more heavily based on wrestling than Judo. This is also why Bjj translates more smoothly to MMA than Judo does, because Gjj is essentially Bjj for Vale Tudo/MMA. The mistake is believing that Judo throws were simply removed from Bjj and the Brazilians focused on Newaza. The truth is that Maeda spent almost a decade fighting Catch Wrestlers and Boxers and he had to adapt Judo (or Kano-Jiujitsu) to fit his needs (again, situations where a nice, strong loose fitting Gi wasn't always available), which is where the more clench-based takedowns of old-school Bjj come from. You can see this in videos of Maeda doing his techniques. They guy is bare chested and frankly looks like a catch wrestler.

As for Guard Pulling, I don't know what people expect out of a Bjj competition match. If you want to see people in Gis throw each other, just watch Judo. If you think a Bjjer is going to get into a throwing contest with a Judoka while in a competition, you're crazy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Throwing skill isn't emphasized in Bjj because of its history in Vale Tudo, Challenge fights, and street fighting where a jacket/Gi wasn't always available. Thus takedowns and throws in Bjj are more heavily based on wrestling than Judo.


I didn't know that wrestling has more influence to BJJ than Judo has.

I thought

JJJ -> BJJ
JJJ -> Judo

I have always believed that too much Jacket dependency is a bad idea.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I didn't know that wrestling has more influence to BJJ than Judo has.
> 
> I thought
> 
> JJJ -> BJJ
> JJJ -> Judo
> 
> I have always believed that too much Jacket dependency is a bad idea.



I wouldn't say more. There's definitely some old-school Jiujitsu in Gracie JJ, and it's even taught in a way that wouldn't be out of place in a traditional JJJ school. The problem is that given the nature of newaza, its hard to tell where Judo ends and wrestling begins. This is why the Kodokan and Kano changed the rules on newaza because he (Kano) felt that Judo was beginning to look too much like wrestling. Heck, I would argue that Kano had a personal distaste for Judo newaza as a whole, and would have preferred to purge it from Judo completely if possible. People for example say that Judo banned leg locks because they were too dangerous to practice, however other grappling systems have practiced leg locks just fine for decades. I believe that leg locks were banned because their use was (again) making Judo appear too much like wrestling.

Ironically Kano pulled some moves from western wrestling when he created Judo, and I personally don't know what techniques came from ancient Japan, and which techniques were borrowed from western wrestling.

Anyways, back to BJJ: The positional hierarchy system in traditional BJJ seems to have come from NHB fighting or street fighting. I've never come across a JJJ or wrestling system where the goal is to get on top of someone and GNP them into a submission, so I have to believe that the Brazilians developed this on their own (along with the Guard system). This belief is backed by how easily modern MMA  has adopted Bjj's positional hierarchy system. So Bjj is more than likely a combo of (in order of importance) Judo Newaza, Street Fighting/NHB, Wrestling, and Japanese JJ.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't say more. There's definitely some old-school Jiujitsu in Gracie JJ, and it's even taught in a way that wouldn't be out of place in a traditional JJJ school. The problem is that given the nature of newaza, its hard to tell where Judo ends and wrestling begins. This is why the Kodokan and Kano changed the rules on newaza because he (Kano) felt that Judo was beginning to look too much like wrestling. Heck, I would argue that Kano had a personal distaste for Judo newaza as a whole, and would have preferred to purge it from Judo completely if possible. People for example say that Judo banned leg locks because they were too dangerous to practice, however other grappling systems have practiced leg locks just fine for decades. I believe that leg locks were banned because their use was (again) making Judo appear too much like wrestling.
> 
> Ironically Kano pulled some moves from western wrestling when he created Judo, and I personally don't know what techniques came from ancient Japan, and which techniques were borrowed from western wrestling.
> 
> Anyways, back to BJJ: The positional hierarchy system in traditional BJJ seems to have come from NHB fighting or street fighting. I've never come across a JJJ or wrestling system where the goal is to get on top of someone and GNP them into a submission, so I have to believe that the Brazilians developed this on their own (along with the Guard system). This belief is backed by how easily modern MMA  has adopted Bjj's positional hierarchy system. So Bjj is more than likely a combo of (in order of importance) Judo Newaza, Street Fighting/NHB, Wrestling, and Japanese JJ.


I'm not convinced it would be possible to tell the difference between the influence of early Judo and JJJ, in most cases. I don't know the early GJJ/BJJ proponents' exposure to other JMAists, but I'd expect Maeda (crap, did I remember that name right? too lazy to look it up) to have some knowledge of JJJ techniques, beyond what was commonly seen in Kano's Jiujitsu at that time.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Getting **** done. 

I have heard of judo be specialized for throws because of the quantity of the ones they use or something like that. But then most of the 3 tend to do similar things and then you have a plethora of different wrestling styles which encompass different rules, thus techniques.


----------



## Hanzou

Nah, Judo specialized in throws because Kano wanted to keep Judo distinct from wrestling. If you look at what's happening to (sport) Bjj, the line between what is Bjj and what is wrestling is starting to blur. That's what would have happened to Judo without Kano's consistent influence (and interference) within Judo's development.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

There was an old Chinese wrestling master when he wrestled outdoor, he had one shoe and one white sock on. He would stand on one leg. When he obtained grips on his opponent, he would give his leading leg and let his opponent to hole on it. No matter what his opponent might do, he could always flip his opponent over his leg. After the match, his leading leg white sock was still clean. In the entirely match, his leading foot didn't touch on the ground.

