# Questions and Answers on the Dominant Martial Technique



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

Many martial artists, perhaps due to the popularity of UFC, have stated quite often that the dominant martial art in the ring is Brazilian Ju Jitsu, with perhaps wrestling trailing close behind.

So I ask then, if this is true; that there is a dominate martial art or strategy, then how is it when two BJJ warriors enter the ring, one of them loses?


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Many martial artists, perhaps due to the popularity of UFC, have stated quite often that the dominant martial art in the ring is Brazilian Ju Jitsu, with perhaps wrestling trailing close behind.
> 
> So I ask then, if this is true; that there is a dominate martial art or strategy, then how is it when two BJJ warriors enter the ring, one of them loses?



Umm.... well, when two boxers enter the ring, one of them loses also, no? Or when two fencers or two tennis players or chessplayers compete, only one of them can win... presumably one of them is just  _better_ than the other one, no?


----------



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

exile said:


> Umm.... well, when two boxers enter the ring, one of them loses also, no? Or when two fencers or two tennis players or chessplayers compete, only one of them can win... presumably one of them is just  _better_ than the other one, no?



This is true, but then one must question then if it is truly the dominate technique if it cannot defend itself against it's own strategy, no?


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> This is true, but then one must question then if it is truly the dominate technique if it cannot defend itself against it's own strategy, no?



I'm sorry, I don't quite follow the the reasoning here. `It'---BJJ, the fighting system---is not doing _anything_---defending or attacking or whatever. Arts do not fight. Two _practitioners_are doing something---both invoking the general strategic outlook and the tactical repertoire of the art to try to defeat one another. And one of the participants will do that better than the other. Your formulation makes it sound as though the art itself were fighting itself, but again: arts don't fight. People fight. They appeal to the resources of the art, and some do it better than others. 

If I set a very difficult problem in mathematics for two mathematicians to solve, the more talented of the two will solve it faster than the other one, almost certainly. Or to take perhaps a more apt example, all Alpine ski racers use carved turns, steps to take the gates as high as possible so as to minimize the radius of the turn around the gat, and lateral projection of their weight to get on the new turning edge as early as possible in the turn. But only one racer employing these techniques will win any given race. Is there anything different about MMA competition?

(BTW, I'm not taking a position here on whether BJJ is the `dominant' competitive strategy in MA. It may be in MMA competition, which is a very different thing. But that particular point doesn't seem to me to be relevant to your question...)


----------



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

Before we go any further, do you mind if I ask if you are a BJJ competitor or practioner? If no, then what is your art?


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Before we go any further, do you mind if I ask if you are a BJJ competitor or practioner? If no, then what is your art?



My art is Taekwondo. The answer I gave has the same logical status regardless of what my art is, however. Arts don't fight; people fight; the better of two people both employing art X will defeat the fighter less skilled in art X, regardless of what X is, no?


----------



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

Exile, thank you for taking the time to address this issue with me, I have been spinning around this idea in my mind for some time now.




exile said:


> I'm sorry, I don't quite follow the the reasoning here. `It'---BJJ, the fighting system---is not doing _anything_---defending or attacking or whatever.



Yes, but it is the martial strategy behind the warrior, no?





> Arts do not fight.



Well here we are in complete agreement, unless of course you are referring to any martial artists named arthur. 


The art is the strategy, and even though 'arts' cannot fight, for there is no physical entity, only pure idea, there are most certainly conflicting strategies, no?




> Two _practitioners_are doing something---both invoking the general strategic outlook and the tactical repertoire of the art to try to defeat one another.




That's how I see it too, and both claim to have studied competently in what they believe is the dominant martial strategy, yet you appear to point out it's basic flaw.




> And one of the participants will do that better than the other.



How so? What if both are matched in size, speed, strength, and focus? Are you suggesting that it is garunteed that BJJ will fail 50% of the time when fighting with a similar strategy?




> Your formulation makes it sound as though the art itself were fighting itself, but again: arts don't fight.



