# Why does MMA count as an own martial art now ?



## JohnnyEnglish

I mean, they take techniques from other martial arts like Jiu-Jitsu,Kickboxing,Karate,Taekwondo,Muay-Thai and use them to bring down the opponent, to continue beating him/her when he/her is already on the ground. Where is this an own martial art ? This is more likely combined use of martial arts and abusing them.

I am a big fan of full contact in martial arts like kickboxing,boxing or even Karate, but I think all the " borders " are crossed when you hit somebody who is already on the ground, this has nothing to do with martial arts, this is just having a dirty fight with someone.

So how did it happen that we call MMA an own martial art now ?


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I mean, they take techniques from other martial arts like Jiu-Jitsu,Kickboxing,Karate,Taekwondo,Muay-Thai and use them to bring down the opponent, to continue beating him/her when he/her is already on the ground. Where is this an own martial art ? This is more likely combined use of martial arts and abusing them.
> 
> I am a big fan of full contact in martial arts like kickboxing,boxing or even Karate, but I think all the " borders " are crossed when you hit somebody who is already on the ground, this has nothing to do with martial arts, this is just having a dirty fight with someone.
> 
> So how did it happen that we call MMA an own martial art now ?




I really think you don't understand MMA at all if you think it's a continued beating when on the floor. Far from being an abuse it's more like physical chess. it's hardly a 'new' martial art either, as most know it was practised as Pankration in ancient Greek times and many consider JKD to be the first modern MMA.
I'd suggest learning about MMA first before making  rather unconsidered criticisms of it, unless you are looking to troll?


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tez3 said:


> I really think you don't understand MMA at all if you think it's a continued beating when on the floor. Far from being an abuse it's more like physical chess. it's hardly a 'new' martial art either, as most know it was practised as Pankration in ancient Greek times and many consider JKD to be the first modern MMA.
> I'd suggest learning about MMA first before making  rather unconsidered criticisms of it, unless you are looking to troll?



Do you seriously want to compare Pankration with glove wearing people who continue beating when somebody is on the ground but also include TKO ? lololol ?

I watched enough MMA fights to build an own opinion about it, my opinion towards MMA is more negative than positive, which does not mean I don't know anything about it.

I can show you plenty of videos where an opponent lays on the ground and still get's his teeth beaten out his face. And sorry, but this is not how I was raised, from childhood on, I was tought, NEVER hit somebody who is already on the ground! This is a rule I would follow in a street fight and a rule I will for sure also follow in a competition.

From what I've learned about ancient Pankration, it is really too brutal to make a comparison to modern MMA, at least in a competition. As much as they beat the stuffing out of eachother, I seriously dought modern MMA fighters want to KILL eachother like the practitioners of ancient Pankration.

If you compare todays pankration to MMA, there is a good similarity, sure!


+ I have a similar opinion about modern pankration as about modern MMA.


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Do you seriously want to compare Pankration with glove wearing people who continue beating when somebody is on the ground but also include TKO ? lololol ?
> 
> I watched enough MMA fights to build an own opinion about it, my opinion towards MMA is more negative than positive, which does not mean I don't know anything about it.
> 
> I can show you plenty of videos where an opponent lays on the ground and still get's his teeth beaten out his face.
> 
> From what I've learned about ancient Pankration, it is really too brutal to make a comparison to modern MMA, at least in a competition. As much as they beat the stuffing out of eachother, I seriously dought modern MMA fighters want to KILL eachother like the practitioners of ancient Pankration.
> 
> If you compare todays pankration to MMA, there is a good similarity, sure!
> 
> 
> + I have a similar opinion about modern pankration as about modern MMA.




I would suggest you know very little about MMA, I don't think you know the rules or how the refs work here, I don't know any ref in this country that would allow someone to be 'beaten up' while defenceless, in fact the rules say that a fight must be stopped when a fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. I also think you know little about BJJ/Judo/Grappling because if you did you would know that you are not defenceless when on the ground, not even when you are on your back.

Pleas post these videos that show these fighters being beaten up.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tez3 said:


> I would suggest you know very little about MMA, I don't think you know the rules or how the refs work here, I don't know any ref in this country that would allow someone to be 'beaten up' while defenceless, in fact the rules say that a fight must be stopped when a fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. I also think you know little about BJJ/Judo/Grappling because if you did you would know that you are not defenceless when on the ground, not even when you are on your back.
> 
> Pleas post these videos that show these fighters being beaten up.



There you go.

Check this one, the guy goes to the ground and the other follows to beat his laying opponent in to the face.






Or this one.






There are plent more, just have a look by yourself.


----------



## Tez3

For goodness sake they aren't defenceless you have totally misunderstood what is going on! You do know that part of MMA is ground fighting right?


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tez3 said:


> For goodness sake they aren't defenceless you have totally misunderstood what is going on! You do know that part of MMA is ground fighting right?



Haha, I totally know what is going on, and I for sure know that a part is GROUND FIGHTING. If this is how you would like to call it. It also is not about defenseless, I've never said that. I only said I was raised to NOT beat somebody on the ground, you always let stand up your opponent to continue the fight. For sure it would be different in Judo or Jiu-Jitsu. But to beat somebody who is below you, wheter it is sitting or laying, does not matter. It is honorless and dirty to do so, and I refuse to call MMA a martial art or even a sport.

This is my opinion. Which I don't will change. I guess I am too old school for MMA.


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Haha, I totally know what is going on, and I for sure know that a part is GROUND FIGHTING. If this is how you would like to call it. It also is not about defenseless, I've never said that. I only said I was raised to NOT beat somebody on the ground, you always let stand up your opponent to continue the fight. For sure it would be different in Judo or Jiu-Jitsu. But to beat somebody who is below you, wheter it is sitting or laying, does not matter. It is honorless and dirty to do so, and I refuse to call MMA a martial art or even a sport.
> 
> This is my opinion. Which I don't will change. I guess I am too old school for MMA.




Bollocks, that's complete nonsense, you have no understanding of it and are making completely ignorant criticisms... you don't have to like it but really you shouldn't make such sweeping assumptions about something you really don't know much about.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tez3 said:


> Bollocks, that's complete nonsense, you have no understanding of it and are making completely ignorant criticisms... you don't have to like it but really you shouldn't make such sweeping assumptions about something you really don't know much about.



Why is it an assumption if I think somebody who is getting beaten while being on the ground is not a correct style of fighting as a sport ? There is not much more to understand and to say, I guess you are a MMA fighter, this is why you might feel a bit insulted or offended by my thread. But this is simply what I think about MMA.

I think MMA would be quiet a good thing, even if they would continue on the ground with Judo,Jiu-Jitsu or how you guys in MMA call it, Grappling! But to punch somebody in the face who is already on the ground, is a NO GO !