To be able to maintain single leg balance after throwing is a very important Chinese wrestling training. IMO, this Chinese wrestling training is one major difference from Judo, western wrestling, and BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

Solid display of BJJ takedowns vs striking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Solid display of BJJ takedowns vs striking.


Very nice!


----------



## TMA17

In a real fight situation without gloves the guy throwing has a good chance of really hurting his hand too.  Another reason to go for the takedown.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TMA17 said:


> In a real fight situation without gloves the guy throwing has a good chance of really hurting his hand too.  Another reason to go for the takedown.


I think that risk is very overstated. I've known a bunch of guys who got into fistfights, most of them with little or no training, without hurting their hands. That includes some knockdown punches. I can only think of one of them who ever really injured his hand significantly.


----------



## TMA17

I think you're right on second thought.  You see it quite often.


----------



## PiedmontChun

Compared to Judo or Wrestling, I would say BJJ specializes in isolating limbs or the neck to effectively submit someone, and on the defensive end - it focuses on recovering position and some type of guard; i.e. "surviving in bad situations". While Judo has newaza, and always has, the ruleset does not allow a lot of time for Tori to work and chase submissions on the ground. The safe approach is to pin for 20 seconds, get your half point so now you are up, and reset on the feet. As a result, I think a lot of the ground defense learned in BJJ is absent in Judo. Under a BJJ rule set where submission is king - you have to keep attacking on the ground, and your opponent gets to keep defending / escaping / potentially countering if you make a mistake. Fighting from the bottom and sweeping to take top position is almost non-existent in Judo, but is a big part of BJJ.

As far as current Judo influence on BJJ, the practical reality is that a lot of Judo throws just don't work well against someone who takes a lower crouching posture with hips back. Trying to move someone around on a mat to off balance them and set up a big throw becomes a fool's errand when your opponent can pull guard at any moment and thwart you. I don't say that as criticism of BJJ; it makes sense that in a competitive atmosphere that it would have evolved to that point. I think it would be interesting to see a BJJ ruleset that gave more incentive to throw / takedown vs. pull guard, but only because it would be more balanced. These days the IBJJF seems to award takedown points to the top player if they so much as tap the foot of an opponent pulling guard so people are more quick to try and pull guard before the other person can react.

Wrestling type takedowns are quite effective. The BJJ school I am part of is heavily sport influenced, and while we don't spend time on traditional Judo throws per say, there are wrestling type takedowns like single leg, ankle picks, etc that we do work regularly. Not every person is suited to pull guard and play from the bottom, especially bigger guys who try and play a top heavy game.


----------



## TMA17

Having experieced a small taste of all 3, I think you are right.  The way I see it, from a self defense perspective at least, you don't need to know numerous takedowns that are found  in Judo.  You're better off getting good at a few, whether it be wrestling or judo and then work on the ground element either via wrestling of BJJ.  Judo is an awesome art for sure, but i see your point.  Wrestlers stay low and that doesn't work well for a judoka.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Do you think BJJ really is incorporating a lot of Judo throws? I haven't paid much attention, but don't see a lot of takedowns in my research. I'd like to think it is, because (as you pointed out) the rule changes are changing Judo in a way I don't like.


What you'll see at a lot of MMA clubs now is 'submission wrestling', which is basically a synthesis of all three styles(mostly bjj/wrestling I guess, but we have a judo guy where I train)


----------



## PiedmontChun

Martial D said:


> What you'll see at a lot of MMA clubs now is 'submission wrestling', which is basically a synthesis of all three styles(mostly bjj/wrestling I guess, but we have a judo guy where I train)



If the Judo rule set was not so narrow, it would end up looking a lot more like Sambo. "Submission wrestling" is kind a generic cover term but in some places I have seen those eclectic systems borrow heavily from Sambo. Russian Ties, arm drags, standing back takes - a lot of stand up work not really used or seen in Judo.


----------



## Hanzou

Martial D said:


> What you'll see at a lot of MMA clubs now is 'submission wrestling', which is basically a synthesis of all three styles(mostly bjj/wrestling I guess, but we have a judo guy where I train)



That is happening to a lot of non-MMA clubs as well. There's quite a few people who trained in BJJ, got their black belt and opened up schools that don't have BJJ in their name at all. They either just call it Jiujitsu or Submission grappling instead.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That is happening to a lot of non-MMA clubs as well. There's quite a few people who trained in BJJ, got their black belt and opened up schools that don't have BJJ in their name at all. They either just call it Jiujitsu or Submission grappling instead.


Hmm, I'd have thought BJJ would be the better marketing. That's almost certainly true around here (unless the whole place is marketed as MMA), but our area does tend to lag behind trends, so maybe it's different elsewhere?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Hmm, I'd have thought BJJ would be the better marketing. That's almost certainly true around here (unless the whole place is marketed as MMA), but our area does tend to lag behind trends, so maybe it's different elsewhere?



Oh, the Bjj name still carries a ton of value. Most people call what they do "Bjj" by default. However, when you start combining so many methods together (Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, Folkstyle, Catch, Greco, Mongolian, Hayastan, Turkish, etc.) people start wanting to claim something else. It doesn't help that the Gracie family is desperately trying to contain BJJ within their own definitions.