The arts are fighting when placed into a competive arena with warriors who are attached to the concept of attaining the dominate martial strategy.



> People fight.



 of course your right here, people do fight.




> They appeal to the resources of the art, and some do it better than others.



so perhaps then the resources of BJJ are flawed if they fail 50% of the time in battling a similar strategy, no? 




> If I set a very difficult problem in mathematics for two mathematicians to solve, the more talented of the two will solve it faster than the other one, almost certainly.



Yes, but they are not fighting each other, they are agreeing with each other, I dont see how your comparison helps me here.



> Or to take perhaps a more apt example, all Alpine ski racers use carved turns, steps to take the gates as high as possible so as to minimize the radius of the turn around the gat, and lateral projection of their weight to get on the new turning edge as early as possible in the turn. But only one racer employing these techniques will win any given race. Is there anything different about MMA competition?



Yes, skiers appear to apply the same training techique for speed, turns, and all appear to share the same form, so we say one skier is faster than the other, or one is more graceful, they win due to their unique body centering and skill in movement, but they both succeed into the finish line without hitting or bruising each other.



> (BTW, I'm not taking a position here on whether BJJ is the `dominant' competitive strategy in MA. It may be in MMA competition, which is a very different thing. But that particular point doesn't seem to me to be relevant to your question...)



I am specifically referring to a common perception that BJJ is a dominate strategy. Do you agree that BJJ is a dominate martial strategy?


----------



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

exile said:


> My art is Taekwondo.



Ahhh, so you probably know what I am talking about, the idea that many grapplers put forth, that BJJ is the dominate martial strategy.

Some of them even say that the notion that it is the warrior and not the art respond with what they claim is a fact that if that were true, then why does BJJ dominate UFC and similar style competitions?




> The answer I gave has the same logical status regardless of what my art is, however. Arts don't fight; people fight; the better of two people both employing art X will defeat the fighter less skilled in art X, regardless of what X is, no?




so when faced with a similar strategy, strategy becomes irrelevant and it merely comes down to speed, turning, strength, and agility?


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Yes, but it is the martial strategy behind the warrior, no?
> 
> That's how I see it too, and both claim to have studied competently in what they believe is the dominant martial strategy, yet you appear to point out it's basic flaw.



I'm not pointing out any flaw at all. I'm saying that of two practitioners, the one who is more proficient, who is more competent at executing the techniques of the art, will defeat the one who is less competent. Period. If they are equally competent, then the one in better physical condition will defeat the one in worse physical condition. If they are equally competent and in equally good physical condition, then there will be a draw.






The Tumbleman said:


> How so? What if both are matched in size, speed, strength, and focus? Are you suggesting that it is garunteed that BJJ will fail 50% of the time when fighting with a similar strategy?



First of all, once again, BJJ does not fail, or succeed, when two BJJ fighters compete with each other. One of the fighters is not as good as the other at applying its techniques, and therefore loses to the other fighter's superior skill. Now if they are `matched in size, speed, strength and focus' as in the situation---statistically very unlikely!---that you are imagining here, then either one of the fighters will have better luck, and win, or there will be a draw. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this situation differs from any other where two competitors employing the same method engage in a contest...




The Tumbleman said:


> The arts are fighting when placed into a competive arena with warriors who are attached to the concept of attaining the dominate martial strategy.



An art is an abstract system of idea---strategies, techniques, tactics. As an abstraction, it is no more capable of entering into an athletic competition--throwing or blocking punching or sweeping or suplexing an opponent---than two days of the week are. In the case you're asking about, with two fighters both following the same general approach, there's only a single art involved _anyway_. 



The Tumbleman said:


> so perhaps then the resources of BJJ are flawed if they fail 50% of the time in battling a similar strategy, no?



They don't fail. The practitioner who does not execute them as well as the competitor fails. In a fight between two BJJ competitors, the winner is always a BJJ competitor. So in what sense has BJJ `failed'. 