But sure, I know nothing about MMA, coming from a guy who just compared Pankration with MMA  

However, no offense, I am lucky that we are done here, there is not much more to say about it.


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Why is it an assumption if I think somebody who is getting beaten while being on the ground is not a correct style of fighting as a sport ? There is not much more to understand and to say, I guess you are a MMA fighter, this is why you might feel a bit insulted or offended by my thread. But this is simply what I think about MMA.
> 
> I think MMA would be quiet a good thing, even if they would continue on the ground with Judo,Jiu-Jitsu or how you guys in MMA call it, Grappling! But to punch somebody in the face who is already on the ground, is a NO GO !
> 
> 
> But sure, I know nothing about MMA, coming from a guy who just compared Pankration with MMA
> 
> However, no offense, I am lucky that we are done here, there is not much more to say about it.




Actually no all fights have punching to the face on the ground or standing up so I'm guessing you didn't know that. I'm a karateka ( I also train other styles) who also does MMA, yes, I ref, coach, corner and judge and I still say you don't understand what MMA.

I take it then when you have to fight in self defence you will be fighting by kick boxing rules then?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

1) There is still debate over whether MMA should be considered a martial art or just a competition format. Arguments for the latter point out that practitioners come form different backgrounds and are still adding techniques and tactics from other arts on a regular basis. Arguments for the former point out that over the last couple of decades practitioners have started to develop a cohesive set of fundamental techniques and training methodologies.

2) Just about all martial arts derive their techniques from earlier arts, so that's not any sort of argument against MMA being a martial art.

3) You seem to be under the impression that something is a martial art only if it fits within a certain sort of fight etiquette that you learned growing up. This is *far* from the case. For the most part, martial arts have their origins in learning how to win fights (within a certain context, depending on the art). Winning can involve a lot of things that you were probably told not to do as a kid. Heck, Araki Ryu has a kata devoted to assassinating someone with a knife while serving them tea!

4) Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, if you are trying to hurt me and I get you on the ground, I will feel no particular urge to allow you to get back to your feet and attack me again. Likewise, if an attacker puts me on the ground I am under no illusion that they are going to stop attacking me. (Fortunately I am far from helpless in that situation.)

5) If someone knocks my teeth in or knocks me out, I don't really care if they do it standing up or on the ground. I could understand if you disapproved of full-contact competition in general due to the potential damage the fighters may endure. If you only disapprove of knockouts in one position but not another, that says more about your own particular cultural taboos than the status of MMA as a martial art.

6) Ground fighting is just one aspect of MMA, but it's one of the most technically complex aspects. If you educate your eye to understand what's going on, you'll get a lot more out of it.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tez3 said:


> Actually no all fights have punching to the face on the ground or standing up so I'm guessing you didn't know that. I'm a karateka ( I also train other styles) who also does MMA, yes, I ref, coach, corner and judge and I still say you don't understand what MMA.
> 
> I take it then when you have to fight in self defence you will be fighting by kick boxing rules then?



It's nice that you think I have no clue, but please stop trying to turn around what I was saying !! I was never talking about SELF-DEFENCE, I was talking about MMA as a sport!


But to answer your question: In a self-defence situation, I also would not punch or kick somebody in the face who is already laying on the ground, even if this person is not knocked out and will stand up in 2-3 seconds, I still would not jump at him and punch him in the face. It's a NO GO, as already mentioned.

I think this discussion is getting nowhere. Have a nice evening though!


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> It's nice that you think I have no clue, but please stop trying to turn around what I was saying !! I was never talking about SELF-DEFENCE, I was talking about MMA as a sport!
> 
> 
> But to answer your question: In a self-defence situation, I also would not punch or kick somebody in the face who is already laying on the ground, even if this person is not knocked out and will stand up in 2-3 seconds, I still would not jump at him and punch him in the face. It's a NO GO, as already mentioned.
> 
> I think this discussion is getting nowhere. Have a nice evening though!




Sadly you cannot start a thread and decide who answers and when, the first you don't understand is that fighters aren't throwing someone on the ground and beating them up, that is not allowed, both fighters strike while on the floor, it is not allowed to strike a fighter on the floor who cannot defend themselves so yes you are wrong. Both fighters have to be able to defend themselves, I have seen a standing fighter KO'd by a kick from a fighter on the floor, I've seen plenty of fighters win from their back as well.
Please read the rules Rules and Regulations - Unified Rules and Other MMA Regulations


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JohnnyEnglish said:


> It's nice that you think I have no clue, but please stop trying to turn around what I was saying !! I was never talking about SELF-DEFENCE, I was talking about MMA as a sport!
> 
> 
> But to answer your question: In a self-defence situation, I also would not punch or kick somebody in the face who is already laying on the ground, even if this person is not knocked out and will stand up in 2-3 seconds, I still would not jump at him and punch him in the face. It's a NO GO, as already mentioned.
> 
> I think this discussion is getting nowhere. Have a nice evening though!


You can debate what behaviors you think are proper for a sport if you like, but I thought you started this thread to discuss the status of MMA as a martial art?

It's nice that you won't hit somebody on the ground even in a self-defense scenario. I'm sure that anybody you might get into a street fight with will appreciate it. One question though - do you really think that if you are attacked and knocked down that your attackers will offer you that same courtesy? If not, do you have a plan to deal with someone attacking you while you are on the ground? If you do have techniques for defending yourself in that situation, how do you train them to the point where you can count on them? I ask, because if you _are_ training for that eventuality, it might look surprisingly like ... MMA.


----------



## marques

MMA is more a combat sport (that combines MA). 
_MMA martial arts_ have other names like Sambo or Gaidojutsu...
And ground fight [1] or dirty fight [2], is so technical [1] or martial [2] as other ways, if not more. 
But dirty fight is not sport.


----------



## Andrew Green

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I mean, they take techniques from other martial arts like Jiu-Jitsu,Kickboxing,Karate,Taekwondo,Muay-Thai and use them to bring down the opponent, to continue beating him/her when he/her is already on the ground. Where is this an own martial art ? This is more likely combined use of martial arts and abusing them.
> 
> I am a big fan of full contact in martial arts like kickboxing,boxing or even Karate, but I think all the " borders " are crossed when you hit somebody who is already on the ground, this has nothing to do with martial arts, this is just having a dirty fight with someone.
> 
> So how did it happen that we call MMA an own martial art now ?



Pretty much all martial arts are a combination of things that came from various sources that predate it.  Karate is Kung Fu + Te, Tae Kwon Do is Karate + Tae Kyon.  Judo is a blend of Jujitsu styles, etc.