----------



## TMA17

My gf's son started wrestling this fall.  He's 10.  I love watching their practices.  The aggressiveness, conditioning, and focus on takedowns and avoiding takedowns is great.  It will certainly toughen you up and provides you with more athleticism.  Of all the grappling arts, it probably is the best place to start for a young kid.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Because i couldn't find a thread to ask this, so in essence you can have a BJJ school which looks similar to X,Y,Z other style of grappling with only the addition of other methodologies in it? 

Kind of looks weird now i have written it.


----------



## pdg

I know it's an older post, but it's still relevant.



Hanzou said:


> Solid display of BJJ takedowns vs striking.



Unfortunately, that is far from a solid display of striking.

Do you know anything about the guys involved - like with regard to what level they're considered to be?


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> I've never come across a JJJ or wrestling system where the goal is to get on top of someone and GNP them into a submission, so I have to believe that the Brazilians developed this on their own



GNP being "ground 'n' pound" I assume?

I'll credit the Brazilians for developing the catchy name.

But considering that back in the 80s we had something that was nothing like a new idea, it was just called "get someone on the floor, sit on them and hit them until they give up".

Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that nobody can be legitimately credited with the idea...


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> But considering that back in the 80s we had something that was nothing like a new idea, it was just called "get someone on the floor, sit on them and hit them until they give up".



Allow me to assure you that, from my own personal experience, this Super Secret Ninja Technique existed at least 20 years before that. 
I suspect this was originally developed by Og (the REAL OG) when he whooped Ug.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> Allow me to assure you that, from my own personal experience, this Super Secret Ninja Technique existed at least 20 years before that.
> I suspect this was originally developed by Og (the REAL OG) when he whooped Ug.



OG Vs. UG?

How long before someone claims they were Orville Gracie and Uriah Gracie - the lesser known ones who weren't so good at coming up with names?



I really think that as far as beating people up goes, there is essentially nothing that hasn't been around for thousands of years - apart from the names and being codified into a system.


----------



## pdg

Additional to above...

It seems to come around regularly that certain techniques are unique to certain arts, and people put quite some effort into proving that a specific type of punch or stance in one art was stolen/inspired by another art, or not.

It's all rubbish.

People have been people for 200,000+ years, and for all that time have shared a common physiology. There's only so much range of movement.

Also in all that time the one consistent aim has been finding new and exciting ways to kill others...

Much like a million monkeys with a million typewriters coming up with the complete works of Shakespeare - what are the chances that there's something that billions of people over hundreds of thousands of years haven't tried already?


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I know it's an older post, but it's still relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is far from a solid display of striking.
> 
> Do you know anything about the guys involved - like with regard to what level they're considered to be?



The guy was a boxer who was taking lessons in Japan with a Bjj instructor. After class the boxer asked to go a few rounds with the BJJ instructor to make sure what he was learning would work against someone trying to punch them.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> GNP being "ground 'n' pound" I assume?
> 
> I'll credit the Brazilians for developing the catchy name.
> 
> But considering that back in the 80s we had something that was nothing like a new idea, it was just called "get someone on the floor, sit on them and hit them until they give up".
> 
> Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that nobody can be legitimately credited with the idea...



Who is "we"?

I was talking about the hierarchy system (offense: takedown, move to positional dominance, submit/defense: recover, guard, move to positional dominance, submit), not the GNP specifically.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Who is "we"?
> 
> I was talking about the hierarchy system (offense: takedown, move to positional dominance, submit/defense: recover, guard, move to positional dominance, submit), not the GNP specifically.



"We" was kids at school having scraps.

And the "hierarchy system" is just putting names to the things people have been doing for aeons - there's an order that works, you can't change it around and expect the same outcome.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> The guy was a boxer who was taking lessons in Japan with a Bjj instructor. After class the boxer asked to go a few rounds with the BJJ instructor to make sure what he was learning would work against someone trying to punch them.



He didn't seem a very skilled boxer.

He was tentative in his movements, he appeared to make very little effort to control range, he left his punches hanging out for far too long (especially that cross, could've grown moss on that).

And being a boxer explains absolutely ignoring any other 'weapon' than the front of the fist.

He was also hampered by wearing boxing gloves.

I really hope you don't consider that a good example of striking.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> "We" was kids at school having scraps.
> 
> And the "hierarchy system" is just putting names to the things people have been doing for aeons - there's an order that works, you can't change it around and expect the same outcome.



Just because you're punching doesn't mean you're doing Boxing.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Just because you're punching doesn't mean you're doing Boxing.



Yep, exactly.

Because in the same fashion - assigning a name doesn't make grabbing someone in a certain way proprietary, or a new invention.

I could say that BJJ was inspired by and developed from playground brawling - and provide plenty of prior art to prove it's true.

It's not directly true though, even though I can prove it...


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Yep, exactly.
> 
> Because in the same fashion - assigning a name doesn't make grabbing someone in a certain way proprietary, or a new invention.



So what point are you trying to make here? That the Brazilians didn't create anything new with Bjj?




pdg said:


> He didn't seem a very skilled boxer.
> 
> He was tentative in his movements, he appeared to make very little effort to control range, he left his punches hanging out for far too long (especially that cross, could've grown moss on that).
> 
> And being a boxer explains absolutely ignoring any other 'weapon' than the front of the fist.
> 
> He was also hampered by wearing boxing gloves.
> 
> I really hope you don't consider that a good example of striking.