The Tumbleman said:


> Yes, but they are not fighting each other, they are agreeing with each other, I dont see how your comparison helps me here.



They are fighting each other in the sense that each seeks to practice their art---mathematics---in a fashion superior to the other. Each is doing the same thing, but seeks to do it better, and the better mathematician _will_ do it better---come up with the right answer faster. The BJJ competitors agree with each other two (on their methods), just as the mathematicians agree (on methods). They seek to perform those methods better than each other, just as the competing mathematicians in my example do. 





The Tumbleman said:


> Yes, skiers appear to apply the same training techique for speed, turns, and all appear to share the same form, so we say one skier is faster than the other, or one is more graceful, they win due to their unique body centering and skill in movement, but they both succeed into the finish line without hitting or bruising each other


.

That's because the nature of their contest does not involve hurting or bruising. They are both employing the same technical repertoire and one does it better, and that one wins. Substitute `BJJ' for `Alpine racing' here and nothing changes.




The Tumbleman said:


> I am specifically referring to a common perception that BJJ is a dominate strategy. Do you agree that BJJ is a dominate martial strategy?



I don't see why you think that this second question---whether BJJ is a `dominant martial strategy'---has anything at all to do with the first question---the one, according to your first post, that you are explicitly asking: `why, of two people competing using the same martial strategy/fighting system/martial art, will only one of them win?'  (unless, of course, they draw). If there are a thousand martial arts, and each of those arts sponsors a contest between two competitors, then under the normal rules of competition, only one will win. And as a rule, the one who wins does so because s/he is better. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with the relative ranking of any of these thousand arts with respect to each other. It follows from something very simple:  the better of two competitors playing the same game will win that game.


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> so when faced with a similar strategy, strategy becomes irrelevant and it merely comes down to speed, turning, strength, and agility?



See my previous post. If by `strategy becomes irrelevant' you mean, the question of strategy becomes irrelevant because both are using the same strategy, then yes. `Speed, turning, strength, agility' and, more generally, technical ability decide between the two. 

The question of whether BJJ is superior to any other MA, on the other hand, is the subject of lots of different threads on MT, many of them still ongoing. It would probably be a good idea for you to take a look at some of the current and previous ones---there are dozens of these, actually---to see just why kind of arguments have been put forward pro and con.


----------



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

I am not disagreeing with anything you have written, although I dont think your examples apply here.

I think I understand why what I am suggesting is  not being communicated properly enough yet to assist you in seeing what I mean.

Do you believe there is a dominate martial strategy?


----------



## The Tumbleman (Nov 19, 2006)

exile said:


> See my previous post. If by `strategy becomes irrelevant' you mean, the question of strategy becomes irrelevant because both are using the same strategy, then yes. `Speed, turning, strength, agility' and, more generally, technical ability decide between the two.
> .




so the martial strategy of BJJ fails when an opponent has superior speed, strength, and agility. so it must not be the dominate strategy then, for it's weakness is what every other human beings weakness is in a fight, succumbing to superior strength, speed, and agility.


----------



## still learning (Nov 19, 2006)

Hello, NO two fights will be the same and end the same way. Many fights end with the first punch and other guys is knock-out.

In any fight, the advantages go to the first guy who starts the fight...because the other guy was not expecting an attack at the moment.

Read Lorens christensan point of view of his many views on street fights...lots of fights do not go to the ground.  

Not all street fighters are grapplers too....

Strategy is keep you hand up/ready for anything(not boxing- palms on chest or palms  facing attacker), keep your distance (not in striking range),..Keep your EGO in low gear, be humble and willing to be sorry.

If this fails.....STRIKE FIRST!  Remember your adrenline will kick in...the heart will race..the mind needs to be calm down...try to relax...be on your toes (not flat footed)....trying to be relax and calm...will be the hardest thing to do....BREATH SLOWER, DEEP, and if can thru the nose.