You seem to be boiling it all down to a personal stigma against hitting someone while they are down.  That's just your belief and has no real basis in anything outside of opinion though.  In some cultures it is extremely rude to kick a person... so are all arts that have kicking considered non-martial arts as a result?  Some deal with empty hand vs weapons... that's certainly not good sportsmanship.

Have you looked into the origins of that stigma about hitting someone when they are down?  It's certainly not grounded in self-defence or military, which is where pretty much all "traditional" arts trace back too.  In a "real" situation if you have the opportunity to end it and don't you are taking one big unnecessary risk.  Sportsmanship rules like that only apply to sport, and the rules of the sport govern the rules.  Strikes on the ground in MMA is something you feel about in the same way a boxer might feel about kicks or using a weapon.  Doesn't mean using kicks or weapons is unsportsmanlike in all contexts.   I imagine a fencer might think punching your opponent in the face is rather unsportsmanlike, even a standing opponent.


----------



## Danny T

JohnnyEnglish - what is your take on Kickboxing type of competitions vs mma type?
In every example you showed when the fighter was unable to intelligently defend themselves the fight was stopped and the fight was over. Does this happen in kickboxing type of competitions or is the contest stopped for a moment allowing the fighter to regain their wits even though they may be badly hurt and then allowed to continue to fight and cause more serious damage?
What are you defining as Martial Art? Do you feel 'all' martial arts follow the same codes and sense of fairness and moralities?


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tony Dismukes said:


> You can debate what behaviors you think are proper for a sport if you like, but I thought you started this thread to discuss the status of MMA as a martial art?
> 
> It's nice that you won't hit somebody on the ground even in a self-defense scenario. I'm sure that anybody you might get into a street fight with will appreciate it. One question though - do you really think that if you are attacked and knocked down that your attackers will offer you that same courtesy? If not, do you have a plan to deal with someone attacking you while you are on the ground? If you do have techniques for defending yourself in that situation, how do you train them to the point where you can count on them? I ask, because if you _are_ training for that eventuality, it might look surprisingly like ... MMA.



I know that the attacker would not care about me being on the ground, as I said, it's a real life situation without rules.

I would probably aim for weapoints like Neck,Solarplexus,Nuts,Mouth to knock the attacker out straight away. If for some reason he would bring me on to the ground, I would do everything to get him n a choke, to knock him out this way. If he get's knocked to the ground, I would not jump on him though, I would wait until he stands up. SURE this looks much different if this person is seriously trying to kill me, in this case I would do everything possible to rescue my life.

But I don't know what this has to do with MMA ? MMA is a fightsport and not meant to be for self-defense, since you don't learn critical techniques in MMA like you learn for example in Krav-Maga, it is just a simple and dumb brawl with people watching you, that's all.


----------



## Hyoho

Doesn't that big M at the beginning stand for mixed? I would have thought the last letter 'A' standing for art is even questionable.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Hyoho said:


> Doesn't that big M at the beginning stand for mixed? I would have thought the last letter 'A' standing for art is even questionable.



I just don't understand how some uncontrolled respectless fighting like MMA can be called an own martial art, + as you already mentioned, MIXED martial arts, there are many different martial arts in it, only because you mix something up, does not mean you create a complete new and own system. Since I can't see much of a system in MMA. SURE, we all know the kicks and punches they use, we also know where they are coming from..and for sure we know the grappling techniques they use from certain martial arts, Jiu-Jitsu,Judo and more. But only because you add some champaign to your coke, doesn't make it champaign, do you know what I mean ?


----------



## Danny T

JohnnyEnglish said:


> ...since you don't learn critical techniques in MMA...,


Thank you for your opinion. Which is just an opinion. Unfortunately you are not quite correct in your opinion that one doesn't learn critical techniques or applications. To be a good sport fighter one must learn and be able to apply critical actions.



JohnnyEnglish said:


> ...it is just a simple and dumb brawl with people watching you, that's all.


This statement shows you do not understand the what is happening therefore do not appreciate what the fighters go through in training and practice mentally as well as physically to prepare for competition.


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I just don't understand how some uncontrolled respectless fighting like MMA can be called an own martial art, + as you already mentioned, MIXED martial arts, there are many different martial arts in it, only because you mix something up, does not mean you create a complete new and own system. Since I can't see much of a system in MMA. SURE, we all know the kicks and punches they use, we also know where they are coming from..and for sure we know the grappling techniques they use from certain martial arts, Jiu-Jitsu,Judo and more. But only because you add some champaign to your coke, doesn't make it champaign, do you know what I mean ?


What makes you think there is no respect in the fights? Do you know any fighters, coaches etc? All this is down to your own dislike of something you haven't taken the effort to understand. Boxing is actually more brutal, you can be knocked out but continue if you come around and 'beat' the count, it can happen more than once in a fight as well. The boxers sole aim is to KO his opponent whereas in MMA, if you are KOd there is no count because you are out, you don't continue in a dazed or damaged state. In MMA a KO isn't necessary, you aren't looking to beat your opponents head into a pulp but to get a submission, most KOs in MMA are technical ones where the ref has stopped the fight which in any case is always shorter than boxing bouts. 
  There is a high standard of sportsmanship in MMA most fighters are from what is called a traditional background, respect for each other is common. There is trash talk encouraged by some promoters of course but there is in boxing and others sports, if there's a commercial gain to be made someone will use it. 
None of what we learn in any martial art is nice, it's all designed to hurt, maim and even kill. None of it is honourable or pleasant, it can't be if it is to be effective. We as the practitioners make ourselves respectful and honourable and I can assure you that MMAers are no different in that respect. There are the fanboys of course but then there are also the kick boxing ones, the BJJ ones etc etc. However you don't judge a style or sport by them.
Would I be correct in thinking that you also don't like women fighting? That attitude usually goes with your type of thoughts on MMA.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Danny T said:


> Thank you for your opinion. Which is just an opinion. Unfortunately you are not quite correct in your opinion that one doesn't learn critical techniques or applications. To be a good sport fighter one must learn and be able to apply critical actions.
> 
> 
> This statement shows you do not understand the what is happening therefore do not appreciate what the fighters go through in training and practice mentally as well as physically to prepare for competition.



I didn't know that you learn hits to the neck, backbone-twisters and eyeknocks in MMA, because this is usually a thing you can only find in martial arts like Karate,Kung-Fu or Gjogsul.

I don't respect people who train hard for competitions where opponents get beaten when on the ground, I do not accept the whole MMA-scene as a sport. It's a plain brawl leaded by some lads who mixed certain martial arts together to abuse them as good as they could.

This is all what I am having to say about it. MMA is not for self-defense and MMA is not a " clean " fightsport either, take the term " sport " away and there you go.