Again, so what point are trying to make here? That Bjj is ineffective against skilled strikers? FYI, we have examples of the exact opposite situation.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> So what point are you trying to make here? That the Brazilians didn't create anything new with Bjj?



They certainly created a system. Possibly a new way of looking at things and categorising techniques.

Nothing bad at all in doing that, and they seemed to do it well.

But new grappling? No. No more than boxing created a new way to punch someone in the face, or krav created a new way to kick someone in the nuts.



Hanzou said:


> Again, so what point are trying to make here? That Bjj is ineffective against skilled strikers? FYI, we have examples of the exact opposite situation.



It's always all or nothing with you isn't it? 

Always got to be in agreement or picking an argument...

As the skill of the striker increases, the skill of the BJJer has to also increase commensurately for it to remain effective. Coincidentally, the reverse is also true.

That's what I'm saying.

Posting videos like the one you did as "a solid example" looks a bit like you're trying too hard tbh - put me against a crap boxer and is it evidence that tkd is more effective than boxing? I'd say no, all it's evidence of is that it's possible to find a crap boxer.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> They certainly created a system. Possibly a new way of looking at things and categorising techniques.
> 
> Nothing bad at all in doing that, and they seemed to do it well.
> 
> But new grappling? No. No more than boxing created a new way to punch someone in the face, or krav created a new way to kick someone in the nuts.



I would say that the Guard system they created was certainly a new form of grappling.




> It's always all or nothing with you isn't it?
> 
> Always got to be in agreement or picking an argument...
> 
> As the skill of the striker increases, the skill of the BJJer has to also increase commensurately for it to remain effective. Coincidentally, the reverse is also true.
> 
> That's what I'm saying.
> 
> Posting videos like the one you did as "a solid example" looks a bit like you're trying too hard tbh - put me against a crap boxer and is it evidence that tkd is more effective than boxing? I'd say no, all it's evidence of is that it's possible to find a crap boxer.



Conversely since neither one of us know this guy's skill level, it could also be argued that the Bjj guy was so good that he made a skilled striker look like an amateur.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> I would say that the Guard system they created was certainly a new form of grappling.



I don't know enough about that in particular to say anything either way.



Hanzou said:


> Conversely since neither one of us know this guy's skill level, it could also be argued that the Bjj guy was so good that he made a skilled striker look like an amateur.



I do know enough about striking to confidently state that he was not an accomplished striker at the time of the video.

I don't need to know anything about the individual to be able to say that he was throwing bad punches.


----------



## pdg

I can do a more complete analysis of the striking part of you like?


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I don't know enough about that in particular to say anything either way.



You should read up on it. Closed Guard, Open Guard, Half Guard, Butterfly Guard, etc. Bjj made fighting off your back a possible advantage. In other martial arts and sports, (including wrestling) the fight is over once your back hits the ground.



> I do know enough about striking to confidently state that he was not an accomplished striker at the time of the video.
> 
> I don't need to know anything about the individual to be able to say that he was throwing bad punches.



Well to be fair, neither of those guys were professional. However, if an elite Bjj guy can hold his own or even stomp an elite striker (which has happened enough times to know that it isn't a fluke), then we know that Bjj does just fine against striking. Consider for example Floyd Mayweather, probably the best boxer on the planet. Everyone acknowledges that if he entered MMA he'd be toast, and he has actively avoided MMA fights and has forced his recent opponents to only boxing rules.

Why? Because they know that once he's taken down and has to deal with Bjj the fight is over.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> You should read up on it. Closed Guard, Open Guard, Half Guard, Butterfly Guard, etc. Bjj made fighting off your back a possible advantage. In other martial arts and sports, (including wrestling) the fight is over once your back hits the ground.



I've intended to look into it a bit for a while, but as none of my MA practice is anything other than entertainment it's not a high priority.



Hanzou said:


> Well to be fair, neither of those guys were professional. However, if an elite Bjj guy can hold his own or even stomp an elite striker (which has happened enough times to know that it isn't a fluke), then we know that Bjj does just fine against striking. Consider for example Floyd Mayweather, probably the best boxer on the planet. Everyone acknowledges that if he entered MMA he'd be toast, and he has actively avoided MMA fights and has forced his recent opponents to only boxing rules.
> 
> Why? Because they know that once he's taken down and has to deal with Bjj the fight is over.



I wasn't expecting or specifying a pro level - but competent would be a start...

That Mayweather example? Unfortunately it doesn't hold much weight with me.

It's no surprise he's not that great in MMA, and not simply due to BJJ. He's spent his life training and applying boxing - where he never has to consider 9/10 of what is in MMA upright, let alone on the ground.

Ok, he's a great boxer, he'd no doubt deal with me in seconds.

How many absolutely top flight (like comparatively equal to his level) muay thai fighters has he beaten? Any karate derivative? Anything that is as much full contact as boxing but without the very restrictive rules?


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> I've intended to look into it a bit for a while, but as none of my MA practice is anything other than entertainment it's not a high priority.



To each their own. I find the Guard to be fascinating from a MA perspective.



> I wasn't expecting or specifying a pro level - but competent would be a start...
> 
> That Mayweather example? Unfortunately it doesn't hold much weight with me.
> 
> It's no surprise he's not that great in MMA, and not simply due to BJJ. He's spent his life training and applying boxing - where he never has to consider 9/10 of what is in MMA upright, let alone on the ground.
> 
> Ok, he's a great boxer, he'd no doubt deal with me in seconds.
> 
> How many absolutely top flight (like comparatively equal to his level) muay thai fighters has he beaten? Any karate derivative? Anything that is as much full contact as boxing but without the very restrictive rules?