Many fights will have weapons use...beside guns/knives...anything around you can be use against you or against them!  So to think ALL GRAPPLERS will have the advantage is WRONG.  Maybe in the rings and tournments.

Lots UFC,MMA's ends in knock-outs.....

If you can be great in just one art....that is all you may need...be to master in ONE...than a jack of all trades.

Jack never did stay in one art long enough to become a MASTER.

Remember no matter how good you become...if you get hit unexpected? ...how can you defend against this?

Awareness, avoidance, and not being in wrong place...helps you stay out of trouble.

First strike has the advantages...USA Arm forces and every other mulitary strategist knows this.....YOU BETTER KNOW THIS WELL.....Aloha

First in bed...sleeps longer, first to eat..gets fresher foods and more choices, first to work..UM! Not sure about this.....First to find the money on the ground gets to keep it...lastly, first person in line gets to be first!

Being first to the toilet can make a difference!  So when seeing only one toilet left...STRIKE FIRST............Aloha


----------



## Ybot (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Ahhh, so you probably know what I am talking about, the idea that many grapplers put forth, that BJJ is the dominate martial strategy.
> 
> Some of them even say that the notion that it is the warrior and not the art respond with what they claim is a fact that if that were true, then why does BJJ dominate UFC and similar style competitions?
> 
> ...


What I understand is that your not really asking a question, but rather trying to prove that BJJ is not the ultimate art by explaining that when two BJJ practitioners fight one of them will lose, so that means in that case BJJ scores a 50%, which in my past schooling equals an F grade.

First of all, as a BJJ practitioner I will state for the record that I don't believe that BJJ is the end all and be all of all martial arts.  Hell, I won't even say in MMA (and I think you will find that most MMA competitors don't believe so either).  What I will say is that BJJ is a wonderful art for learning submission based grappling, and though it isn't complete in itself, by not being a "complete art" and actually specializing in one range of combat it is a go to art for people who need to add that range to their arsenal.

Okay, that being said, on to your "question".  Theoretically if two BJJ fighters where identical in all aspects (size, technique skill, agility, strength, conditioning, etc) then the match would end in a draw when both fighters pooped out.  But since all things are never equal quite often one will win.  Says nothing about the art, just the differences between the fighters.

Now, the idea that grapplers put forth about winning in fights comes from the fact that plain and simple it is easier for a skilled grappler to take a match to the ground and keep it there against an opponent that has no grappling experience.  Once on the ground, an unexperienced grappler is like a fish out of water so to speak, and the grappler will now have his way with them.

On the reverse end, a trained striker, who has no grappling experience, may find it hard to keep a fight in his range (standing and at striking distance) even against an unskilled opponent.

Of course given enough time at striking range a skilled striker will win a fight, but it takes reasonable amount of grappling to keep it there.  On punch knockouts can happen, but most of the time it won't.


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

Ybot said:


> What I understand is that your not really asking a question, but rather trying to prove that BJJ is not the ultimate art by explaining that when two BJJ practitioners fight one of them will lose, so that means in that case BJJ scores a 50%, which in my past schooling equals an F grade.



Right, and you can't reason that way. Because one of them will also _win_, which assuming both are doing BJJ (or Goju-ryu, or TKD, or Wing Chun, or...) means a 100% success rate for BJJ(or ....), which equals an A, no? So the same outcome yields both an A and an F, which is very close to a situation in which, given certain assumptions, a chain of valid reasoning steps yield both some conclusion and also the negation of that conclusion. When you get to that point, you have a logical contradiction and have to throw out one of the original assumptions. And in this case, the assumption that gets you into trouble is simply that you _can_ make an inference about the value of some skill by observing competition between individuals who are both practitioners of that skill. As soon as you junk that notion, you no longer can assign a grade to the outcome of a contest between the two (who are practicing the same art) and your problem goes away...