If it helps you, I was actually fighting and training in a MMA club for a couple of months, but it still did not change my opinion, all you are getting trained in is to hurt and bring down the opponent as soon as possible, only to continue the beating when he is already on the ground so he is not able to stand up anymore.

When I am going in to a competition, where hands and arms are used, I don't want a plain brawl using some muay-thai kicks and still beating my already beat down opponent just because he is still able to move and might stand up again.

MMA is against all my moralic believes.


----------



## Tez3

You know I don't think you understand martial arts at all. All the techniques come from the traditional style. In Wado Ryu we are taught techniques to take someone down and when they are down axe kick them to the body or head. We are taught how to break limbs, noses, collar bones, strike to the liver, kidneys, gouge, strike to the throat and much more. Actually most of that is banned in MMA comps!
Your lack of knowledge if martial arts both withstanding whatever training you may have been had is leading you to make judgements that are flawed. As I said before you don't have to like MMA but before making pronouncements which amount to severe style bashing something not allowed here by the way, you really need to learn more about martial arts in general.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I just don't understand how some uncontrolled respectless fighting like MMA can be called an own martial art



A few fallacies in that sentence:

1) MMA fighting is not uncontrolled
2) Neither is it "respectless". There are certainly individual competitors who are disrespectful, but on average I see as much respect from MMA practitioners as from any other style of martial arts. To be sure, there's a lot less _formality_ in MMA, but formalities are not the same as respect.
3) In any case, like it or not, respect is not required as part of the definition of a martial art. It's certainly a good thing for martial artists (and others) to have and many martial arts instructors and organizations claim it as an important ideal, but it's not the thing that makes a martial art a martial art.



JohnnyEnglish said:


> there are many different martial arts in it, only because you mix something up, does not mean you create a complete new and own system



Very true. On the other hand, mixing up elements from prior systems doesn't mean you _haven't_ created a new system either. It comes down to what you've done with those elements - have you created a cohesive set of principles, training methods, and techniques? I think you can make a decent argument that the practitioners of MMA have done so or are in the process of doing so.



JohnnyEnglish said:


> Since I can't see much of a system in MMA.



Yeah ... that pretty much comes down to the limitations of your experience and perceptions.



JohnnyEnglish said:


> it is just a simple and dumb brawl with people watching you, that's all.



Simple ... not really. There's a lot going on in high level MMA competition on technical, tactical, and strategic levels.

Dumb ... I suppose that depends on what you mean. If it's just a simple pejorative indicating that you don't like it, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. If you mean that the fighters aren't highly skilled and knowledgeable martial artists, then you  are sorely mistaken.


----------



## Danny T

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I didn't know that you learn hits to the neck, backbone-twisters and eyeknocks in MMA, because this is usually a thing you can only find in martial arts like Karate,Kung-Fu or Gjogsul.
> 
> I don't respect people who train hard for competitions where opponents get beaten when on the ground, I do not accept the whole MMA-scene as a sport. It's a plain brawl leaded by some lads who mixed certain martial arts together to abuse them as good as they could.
> 
> This is all what I am having to say about it. MMA is not for self-defense and MMA is not a " clean " fightsport either, take the term " sport " away and there you go.
> 
> If it helps you, I was actually fighting and training in a MMA club for a couple of months, but it still did not change my opinion, all you are getting trained in is to hurt and bring down the opponent as soon as possible, only to continue the beating when he is already on the ground so he is not able to stand up anymore.
> 
> When I am going in to a competition, where hands and arms are used, I don't want a plain brawl using some muay-thai kicks and still beating my already beat down opponent just because he is still able to move and might stand up again.
> 
> MMA is against all my moralic believes.


Hits to the neck - yes.
Back-twisters - yes (have you ever heard of the twister?)
Eyeknocks - not familar with this term but if it means hitting the eye - yes (eye jabs are illegal but are used by some)



Tony Dismukes said:


> A few fallacies in that sentence:
> 
> 1) MMA fighting is not uncontrolled
> 2) Neither is it "respectless". There are certainly individual competitors who are disrespectful, but on average I see as much respect from MMA practitioners as from any other style of martial arts. To be sure, there's a lot less _formality_ in MMA, but formalities are not the same as respect.
> 3) In any case, like it or not, respect is not required as part of the definition of a martial art. It's certainly a good thing for martial artists (and others) to have and many martial arts instructors and organizations claim it as an important ideal, but it's not the thing that makes a martial art a martial art.
> ...
> If you mean that the fighters aren't highly skilled and knowledgeable martial artists, then you  are sorely mistaken.



As to respect; I've witness fall more respect in the MMA circles than in a lot of the 'martial arts competitions/tournaments I've been to over the years. (lying about rank to compete at a lower rank just to win, lying about contact or lack of contact, worse is winning a event and bragging about winning vs no competition in ones division.) A lot of respect there.

What most who do not know or understand is the selling of the show is not what most fighter are about. That is Show selling. All the trash talking, all the getting in each other's face is selling. The face off is Selling the Show, some like it but most don't they do it because that is a part of the job. Yes, a few act badly and aren't respectful but they are in the minority.

Most high level MMA fighters are Martial Artists and are high level practitioners in more than one art. Many are ranked high in multiple arts and continue to train in them. 

In our training center 'all' of our fighters must train in Muay Thai, Combat Submission Wrestling, and at least one other art. We do not just train and fight with a hodge podge assortment of punching, kicking, and ground n pound. Neither does most all of the mma gyms I've visited.


----------



## drop bear

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I just don't understand how some uncontrolled respectless fighting like MMA can be called an own martial art, + as you already mentioned, MIXED martial arts, there are many different martial arts in it, only because you mix something up, does not mean you create a complete new and own system. Since I can't see much of a system in MMA. SURE, we all know the kicks and punches they use, we also know where they are coming from..and for sure we know the grappling techniques they use from certain martial arts, Jiu-Jitsu,Judo and more. But only because you add some champaign to your coke, doesn't make it champaign, do you know what I mean ?



Ok. If I make a cake. Is it considered a cake or is it a bunch of flour,butter,chocolate and so on.

Mma is a martial art because it exists as one. In that there are physical schools teaching mma.


----------



## drop bear

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I didn't know that you learn hits to the neck, backbone-twisters and eyeknocks in MMA, because this is usually a thing you can only find in martial arts like Karate,Kung-Fu or Gjogsul.
> 
> I don't respect people who train hard for competitions where opponents get beaten when on the ground, I do not accept the whole MMA-scene as a sport. It's a plain brawl leaded by some lads who mixed certain martial arts together to abuse them as good as they could.
> 
> This is all what I am having to say about it. MMA is not for self-defense and MMA is not a " clean " fightsport either, take the term " sport " away and there you go.
> 
> If it helps you, I was actually fighting and training in a MMA club for a couple of months, but it still did not change my opinion, all you are getting trained in is to hurt and bring down the opponent as soon as possible, only to continue the beating when he is already on the ground so he is not able to stand up anymore.
> 
> When I am going in to a competition, where hands and arms are used, I don't want a plain brawl using some muay-thai kicks and still beating my already beat down opponent just because he is still able to move and might stand up again.
> 
> MMA is against all my moralic believes.