Well now we're moving goalposts. We weren't talking about striking vs striking, we were talking about striking vs grappling. How he does versus other strikers is rather irrelevant to this conversation. The point is that Maywheather is a phenomenal striker, but he isn't entering a MMA fight because he would get obliterated by the grappling.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Well now we're moving goalposts. We weren't talking about striking vs striking, we were talking about striking vs grappling. How he does versus other strikers is rather irrelevant to this conversation. The point is that Maywheather is a phenomenal striker, but he isn't entering a MMA fight because he would get obliterated by the grappling.



Not really moving them and perfectly relevant imo.

You used him as an example of "a phenomenal striker" - but is he a fully equipped striker?

How is he with elbows, knees and feet? Can he use them or defend against them?

I'd argue that he's a phenomenal puncher - but there's more to striking than punching.

That being the case, it's not a great example to say that a puncher can't deal well with grappling.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> Not really moving them and perfectly relevant imo.
> 
> You used him as an example of "a phenomenal striker" - but is he a fully equipped striker?
> 
> How is he with elbows, knees and feet? Can he use them or defend against them?
> 
> I'd argue that he's a phenomenal puncher - but there's more to striking than punching.
> 
> That being the case, it's not a great example to say that a puncher can't deal well with grappling.



So now Boxers aren't considered effective strikers in your opinion? Mayweather isn't an elite striker in your opinion?

Keep in mind that this entire conversation started because you were criticizing a person's boxing skills. Now the best boxer on the planet is still inadequate for you. That's a textbook example of moving goalposts in an argument.

With that said, the situation with Mayweather applies to other strikers as well. No one enters the octagon without grappling experience. Further, there's been multiple cases where superior strikers were beaten by superior grapplers. Vice versa has also occurred of course, but Mayweather purposely avoiding MMA fights in these crazy exhibition contests is a prime example of what we're talking about.


----------



## TMA17

Yeah Mayweather clearly would never enter the octagon without knowing any grappling.  It’s a must for anyone who enters it.

At the very bottom of the pyramid is grappling and striking then it splinters off into different striking grappling arts.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> So now Boxers aren't considered effective strikers in your opinion? Mayweather isn't an elite striker in your opinion?



They are effective within context.

Mayweather is elite in that context.

There is no evidence that he's particularly elite amongst the wider category of "striker" though.

Therefore, using him (or any boxer) as an example in a "striking Vs grappling" argument is introducing a handicap against the strikers.

But maybe that's the point?



Hanzou said:


> Keep in mind that this entire conversation started because you were criticizing a person's boxing skills. Now the best boxer on the planet is still inadequate for you. That's a textbook example of moving goalposts in an argument.



I didn't find out he was a boxer until after I criticised his overall skill as a striker.

As I said before, discovering he was "a boxer" only explained why he concentrated solely on the front of his fists.

Being a boxer is certainly no reason for a poor show though.

Thing is, boxing has one of the most restrictive sport rulesets available, and pretty much everyone who trains boxing never trains outside of those rules. It's no surprise that when confronted with someone who is good outside of those rules the boxer isn't comfortable.



Hanzou said:


> With that said, the situation with Mayweather applies to other strikers as well. No one enters the octagon without grappling experience. Further, there's been multiple cases where superior strikers were beaten by superior grapplers. Vice versa has also occurred of course, but Mayweather purposely avoiding MMA fights in these crazy exhibition contests is a prime example of what we're talking about.



Of course 'nobody' enters the octagon without grappling knowledge - it's a contest that relies heavily on grappling.

It'd be like entering a boxing match as a wrestler who can't punch.

That said, there are more than a couple of videos showing people being rejected because they can't or won't grapple.

The jury is out as to whether that's because grappling is so much better, or whether the grappling element is what sells tickets...





A while back I did find a few videos where grapplers absolutely got their asses handed to them by strikers - but I won't be trying to find them again, or post them.

Because they contained pretty competent strikers, and pretty crap grapplers. Even I could tell they were crap.

Just like the vid you posted, it was an unbalanced contest - it's just that I won't even attempt to use it as any sort of evidence.


----------



## Hanzou

pdg said:


> They are effective within context.
> 
> Mayweather is elite in that context.
> 
> There is no evidence that he's particularly elite amongst the wider category of "striker" though.
> 
> Therefore, using him (or any boxer) as an example in a "striking Vs grappling" argument is introducing a handicap against the strikers.
> 
> But maybe that's the point?



I would consider an undefeated professional boxer an elite striker in any context. Just like I would consider an Olympic Judoka or a Bjj world champion an elite grappler. I don't think I'm alone in that consideration.




> I didn't find out he was a boxer until after I criticised his overall skill as a striker.
> 
> As I said before, discovering he was "a boxer" only explained why he concentrated solely on the front of his fists.
> 
> Being a boxer is certainly no reason for a poor show though.
> 
> Thing is, boxing has one of the most restrictive sport rulesets available, and pretty much everyone who trains boxing never trains outside of those rules. It's no surprise that when confronted with someone who is good outside of those rules the boxer isn't comfortable.