If you change the assumption to one in which you can evaluate the value of the _practitioner's_ abilities on the basis of a contest between two exponents of the same skill-set, then the results make perfect sense. If the two split enough contests 50/50, then you can conclude that they're evenly matched. If one wins most of the time, then you can conclude s/he's better.  As long as the results are interpretated as being about the people, no contradiction of any kind arises. When they're taken to be about the single art that both of them are applying, that's when the A/F contradiction arises. So you don't assume that the outcome tells you anything about the art itself, and the paradox/contradiction disappears.


----------



## Kacey (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Do you believe there is a dominate martial strategy?



No, I do not think there is a dominant martial strategy.  Too much of "what works" in a martial art depends on external factors:  size, strength, endurance, flexibility, commitment to practice, drive, determination, etc.  Much of what works in a street fight has little to do with what works in a ring - no matter how loose, all refereed matches have _rules_ of some variety, and the participants know that, if all else fails, medical help is immediately available; street fights lack those two issues.  

What works for me - as a 5'5", 40 year old female - may not be what works for you.  All people pick and choose those techiques out of the art(s) they practice that work for them - in that sense, there are as many arts as there are practitioners.  Certainly, the techniques that work best for me are not the ones that my instructor - who is 6'3", 45, and male - find work best for him - but we both have the same basic techniques at our disposal.  Likewise, my students, who range in age from 11 to 44, and in size from 4'6" to 6'3", of both genders, each have their own techniques that work best for their size, age, and body composition - it is my job as an instructor to help them increase the size of their toolboxes, and to improve their ability to use the tools they have available, and it is their job as students to practice and use those tools _to the best of their individual abilities_.  Even so, people are most likely to practice the parts they enjoy more... and they tend to enjoy the things they do well more than the things they do poorly.  How could one, therefore, say that one particular art is better than another?  There are too many variables.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Some of them even say that the notion that it is the warrior and not the art respond with what they claim is a fact that if that were true, then why does BJJ dominate UFC and similar style competitions?



Because the rules structure favors submission grappling over stand up boxing/kickboxing, and because the BJJ techniques are quickly and easily learned by someone with a different background.




> so when faced with a similar strategy, strategy becomes irrelevant and it merely comes down to speed, turning, strength, and agility?



Yes.  When two people approach any task from a similar standpoint, whether that task is fighting, needlepoint, or baking -- what's going to differentiate them is the individual's talent, ability, and effort.  When two fighters from a similar background with similar experience fight, the winner is going to be the guy that's a little better at applying their principles that day.  Otherwise, you'd just have a perpetual stalemate.  Styles and systems don't fight or compete; individuals use those styles or systems to fight or compete.

I can't help but think you're trying to make something deeper out of the basic fact that, if you require a winner, somebody will win, and it'll be the guy who puts out just a little bit more that day.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> I am not disagreeing with anything you have written, although I dont think your examples apply here.
> 
> I think I understand why what I am suggesting is  not being communicated properly enough yet to assist you in seeing what I mean.
> 
> Do you believe there is a dominate martial strategy?



Define dominant.

If you define dominant as most visible and marketed, where I live, the Korean styles are most dominant.  I don't think you can throw a stone without hitting some sort of Korean martial art school.

If you define dominant as being the most financially successful in public competition -- I think it's probably a toss up between boxing and "entertainment wrestling" at the moment.  

If you define dominant as being most commonly seen in the MMA arena -- I think it's a three way tie, between kickboxing/boxing, wrestling, and BJJ.  MMA have developed their own sets of drills and strategies based on the rules and environment they fight in.  UFC fighters develop strategies for using the fence while fighters in modified boxing rings adapt to that environement.  (Hint...  In a real street fight, you don't want to be rolling around on the ground if you can help it.  There's glass, dirt, and other general crap that change the whole game.)

There is no one perfect/best/ideal system, because everyone is different.  Systems are developed to reflect the needs and environment of the people using them.  If the environment features lots of loose, shifting sand and mud, the style will reflect that in it's stances.  If the people place a high value on doing minimal harm, you'll see that in the system, as well.