That is fine there are plenty of fight sports that don't go to ground.

You could even do mma and not fight on the ground if you wanted. Just stop back up and let the other guy stand up.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Ok. If I make a cake. Is it considered a cake or is it a bunch of flour,butter,chocolate and so on.
> 
> Mma is a martial art because it exists as one. In that there are physical schools teaching mma.




I suppose it depends on what you look at as the ingredients

Punch + Kick + Forms = TKD/Karate Cake

Punch + Kick + Clinch = Muay Thai Cake

Shot + Sprawl + Subs = Submission Wrestling Cake

TKD/Karate Cake + Submission Wrestling Cake = a new cake, but you can still see the filling and icing of the other cakes within

We've butted heads on this before so I dont wanna dredge it up too much more, but having a physical school doesnt make it so...

There are schools teaching ki blasts, but most folks dont consider them full martial arts


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> I suppose it depends on what you look at as the ingredients
> 
> Punch + Kick + Forms = TKD/Karate Cake
> 
> Punch + Kick + Clinch = Muay Thai Cake
> 
> Shot + Sprawl + Subs = Submission Wrestling Cake
> 
> TKD/Karate Cake + Submission Wrestling Cake = a new cake, but you can still see the filling and icing of the other cakes within
> 
> We've butted heads on this before so I dont wanna dredge it up too much more, but having a physical school doesnt make it so...
> 
> There are schools teaching ki blasts, but most folks dont consider them full martial arts





Drose427 said:


> I suppose it depends on what you look at as the ingredients
> 
> Punch + Kick + Forms = TKD/Karate Cake
> 
> Punch + Kick + Clinch = Muay Thai Cake
> 
> Shot + Sprawl + Subs = Submission Wrestling Cake
> 
> TKD/Karate Cake + Submission Wrestling Cake = a new cake, but you can still see the filling and icing of the other cakes within
> 
> We've butted heads on this before so I dont wanna dredge it up too much more, but having a physical school doesnt make it so...
> 
> There are schools teaching ki blasts, but most folks dont consider them full martial arts



How exactly does having a physical school not make it so. I mean I can physically show you mma as a martial art.

So it is a real thing.

Yes you can see some of the inspiration for mma that comes from other martial arts. But that does not invalidate mma as a martial art.

Or you would invalidate most modern martial arts.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> How exactly does having a physical school not make it so. I mean I can physically show you mma as a martial art.
> 
> So it is a real thing.
> 
> Yes you can see some of the inspiration for mma that comes from other martial arts. But that does not invalidate mma as a martial art.
> 
> Or you would invalidate most modern martial arts.



no it only proves you can show MMA as a competition


----------



## Andrew Green

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I would probably aim for weapoints like Neck,Solarplexus,Nuts,Mouth to knock the attacker out straight away.



Wait... MMA is not a martial art because it covers un-sportsman like things like fighting while on the ground... but you want to kick people in the nuts?

Gotcha.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> no it only proves you can show MMA as a competition



Because there are not mma classes. With students learning mma from mma instructors and getting mma belts. And those students might compete or might not.

I mean what more do you want to qualify as a martial art?


----------



## Hyoho

Well there are a few that can mix things and end up with something special. They don't come along very often. There are those that can't figure out one thing and do it well that add their own idiosyncrasies and give it a new name. Those that look at all this from an 'artistic' point of view spend most of their time trying to separate the 'more than one art' that they do. Not mix them up MMA is the name they use. Most of all it does what they want it to do. Make money. I do like to watch the more professional guys doing it. But a lot of the times its boring as there are too many rules.


----------



## TSDTexan

I see the OP is knocking mma as a martial art.
So is Kyudo "the way of the bow" a martial art?
It has form, and you shoot a very specific type of bow.

At higher levels this bow is used from horseback.
It is an art form traced directly back to the samurai.

Its an art that doesn't involve sparing.

If it is ever used against a person, odds are you will kill or critical injure them.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Andrew Green said:


> Wait... MMA is not a martial art because it covers un-sportsman like things like fighting while on the ground... but you want to kick people in the nuts?
> 
> Gotcha.



You totally misinterpret what I am saying.

1. I've been saying that MMA is not a martial art, because it simply copies many other styles, not because it's un-sportsman fighting-rules.

2. I've said I would kick somebody in the nuts in a SELF-DEFENSE situation, sure! MMA is not a SD, MMA is a " sport ". A competitive sport. I think ground-fighting in a competitive sport is totally fine, but BEATING somebody with your fists in to the face while he is laying below you, this is a NO go and counts as UN-SPORTSMAN behaviour, in my personal opinion. Let the pal stand up again and fight him, knock him out while he is standing and not while you are sitting on him. To use grappling techniques like chokes and stuff on the ground, is totally fine. We also have similar things in sports like old-european wrestling.



That's all I was saying! I am not in the position to judge what MMA is and what is is not, or what is fair in MMA and what is not fair in MMA. But I am in the position to spread my opinion about this " sport ".

However, everyone has it's own opinion about certain martial arts, I usually respect all martial arts and their systems, but I simply do not accept MMA as a martial art, it's actually the only so called " martial art " I do NOT accept as a " martial art ". But since I am a total beginner and never did MMA for a very long time, like some of you guys maybe did, you should not care too much about what I am saying. To me it feels like many people in this forum are getting too upset, if I hurt your feelings about your sport which probably is MMA, I am sorry! As long as you are having fun doing it and feel like a fair and good fighter beating somebodies face in to the ground, do it. If it is so right and fair what you are doing there, you should not even care about what I am saying. But for some reason it feels like I hit some peoples " wounded-sport " when I am saying that MMA is a thug-sport and has nothing to do with real and fair martial arts competitions.

However, in general I am done with this thread, I don't want it to go too " abroad ".


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I've been saying that MMA is not a martial art, because it simply copies many other styles, not because it's un-sportsman fighting-rules



You might want to work on your communication skills in that case.

So you think that MMA is not a martial art because the techniques come from other arts? You do realize that the techniques in TKD come from earlier martial arts as well, right? Does that mean you also don't consider TKD to be a martial art either?