Here's the thing though; While the rules are restrictive, what they're allowed to do has very wide applications. Which is why many people recommend boxing for general self defense, despite it only teaching you footwork, endurance, and a couple of punches. Colin McGregor operates under a ruleset that allows punches, kicks, elbows, and a myriad of other strikes, but I guarantee you that he wouldn't stay standing with Mayweather, he'd take him to the ground as soon as possible. Pro-level Boxers on their feet punching at you are far too dangerous.



> Of course 'nobody' enters the octagon without grappling knowledge - it's a contest that relies heavily on grappling.



So now we're back to the classic  "MMA favors grapplers" eh? 




> It'd be like entering a boxing match as a wrestler who can't punch.



Yeah, that analogy doesn't make sense. How is a boxer restricted by MMA rules like a wrestler would be restricted by boxing rules?




> A while back I did find a few videos where grapplers absolutely got their asses handed to them by strikers - but I won't be trying to find them again, or post them.
> 
> Because they contained pretty competent strikers, and pretty crap grapplers. Even I could tell they were crap.
> 
> Just like the vid you posted, it was an unbalanced contest - it's just that I won't even attempt to use it as any sort of evidence.



Okay.


----------



## pdg

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that analogy doesn't make sense. How is a boxer restricted by MMA rules like a wrestler would be restricted by boxing rules?



You read it backwards...


----------



## Hanzou

Here's a very cool article about Catch Wrestling and its similarities and differences to BJJ:

Catch Wrestling Vs Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Which Is Better?


----------



## TMA17

That was good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Here's a very cool article about Catch Wrestling and its similarities and differences to BJJ:
> 
> Catch Wrestling Vs Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Which Is Better?


Thanks for posting that. I’m largely unfamiliar with CACC, but where these guys describe te different philosophy about being on the back, the Catch philosophy seems closer to my own approach and preference.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Thanks for posting that. I’m largely unfamiliar with CACC, but where these guys describe te different philosophy about being on the back, the Catch philosophy seems closer to my own approach and preference.



I like their approach to guard escapes and submissions from inferior positions. The great thing is that everything they do is legit in Bjj so you can learn some catch stuff and use it in Bjj rolling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I like their approach to guard escapes and submissions from inferior positions. The great thing is that everything they do is legit in Bjj so you can learn some catch stuff and use it in Bjj rolling.


I’ll have to put catch on my wish list.


----------



## TMA17

I had a nice BJJ class last night at the new place.  I have to go light because of my neck injury.  Signed up for 6 months. The guy i was matched up with was older (late 50's?) and was back after 10 months due to surgery as well LOL.  He was great.  Was helping me a lot and there were only 5 of us so I got solid training.  Even for only doing 2 months worth of BJJ I am always amazed at the control they have over you on the ground.  I have zero grappling background and when facing these guys forget it.  Nothing I can do.  I may do a little Muay Thai in the meantime until I'm fully healed.  I have to go light right now so getting choked out could be a problem if I'm not careful.  All three of the grappling arts whether it be BJJ/Judo or wrestling are awesome.  I wish I had started a lot younger.  My gf's son is 10 and wrestling right now.

My idols growing up were Bruce Lee, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson and other pro boxers. Wrestling to me was WWE with Hulk Hogan.  When my friends in 10th grade brought over the first few UFC fights I was shocked. That changed everything.  Don't get me wrong, striking is a necessity and great too.

The most fun so far though was Judo.  Time, money and location are an issue so I put that aside for now.  I wish there were more Judo/BJJ schools that did both.


----------



## Willzzz

Winning fights.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Willzzz said:


> Winning fights.


That's not a terribly informative reply, nor particularly pertinent to the OP.


----------



## Alan Smithee

Hanzou said:


> It depends on the desires of the head instructor. Some prefer Judo throws, others prefer wrestling, while others prefer old school Gracie takedowns,..



But Gracie school takedowns include judo throws. I just made a thread about it What are the other ones you think are Gracie type? "Bear hug" takedown?


----------



## Alan Smithee

skribs said:


> Probably the three most popular grappling arts (at least in my mind), what is it that each of these specialize in?
> 
> Why would someone want to pick one over the other, if all other factors (location, cost, pedigree of instruction, etc) are equal?
> 
> I know that BJJ has an emphasis on the ground game, but what do Judo and Wrestling do that BJJ doesn't?  What do each of them do that the other doesn't?



Average time spent:

*Judo*: 80% (or more) stand up grappling, 20% ground game grappling.

*BJJ*: 80% (or more) training ground game grappling, 20% stand up grappling. BJJ schools also offer no GI, training. Judo does not

Kosen Judo: similiar to BJJ (but very rare style). Still only GI-training.

As far as grappling is concerned they have pretty much the same content. BJJ is derived from judo. It could have been called Brazilian Judo but it's a better marketing ploy to say Jiujitsu.....Makes it seem less rip-off-ish and more branching off the same tree type...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan Smithee said:


> Average time spent:
> 
> *Judo*: 80% (or more) stand up grappling, 20% ground game grappling.
> 
> *BJJ*: 80% (or more) training ground game grappling, 20% stand up grappling. BJJ schools also offer no GI, training. Judo does not
> 
> Kosen Judo: similiar to BJJ (but very rare style). Still only GI-training.
> 
> As far as grappling is concerned they have pretty much the same content. BJJ is derived from judo. It could have been called Brazilian Judo but it's a better marketing ploy to say Jiujitsu.....Makes it seem less rip-off-ish and more branching off the same tree type...