----------



## exile (Nov 19, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> so the martial strategy of BJJ fails when an opponent has superior speed, strength, and agility. so it must not be the dominate strategy then, for it's weakness is what every other human beings weakness is in a fight, succumbing to superior strength, speed, and agility.



The strategy does not fail. It gave victory to one of the competitors. What failed was the application of that strategy by the weaker competitor. 

Are you envisaging `strategy' as something which will allow you to win no matter how good you are? That's not a strategy, that's _magic_. 

Look. Suppose I take someone who has had exactly a week of MMA training and put them up against Frank Shamrock. The beginner will, 999 times out of a 1000, lose to FS. The one time in a thousand will be the result of FS having a massive coronary or a stroke very, very early in the event. Now let's consider both cases. Would you say that there's something wrong with the strategy of MMA because it does not allow a complete beginner to defeat one of the great current competitors? Should we expect that for MMA to be genuinely `dominant', whatever that means, it should allow the total beginner and FS to complete on equal terms? Assuming that to be dominant you don't have to ensure magical or supernatural aid, that is?

Now let's take the other case: FS has a catastrophic anatomical event along the lines I suggested earlier. The novice wins. Do you want to say that the fact that FS lost shows anything at all about the quality of the fighting system he employs?

Now in both of these cases, one of the competitors wins and one loses. I really can't imagine anyone looking rationally at the two cases and suggesting that the facts that (i) a world champion beats a complete novice 999 time out of a thousand, or (ii) that the novice wins in the one case in a thousand where the world champion suffers an life-threatening event, says anything at all about the dominance or perfection (or whatever it is we're talking about) of the fighting system both fighters employed. Now imagine that the experienced fighter isn't quite as good as FS, and that the novice has been training a bit longer. You're still going to get a major discrepancy between the number of victories each racks up out of a thousand matches, but maybe the bouts will be a bit longer. At one point the skill level between the two will begin to converge, and their respective shares of the victories will even out. What does this have to do with the quality of the strategy? We've already agreed---haven't we?---that the best possible strategy does not guarantee victory to any particular person who happens to follow it, that that's confusing a strategy with a magic potion. No matter how good a plan is, a faulty execution will lead to a bad result, right?

Really, what else is there to say?


----------



## Robert Lee (Nov 19, 2006)

There have been several points on this matter that gets out a very correct answer. No matter what art or fighting format a person employs It is how well that day that time they were more effective with what they did. Same person differnet day fight could change drasticly. BJJ is a workable useable grappling format. By its self it being exposed in its weak Points now. People have learned to fight aginst its use. We as people adapt and learn. Fighting can be related as a chess game thinking smart doing smart and a strong understanding of the game You have a better odd at winning. Skill aginst skill And we must allways remember for every winner there is a loser in fighting, sports and war. Being prepared And doing your best does not make you the loser Just you are now more aware of your weaker points so you improve those for a next time you are in the same boat.


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 19, 2006)

It's interesting that the champions in four out of the five UFC weight classes are succeeding with striking--Sylvia, Liddell, Silva, and just last night Georges St. Pierre.  Currently it's looking like the dominant approach is excellent striking combined with excellent takedown defense.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> I can't help but think you're trying to make something deeper out of the basic fact that, if you require a winner, somebody will win, and it'll be the guy who puts out just a little bit more that day.


 
I agree with this! I train MMA and to be honest we never intellectulise it as much as you guys. We train to be equally good at all the elements involved in a MMA fight. Tactics will come into it a lot. If your opponent is predominantly a stiker you will aim to take him to the floor and if he's a ground fighter you try to stay standing. We don't train at one thing more than another. The way we see  MMA is as a whole not induvidual arts. We are masters, if you like of MMA not jack of all trades cobbling together different MAs. MMA has a very clear mening here that perhaps you haven't got. We have many promotions runnng shows here so UFC and the Gracies aren't such an influence. There are many dedicated MMA clubs and teams too.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 20, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> So I ask then, if this is true; that there is a dominate martial art or strategy,



Well, as I think some of folks in this thread have said, its not something about total dominance. If you pit a pure good BJJ fighter against a pure good boxer, once it gets on the ground its likely over. With the UFC, competitors realize that most fights go to the ground, so even strikers study a bit of grappling or techniques against grappling (sprawling, how to get back up). You rarely see a striker these days w/out some remedial skill in grappling/grappling defense. I think these days they are weeded out before reaching the big show.