JohnnyEnglish said:


> knock him out while he is standing and not while you are sitting on him



Are you familiar with the phrase "argument by assertion"? You keep asserting that knocking someone out on their feet is somehow more sporting/fair/morally superior/whatever to knocking them out on the ground. You have yet to explain _why_. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, it helps to explain _why_ you believe them to be true.



JohnnyEnglish said:


> MMA is a thug-sport and has nothing to do with real and fair martial arts competitions.



Once again, assertion without any support. Even if you don't like striking on the ground, can you explain why its presence makes a competition in any way less "fair" or "real"?



JohnnyEnglish said:


> you should not even care about what I am saying



If you keep making poorly thought out claims and refusing to supply any backing for your statements, then you will indeed eventually be thought of as a troll and ignored. In the meantime, we're all here because we like to talk about the martial arts. If you post on a topic that people are interested in, they are likely to respond.


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> To me it feels like many people in this forum are getting too upset, if I hurt your feelings about your sport which probably is MMA, I am sorry! As long as you are having fun doing it and feel like a fair and good fighter beating somebodies face in to the ground, do it. If it is so right and fair what you are doing there, you should not even care about what I am saying. But for some reason it feels like I hit some peoples " wounded-sport " when I am saying that MMA is a thug-sport and has nothing to do with real and fair martial arts competitions.



Firstly, no one is getting upset and feelings aren't being hurt.
The problem isn't that you dislike MMA it's that you dislike an MMA that you have made up and not what is really MMA.
Imagine if I said 'well I hate TKD because they are always shouting at each other and hitting each other with sticks and then there's the way they make little children break boards, it's disgusting', you would be wondering what I was talking about, it's a misconceived idea of what TKD is and what they do. Now look at the things you are saying about MMA, we are telling you that your ideas of it don't match the reality. You are disliking something that doesn't exist, MMA is something different from what you think it is. Now you can listen to people who do know what it is or you can ignore MMA altogether but really you cannot on here carry on trashing a style because of what* you* *think it is*, really though you shouldn't be trashing any style on here.


----------



## Danny T

"MMA is not a martial art, because it simply copies many other styles..."
Is TKD a not a martial art because it was developed during the 1940s and 1950s as a blending of some indigenous Korean fighting styles which were influence by Okinawan karate and some Chinese martial systems? 
Is Japanese Karate not a martial art because is copied many of the Okinawan styles?
Is Munda Muda Silat not a martial art because is copied from 32 of the fighting styles from all of the Southeast Asian areas?
Is JKD not a martial art because it copied and utilizes all styles?
Is Wing Chun not a martial art because it copies predominantly from the Crane and Snake systems?
Is the Pekiti-Tirsia Kali not an martial art because is copied and drew heavily from 5 other Filipino martial systems and has copied firearms training within it?
Today, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it or not, MMA has become a specialized form of competitive martial art. It has also grown into a specific type of exercise training and a self-defense method of training as well.


----------



## tshadowchaser

MMA = Mixed Martial Arts  not mixed martial art.
It incorporates many arts depending what school/training facility you train at.  Can the knowledge learned there be used in the street, to defend oneself, or possibly in a combat situation in war YES therefor it can be classified as a martial art even if it has many variations.
  Will it survive in it's present form for a century, maybe maybe not but then many of the martial arts have under gone changes in their emphases and teachings  over time. Also most where a combination of techniques from more than one instructor when they where first introduced.


----------



## TSDTexan

Johnny English said: "but BEATING somebody with your fists in to the face while he is laying below you, this is a NO go and counts as UN-SPORTSMAN behaviour, in my personal opinion"

Johnny, your values of what determines "sportsman-like behaviour" is quite subjective. Let's say we were to travel back to the Roman Colosseum anytime between AD. 80, and AD 550, we would find men fighting to the death against other men and animals.

What they considered sport is radically different than what you think sport means today.

Where did the word even come from?

There is exceptionally strong evidence that shows SPOR came from SPQR.






SPQR is an acrostic of initials from a Latin phrase, Senatus Populusque Romanus
("The Senate and the People of Rome")
It is found all over Rome, on its buildings, and it was commonly tattooed upon slaves that were sold into gladiating. As well as those who were locked into lifelong contracts with the Roman Government.
Gladiating:
This Sport was created for the entertainment of the ruling classes, and the common people. And beating an opponent on the ground until he was incapacitated, or dead was considered proper sport (service to the senate and to the people of Rome) in that day.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The only thing that I don't like about MMA are the people who say that MMA is better than the other martial arts.  The fact that MMA works is because they are using actual applications of bits and pieces of other martial arts styles.  The name MMA says it all.  Mixed Martial Arts. If martial arts didn't work then the sport wouldn't be called MMA.

In my opinion I think MMA is gentle in comparison to some of the martial arts out there.  The fact that you have an opportunity to submit without being beat to a pulp is awesome. This isn't true with all fighting styles. Muay Thai, Karate, Lei Tai fights don't have submission.  You either take a beating or give a beating.  Boxing is the same way.  There's no tapping out.   I don't think I've hear MMA being declared as it's own martial arts.  I've been to an MMA gym before and the ones I've seen always had instructors that were trained in one or two disciplines completely but have added other elements that to their fighting style not for the purpose of creating a different martial art but for the purpose in increasing the skill fighting level.  In most cases MMA is very practical and easy to learn and apply.  Those who have taken Karate, Kung Fu, or some other form based martial art fighting system will tell you that doing the form is one thing but actually using those techniques in a real fight situation against another experienced fighter is not easy.  You have to really understand your martial arts that you are training in before you are actually able to use it in a real fight situation.  Application demos are not realistic and were never meant to show you how to use it in a real fight.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Why does MMA "count" as its own martial art.....I'm not sure many people go around claiming MMA is a style within its own right, I haven't really heard anyone talk about it like that, but would they be wrong....? I'm not sure. There are massive similarities between many styles of martial arts - for instance judo and bjj, kickboxing and muay thai... - because, amongst other things, there is simply a finite number of techniques that the human body can use. MMA is generally thought of as the combination of standup striking with ground fighting and techniques are generally taken from boxing, muay thai, kickboxing, judo, bjj and wrestling to create very rounded fighters who can fight standing up and on the ground within the given ruleset. There are also influences from Karate and Kung Fu styles. Some gyms train each of these components in isolation (as muay thai, as judo...etc) but others  focus less on the stylistic influences and simply seperate their curriculum into standup and grappling - not limiting themselves to a particular type of striking..etc Add to that, that there are now techniques used in MMA that aren't really found in any other art that involve kicking upwards when lying on your back and incoprorating the cage into jumping kicks. There might be more reasons as to why someone would disagree with calling MMA a style within its own right, but in my opinion, those people are just coming across as a bit pretentious. MMA has plenty of elements that are relatively unique to the sport that if people want to call it a style, they can.