You missed on a few points in your closing paragraph. BJJ now goes well beyond its Judo roots, in most schools. And the naming has a different origin than you seem to think.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan Smithee said:


> Average time spent:
> 
> *Judo*: 80% (or more) stand up grappling, 20% ground game grappling.
> 
> *BJJ*: 80% (or more) training ground game grappling, 20% stand up grappling. BJJ schools also offer no GI, training. Judo does not
> 
> Kosen Judo: similiar to BJJ (but very rare style). Still only GI-training.
> 
> As far as grappling is concerned they have pretty much the same content. BJJ is derived from judo. It could have been called Brazilian Judo but it's a better marketing ploy to say Jiujitsu.....Makes it seem less rip-off-ish and more branching off the same tree type...



Brazilian Jiujitsu was called Jiujitsu because Judo in the early part of the 20th century (when it was introduced to the Gracie family) was also called Jiujitsu. Maeda left Japan in 1904 when Judo was also still known as Kano Jiu-jitsu;

The Judokai - Kano Jiu-Jitsu

I would also say that Judo and Bjj don't have the same content. For example, I don't think the Guard is commonly taught in Judo. Also Leg Locks and Wrist locks are banned completely in Judo, yet are taught in Bjj because they are legal in competition.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan Smithee said:


> But Gracie school takedowns include judo throws. I just made a thread about it What are the other ones you think are Gracie type? "Bear hug" takedown?



Takedowns from the clinch that were designed to stuff a punching and kicking opponent.


----------



## Alan Smithee

Hanzou said:


> Brazilian Jiujitsu was called Jiujitsu because Judo in the early part of the 20th century (when it was introduced to the Gracie family) was also called Jiujitsu. Maeda left Japan in 1904 when Judo was also still known as Kano Jiu-jitsu;
> 
> The Judokai - Kano Jiu-Jitsu
> 
> I would also say that Judo and Bjj don't have the same content. For example, I don't think the Guard is commonly taught in Judo. Also Leg Locks and Wrist locks are banned completely in Judo, yet are taught in Bjj because they are legal in competition.



Leg locks were also banned in BJJ originally. They are techniques part of Judo as well


----------



## Alan Smithee

gpseymour said:


> You missed on a few points in your closing paragraph. BJJ now goes well beyond its Judo roots, in most schools. And the naming has a different origin than you seem to think.



It does not go "well beyond it's judo roots"  There's a Judo style called Kosen Judo which does the same thing as BJJ, that is an emphasis on the ground game, just ever so  slightly different.


----------



## Hanzou

Alan Smithee said:


> Leg locks were also banned in BJJ originally. They are techniques part of Judo as well



Yes, in the Gracie line, they weren't banned in other lines of Bjj. The Gracies (particularly the Renzo line) had to adapt to them because they were increasingly being used in competition with devastating results. Further, the leg locks currently taught in BJJ were never a part of Judo. The set up and execution are completely different, and Judo's leg locks are pretty primitive in comparison. The entire art of leg locking has evolved significantly in the past 80+ years it's been banned in Judo.

In short, it is laughable to believe that leg locks that fell out of use in Judo almost a century ago are comparable to the constantly improved and evolving leg lock methods found in Bjj and submission grappling in general.


----------



## Alan Smithee

Hanzou said:


> Yes, in the Gracie line, they weren't banned in other lines of Bjj. The Gracies (particularly the Renzo line) had to adapt to them because they were increasingly being used in competition with devastating results. Further, the leg locks currently taught in BJJ were never a part of Judo. The set up and execution are completely different, and Judo's leg locks are pretty primitive in comparison. The entire art of leg locking has evolved significantly in the past 80+ years it's been banned in Judo.
> 
> In short, it is laughable to believe that leg locks that fell out of use in Judo almost a century ago are comparable to the constantly improved and evolving leg lock methods found in Bjj and submission grappling in general.



I doubt they are completely different from Kosen Judo which allows leg locks..


----------



## Hanzou

Alan Smithee said:


> I doubt they are completely different from Kosen Judo which allows leg locks..



There was no guard system within the kosen ruleset, so yes it is completely different. There are entire guards and set ups within BJJ and submission grappling that are completely based around leg locks.


----------



## Alan Smithee

Hanzou said:


> There *was* no guard system within the kosen ruleset, so yes it is completely different. .



Why do you write past tense?  I wrote "doubt they are completely different".


----------



## Hanzou

Alan Smithee said:


> Why do you write past tense?  I wrote "doubt they are completely different".



Because I'm talking about the original Kosen Judo that emerged in the early 20th century. Not the modern Kosen Judo that uses BJJ techniques and methods and is used by Judo instructors to lure gullible people into believing it's the progenitor of Bjj or some such silliness. 

Actual Kosen Judo is just Judo that allows longer newaza. It still had no guard system, and since it followed general Kodokan rules, it banned leglocks from randori practice in the 1920s, just like the rest of Judo did.


----------



## Alan Smithee

Hanzou said:


> Not the modern Kosen Judo that uses BJJ techniques and methods and is used by Judo instructors to lure gullible people into believing it's the progenitor of Bjj or some such silliness.
> .



Haha. Do you have any support for that claim?


----------



## Hanzou

Alan Smithee said:


> Haha. Do you have any support for that claim?


 
I've already supported it. If you're seeing "Kosen Judo" guys using the guard and BJJ transitions, they got it from BJJ, it isn't some lost Judo techniques. Kano himself neutered Kosen Judo in the 1920s because he looked down on newaza. Newaza was pretty much abandoned in Judo for decades because of it.