Another aspect is "dominant martial art". Given a certain set of rules, the martial arts that can most easily be adapted to those rules will excel. Given a different set of rules a different art might excel. The strategy will likely be changing too.



> Because the rules structure favors submission grappling over stand up boxing/kickboxing, and because the BJJ techniques are quickly and easily learned by someone with a different background.


Well said!



> It's interesting that the champions in four out of the five UFC weight classes are succeeding with striking--Sylvia, Liddell, Silva, and just last night Georges St. Pierre. Currently it's looking like the dominant approach is excellent striking combined with excellent takedown defense.


Great points. BJJ is not the 100% victory insurance.


----------



## exile (Nov 20, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I agree with this! I train MMA and to be honest we never intellectulise it as much as you guys. We train to be equally good at all the elements involved in a MMA fight. Tactics will come into it a lot. If your opponent is predominantly a stiker you will aim to take him to the floor and if he's a ground fighter you try to stay standing. We don't train at one thing more than another. The way we see  MMA is as a whole not induvidual arts. We are masters, if you like of MMA not jack of all trades cobbling together different MAs. MMA has a very clear mening here that perhaps you haven't got. We have many promotions runnng shows here so UFC and the Gracies aren't such an influence. There are many dedicated MMA clubs and teams too.



I know I wind up sounding like a broken record on this point... but the fact is that before ring-sparring based competition and the `branding' of certain aspects of MA style, the TMAs were pretty mixed as well. Earlier forms of Korean martial arts incorporated elements that we would now look at and think, `Ah, Hapkido', others things that look like TKD or TSD; but basically they were all tools in the fighter's repertoire. Okinawan karate was similarly mixed, with strikes, locks, sweeps, throws and all kinds of other grappling elements... 

I detect in a lot of these discussions a desire that MAists are beginning to express to recover the more `holistic' foundations of their arts---arts which like karate/TKD have become linked to tournament competition using scoring systems which artificially deprive these systems of some of their most effective strategic ideas and tactical resources. I see the emergence of the Abernethy/McCarthy/O'Neil/Anslow/... wing of pattern interpretation as an effort to reinject these neglected elements into the stripped-down versions which are currently taught. It's not so much a matter of intellectualizing the MAs as trying to find a way to see them and talk about them that helps connect to their earlier, more versatile and more robust fighting content...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2006)

We just like fighting ....lol!


----------



## MJS (Nov 20, 2006)

Mod Note

Thread moved to Grappling.

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod


----------



## Rook (Nov 22, 2006)

I would challenge you to find any martial art that could win against itself more than 50% of the time.  What is more useful is to judge how it does against OTHER martial arts.


----------



## thewhitemikevick (Nov 22, 2006)

The Tumbleman said:


> Many martial artists, perhaps due to the popularity of UFC, have stated quite often that the dominant martial art in the ring is Brazilian Ju Jitsu, with perhaps wrestling trailing close behind.
> 
> So I ask then, if this is true; that there is a dominate martial art or strategy, then how is it when two BJJ warriors enter the ring, one of them loses?


 
The idea you present is an interesting one...it's a different way of looking at it, I suppose. If BJJ is the dominant martial art, and provides the fighters with techniques that are superior, then one would have to assume that if two BJJ masters entered the ring to fight one another, they would be stalemated...they could not possibly overcome one another, because both of their technique would be "perfect".