As for the comment about beating people up whilst they are on the ground; the same rules regarding intelligently defending yourself apply standing up and on the ground...I think most people would have something to say to the referee if standing up, 3 or 4 punches getting through your guard resulted in a TKO ruling - you need to give the fighter a chance to get themselves back into the fight. To someone who already has prejudices about the sport, this might look barbaric, but it isn't.


----------



## Hyoho

It is true that Martial Arts in Japan have survived through Meiji Era using the values of an artistic pursuit. Then banned by McArthur in his letter to Prime Minister Yoshida they were reinstituted as "a sportlike educational activity". You see few people in Japan that do things like this for self-defense. To me this is Western idea that can also make a bit of cash. 

Normally its all sport and competitions apart from Kobudo.

The Western concept of, "What is MA" seems to vastly differ from what some people write on here compared with Asia.


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

TSDTexan said:


> Johnny English said: "but BEATING somebody with your fists in to the face while he is laying below you, this is a NO go and counts as UN-SPORTSMAN behaviour, in my personal opinion"
> 
> Johnny, your values of what determines "sportsman-like behaviour" is quite subjective. Let's say we were to travel back to the Roman Colosseum anytime between AD. 80, and AD 550, we would find men fighting to the death against other men and animals.
> 
> What they considered sport is radically different than what you think sport means today.
> 
> Where did the word even come from?
> 
> There is exceptionally strong evidence that shows SPOR came from SPQR.
> 
> View attachment 19424
> 
> SPQR is an acrostic of initials from a Latin phrase, Senatus Populusque Romanus
> ("The Senate and the People of Rome")
> It is found all over Rome, on its buildings, and it was commonly tattooed upon slaves that were sold into gladiating. As well as those who were locked into lifelong contracts with the Roman Government.
> Gladiating:
> This Sport was created for the entertainment of the ruling classes, and the common people. And beating an opponent on the ground until he was incapacitated, or dead was considered proper sport (service to the senate and to the people of Rome) in that day.
> 
> View attachment 19423




Correct, my opinion is very subjective, I've never said it would be objective !

MMA is gentle yes, compared to for example ancient pankration. But this is not the point I wanted to discuss.

However, have a nice day, I am feed up repeating myself.


----------



## Hyoho

When you compare say sportlike Budo with Classical Budo there is nothing nice about it. You hit a guy in the head on the floor to sustain damage to the front. At the same time the head striking the ground sustains damage. We wear body armour and strike protective areas. Whereas classical looks to injure people where they are not protected. It's all very valid stuff. 

The thing is how much of this are you going to allow into a new made up sport to keep people happy? Like most things they always look for the sensation value and sadly a lot seem to revel other peoples misfortune. The media is absolutely full of other peoples screw ups and losses be it in the ring or in real life.


----------



## hoshin1600

You have mentioned pankration a few times now, while I am no expert here, what I have learnt about it gives me the indication you know less about pankration then you do MMA.  Pankration is not gladiator games. It was a common sport. It is known Alexander the great was a big fan and his soldiers would regularly compete with each other when they were not at war. It was good exersize. I hardly think any commander would want his soldiers beat up and to your thinking killed. By the time Alexander reached India he wouldn't have had any soldiers left.
Modern pankration is a modern construct of other existing MA.


----------



## TSDTexan

hoshin1600 said:


> You have mentioned pankration a few times now, while I am no expert here, what I have learnt about it gives me the indication you know less about pankration then you do MMA.  Pankration is not gladiator games. It was a common sport. It is known Alexander the great was a big fan and his soldiers would regularly compete with each other when they were not at war. It was good exersize. I hardly think any commander would want his soldiers beat up and to your thinking killed. By the time Alexander reached India he wouldn't have had any soldiers left.
> Modern pankration is a modern construct of other existing MA.



To whom are you addressing this comment?
If it was addressed to myself, please let me say this:

While I made a comment about gladiators, I have never posted anything about Pankration, on this board, or anywhere on the internet.

 Frankly, I know nothing about this martial art, other then some say it was a European MA.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> You might want to work on your communication skills in that case.
> 
> So you think that MMA is not a martial art because the techniques come from other arts? You do realize that the techniques in TKD come from earlier martial arts as well, right? Does that mean you also don't consider TKD to be a martial art either?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the phrase "argument by assertion"? You keep asserting that knocking someone out on their feet is somehow more sporting/fair/morally superior/whatever to knocking them out on the ground. You have yet to explain _why_. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, it helps to explain _why_ you believe them to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, assertion without any support. Even if you don't like striking on the ground, can you explain why its presence makes a competition in any way less "fair" or "real"?
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep making poorly thought out claims and refusing to supply any backing for your statements, then you will indeed eventually be thought of as a troll and ignored. In the meantime, we're all here because we like to talk about the martial arts. If you post on a topic that people are interested in, they are likely to respond.



Something Johnny English is missing is that a pure art like
Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu had a library of like 3800 techniques, armed unarmed, standing and ground fighting.

Out Of this many other arts


----------



## Hanzou

This had to be one of the weirdest threads I've ever read. If someone is attacking you and you knock them down, you'd let them get up again to attack you some more?

What?


----------



## tigercrane

I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA. 
All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.

So what sets TMA apart from MMA?

IMO, MMA is *not* an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.

MMA is anything but any of that.


----------



## Steve

tigercrane said:


> I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA.
> All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.
> 
> So what sets TMA apart from MMA?
> 
> IMO, MMA is *not* an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.
> 
> MMA is anything but any of that.


I think a lot of this is just youth and ignorance, but I have to say, I'm pretty tired of the "TMA teaches humility" myth.  

You mention learning humility.  Do you believe you are humble?  How is bashing people who train in MMA a demonstration of humility?  Seems like the opposite to me.   I


----------



## Tez3

tigercrane said:


> I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA.
> All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.
> 
> So what sets TMA apart from MMA?
> 
> IMO, MMA is *not* an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.
> 
> MMA is anything but any of that.




What is the point then? JohnnyEnglish is against it because he feels one should not hit people on the ground...ignoring the fact that in TMAs that is what is taught...how to end a fight in any manner that is efficient.
In MMA competition one doesn't aim to maim and as fighters have no horns they certainly can't 'gore' people. In fact they don't aim to damage at all they aim to win, the damage is certainly no worst than any full contact karate I have seen or taken part in and probably less than boxing when they will continue after a KO if the fighter can 'beat' the count but not necessarily be compos mentis
I have just read a very good post which I shall attempt to paraphrase...that if one wants things such as humility enlightenment etc etc one should look to a psychologist or perhaps religious leader, martial arts is about defending ones self/fighting, that one learns anything that improves one life other than that it's fortuitous but not the point of martial arts.
Detest MMA by all means, your right but do it after having an open mind as to what it actually is not what you think it is.