----------



## Headhunter

nogibjjgear said:


> BJJ is ground fighting and teaches you self defence and teaches you how to get your opponent to submit
> 
> Judo is about throwing throwing your opponent the ground while bjj happens on the ground.
> 
> Wrestling is about taking taking complete control over the opponent to get him to pin and give up!


Wrong there are throws in bjj and there is ground work in judo


----------



## Oily Dragon

lamarclark09 said:


> Bjj more focus on grappling and focus on ground fighting. Judo focuses more on throwing technique and not more focus on fighting on the ground. The goal in wrestling is to take your opponent down and pin them to the ground. The goal in Jiu-Jitsu is to submit your opponent, which you can do from both top and bottom position.


It depends on the school but most traditional Judo schools actually focus on the whole stream from standing grips to ground based submissions via armlock, choke, or just attrition.

The BJJ dudes and dudettes I know are all great no gi standing grapplers too.

Granted they have their differences but it's not this black and white.

And a lot of people cross train both (making me jealous) and the lines become even more blurred.  

I consider the arts practically the same in terms of spirit, even though there's some variation in different people/lineages.  That's normal, also in Kung Fu, FMA, even boxing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Oily Dragon said:


> It depends on the school but most traditional Judo schools actually focus on the whole stream from standing grips to ground based submissions via armlock, choke, or just attrition.
> 
> The BJJ dudes and dudettes I know are all great no gi standing grapplers too.
> 
> Granted they have their differences but it's not this black and white.
> 
> And a lot of people cross train both (making me jealous) and the lines become even more blurred.
> 
> I consider the arts practically the same in terms of spirit, even though there's some variation in different people/lineages.  That's normal, also in Kung Fu, FMA, even boxing.


My understanding is that many Judo schools have followed the trend from Judo competitions, which are much more restrictive regarding ground work. When I trained, we spent a good bit of time on ground work (even working some basic collegiate wrestling scenarios), but that seems to be less the case now, and might not have been the norm even then.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Gerry Seymour said:


> My understanding is that many Judo schools have followed the trend from Judo competitions, which are much more restrictive regarding ground work. When I trained, we spent a good bit of time on ground work (even working some basic collegiate wrestling scenarios), but that seems to be less the case now, and might not have been the norm even then.


YMMV.  I'm starting at a new judo school soon that focuses on a lot of newaza because there's a local BJJ school and they interact and have co op seminars.

And the idea that BJJ schools don' train throws, standing sweeps etc, just look at the 4 billion BJJ throwing videos online.  Every BJJ class I've walked on mat or observed did plenty of throwing drills and sparring on their feet.

I always felt this was a reaction from the fact that early GJJ wins were largely on the ground, BJJ has this rep for being a "ground fighting" art.  It's a lot more comprehensive, IMHO, and the closer to GJJ the better.  I know GJJ guys who are killers, the elevation level of the fight doesn't matter


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Oily Dragon said:


> nd the idea that BJJ schools don' train throws, standing sweeps etc, just look at the 4 billion BJJ throwing videos online. Every BJJ class I've walked on mat or observed did plenty of throwing drills and sparring on their feet.
> 
> I always felt this was a reaction from the fact that early GJJ wins were largely on the ground, BJJ has this rep for being a "ground fighting" art. It's a lot more comprehensive, IMHO, and the closer to GJJ the better. I know GJJ guys who are killers, the elevation level of the fight doesn't matter


Unfortunately, there are plenty of BJJ schools where 90+% of class time is spent on ground work. IMO, the remaining 10% or less of class time spent on standup just isn't enough to develop a significant degree of proficiency in throws and standup skills, at least not for lower ranks. It's by no means a universal phenomenon, but it's not that rare either. (I will say that just about any BJJ black belt I've met has at least functional takedown skills, although sometimes they achieved that through cross training.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Oily Dragon said:


> I consider the arts practically the same in terms of spirit, even though there's some variation in different people/lineages. That's normal, also in Kung Fu, FMA, even boxing.


In my view, BJJ, Judo, Collegiate Wrestling, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, etc ... heck even Shuai Jiao and Sumo ... aren't really separate arts. (At least not from the perspective that views them as martial arts and not just sports or cultural artifacts.) They're all just facets of close quarter grappling, with different cultural flavors and adaptations for different competition rulesets. The same fundamental principles underlie all of them and experience with one will just make you better at the others. Sumo and BJJ are about as far apart as you can get in the grappling arts, and I use my BJJ experience all the time during Sumo practice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Oily Dragon said:


> YMMV.  I'm starting at a new judo school soon that focuses on a lot of newaza because there's a local BJJ school and they interact and have co op seminars.
> 
> And the idea that BJJ schools don' train throws, standing sweeps etc, just look at the 4 billion BJJ throwing videos online.  Every BJJ class I've walked on mat or observed did plenty of throwing drills and sparring on their feet.
> 
> I always felt this was a reaction from the fact that early GJJ wins were largely on the ground, BJJ has this rep for being a "ground fighting" art.  It's a lot more comprehensive, IMHO, and the closer to GJJ the better.  I know GJJ guys who are killers, the elevation level of the fight doesn't matter


I'm glad to hear there are still Judo programs out there spending real time on newaza. The art feels more complete (including in its principles) with solid newaza practice.


----------