It's an interesting idea I guess...but you have to look at the idea that BJJ is the dominant martial art in MMA in more of a realistic perspective, rather than a philisophical one. See, you are taking that statement "BJJ is superior" or whatever and examining it in something like a philisophical sense...but life isn't philisophy. Life can't be defined. And a fight, most certainly cannot be defined or predicted. One always has a strategy that they want to employ in the fight, and they'll implement it into the fight as much as they can, but it's not as though the tactics that they preconceived, even if practiced for years in advance, are guranteed to work the way they envisioned them to. In fact, it's more likely that they are guranteed NOT to work the way they envisioned them to. Fights are unpredictable. They happen the way they want to happen, and while you can factor in your fighting style to try and dictate the way the fight will happen, the fact remains that things just happen differently sometimes. It's not like a computer program...it's not: BJJ = Perfection, therefore BJJ + BJJ = draw. I do not believe that styles make fighters...I believe that fighters make styles. BJJ was developed by PEOPLE. Just as was Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fu, Akido, Hapkido, Karate, Ninjitsu, Boxing, Wrestling, or any of it! These martial arts were created by people. By men. By Women. A style can HELP to define a fighter...it can help to shape him into what he is, or what he will become. But it doesn't create him. 

BJJ is not perfect by any means. No ONE martial art is. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. There are martial arts that are different than others...maybe some martial arts are better than others...but I've yet to see a martial art that is anything close to "perfection". If I had, then I wouldn't be cross-training. What of the Gracies? Where was this "perfect" martial art when they were all defeated by Sakuraba, a fighter who showed that a rounded fighter can beat a master of a single martial art (no offense intended there, because I'm a HUGE Gracie fan, I was just using that as an example is all)

What I'm trying to say is that Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu isn't perfect. Styles aren't perfect. Fighters aren't perfect. There's always gaps, always holes in techniques, and always weak spots. As martial artists, we are driven to go back again and again to try and perfect these hollow points in our style, but the fact remains that we will never perfect them. I know I never will. We work towards perfection. But it's just that. Work. And we will work and work for the rest of our lives to try and complete ourselves as a fighter. And you know, even if one of us could reach "perfection", it wouldn'y truly be perfection, because as figthers we just can't quit working, and so we'd keep on going to try and exceed even that. Nothing's ever perfect. Not for us.

When two fighters enter a ring, one wins, and one loses. I don't believe in draws. And even in UFC, there ARE draws. But you've got to realize, no matter how perfect your technique is in your dojo, when you step into the ring, perfection is NOTHING. Everything changes. BJJ isn't an invention of god. It's an invention of man. It's a wonderful martial art that I enjoy practicing very much, but not all fighters are the same. Don't be so quick to judge. The same two fighters can be put into the ring with one another a hundred different times, and the fight can go a hundred different ways. One will beat the other, or it will be a draw. That's the only thing that's really guranteed. The rest is up to the guys that go between the ropes (or the cage.)


----------



## Carol (Nov 22, 2006)

There is also a mental portion to BJJ.  There is so much contact with the opponent's body that it becomes a kinaesthetic chess match where each fighter thinks not 3 moves ahead.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Nov 24, 2006)

BJJ has such a good reputation because since its introduction to the world, people with good jujitsu have continually demonstrated themselves to be better, more well rounded fighters than those without.  Its really that simple.  In the beginning of MMA, the fighters who understood how to roll, Royce Gracie, etc. dominated the competition because once a fight went to the ground, most fighters just had no idea what to do.  The smart fighters quickly learned that a good MMA fighter has to know what they are doing on the ground.  BJJ teaches you how to fight from your back, protect yourself on the ground, get submissions, beat a stronger opponent, etc. it is just the most extensive ground system, so its a really good art to train if you want to be effective on the ground.  I don't think anybody thinks its a complete system, takedowns are weak in BJJ, and there's no striking, strictly speaking, so no one is saying its the end all be all.  But you pretty much have to have a good understanding of it if you want to be a decent fighter, regerdless of whether you are primarily a striker or a grappler.


----------