----------



## tigercrane

Steve said:


> I think a lot of this is just youth and ignorance, but I have to say, I'm pretty tired of the "TMA teaches humility" myth.
> 
> You mention learning humility.  Do you believe you are humble?  How is bashing people who train in MMA a demonstration of humility?  Seems like the opposite to me.   I



First off, thanks for labeling me Ignorant & Youthful  The two qualities I do not possess, but I'd like to get my youth back very much!

Next, if you are tired of something, please avail yourself to some rest - you probably need it after reading many opinions and not agreeing with them.

Third, do you know how to compare and contrast? If so, please contrast what you re-phrased as my statement "TMA teaches humility" with something like "MMA teaches you the warrior way or how to bust someone's nuts and such..anything, whatever deserves to be considered."

Forth, to answer your question: Yes, I am trying very hard to be humble in daily life matters. Are you saying that to be humble is to not have an opinion? Wow!

Lastly, how is stating the truth considered bashing? If you want to learn to break someone's skull, MMA is a perfect tool. *I give MMA full credit for efficiency, as I said already.* It is what it is - amalgamation of techniques and applications from various arts if you will, nothing more and nothing less. 

Please, please enlighten me on what else I could learn from MMA besides nut busting, joint locking and arm breaking, etc.? I am open to learning.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> Something Johnny English is missing is that a pure art like
> Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu had a library of like 3800 techniques, armed unarmed, standing and ground fighting.
> 
> Out Of this many other arts


Silly phone never posts these right.

So JohnnyEnglish doesn't consider MMA to be a "real martial art", but if you look at Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which had a MASSIVE library of techniques, a system of standup fighting, and ground fighting, and kneeling fighting... armed and unarmed fighting.... You could go to Daitō and see this "traditional" martial art almost perfectly mirrors the curriculum of MMA.

Aiki spawned Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which is the artform that led to creation of arts like Sumo wrestling, Akido, Judo, many Japanese systems of Jujutsu, Kendo, Hapkido, Shorinji Kenpo (hybrid), Icho-ryū and Hakko-ryu draw many techniques from Daitō-ryū jujutsu, and even Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has everything you would need in an MMA cage... punches, kicks, takedowns, throws, standup fighting and groundfighting. 

Why does this system get accepted as a valid martial art? 
but MMA doesn't?

The 100-year-old art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu has punches and kicks. It is a traditional martial art. It may not have every single  technique found in an MMA school, but odds are it can do just fine in an MMA rules fight.

In the 1920, Carlos Gracie took out an ad in the paper saying _"If you want to get your face beaten and well-smashed, and if you want broken arms, look for me at this address."_

Carlos was taught jujutsu by Maeda, who also spiced it up with a few things Maeda learned from "catch" wrestlers (ones that he had dueled in England.)

Helio Gracie set the record straight, that Maeda did not teach any striking to the Gracies.

It was a little known fact that Maeda was a jujutsu-ka that had switched over to Kodokan Judo.

He said that Maeda was teaching not Kodokan Judo, but a Classical Jujutsu [often called "Kozen or Kosen Judo", by the Judoka, which is regular judo + higher teaching that incorporated from material in other branches of jujutsu, including techniques that were used in Ne-waza]

So clearly either Carlos Gracie was already a striker when he learned Jujutsu from Maeda, or learned striking after the fact.
Helio Gracie Sets Record Straight Maeda Was Teaching us Jiu-Jitsu Not Judo Bjj Eastern Europe

None the less, for over 95 years, since 1920 BJJ has been a grappling and striking art... and it definitely is a traditional martial art.

It is worth noting here that while the name ‘judo’ has become the accepted term for Dr. Jigoro Kano’s martial art, at the time many still referred to the style as ‘ju-jitsu’, or even ‘Kano ju-jitsu’. Maeda, like so many others, had come Kano's school having studied other ju-jitsu ryu previously. 

While the more common Romanization is ‘jujitsu’, in Brazil the spelling ‘jiu-jitsu’ stuck, and has retained that extra ‘i’ ever since.


----------



## Hyoho

In all my years I see little humility and enlightenment in any of it. Quite sad really. In moving to Japan many years ago I had expected to find a more philosophical approach. In Japan we call it Budo Seishin. With what I have experienced over the years it's quite clear to me that if you want to incorporate these attributes along with honesty obligation to ones teacher you have to put it in there yourself. Fighters are born to it. One simply channels that ability. You are not going to make fighter out of a nerd either. So we all practice for varying reasons. With MMA it all boils down to money anyway. They get paid for doing this stuff and have an audience.


----------



## Tez3

tigercrane said:


> First off, thanks for labeling me Ignorant & Youthful  The two qualities I do not possess, but I'd like to get my youth back very much!
> 
> Next, if you are tired of something, please avail yourself to some rest - you probably need it after reading many opinions and not agreeing with them.
> 
> Third, do you know how to compare and contrast? If so, please contrast what you re-phrased as my statement "TMA teaches humility" with something like "MMA teaches you the warrior way or how to bust someone's nuts and such..anything, whatever deserves to be considered."
> 
> Forth, to answer your question: Yes, I am trying very hard to be humble in daily life matters. Are you saying that to be humble is to not have an opinion? Wow!
> 
> Lastly, how is stating the truth considered bashing? If you want to learn to break someone's skull, MMA is a perfect tool. *I give MMA full credit for efficiency, as I said already.* It is what it is - amalgamation of techniques and applications from various arts if you will, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Please, please enlighten me on what else I could learn from MMA besides nut busting, joint locking and arm breaking, etc.? I am open to learning.




Are you replying to anyone in particular or just having a go at anyone who reads it?

Breaking skulls? I would suggest MMA isn't the style you want for that, I'd say those that break boards could probably do a very good job of breaking skulls. 'Nut busting'... I can assure you that the genitals are definitely off target and striking there is against the rules. Really, there are a huge amount of rules in MMA that makes it what it is..._a competitive style of fighting for competition._

One thing that is being overlooked of course is that many MMAers are also TMAers.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> It was a little known fact that Maeda was a jujutsu-ka that had switched over to Kodokan Judo.
> 
> He said that Maeda was teaching not Kodokan Judo, but a Classical Jujutsu [often called "Kozen or Kosen Judo", by the Judoka, which is regular judo + higher teaching that incorporated from material in other branches of jujutsu, including techniques that were used in Ne-waza]
> 
> So clearly either Carlos Gracie was already a striker when he learned Jujutsu from Maeda, or learned striking after the fact.
> Helio Gracie Sets Record Straight Maeda Was Teaching us Jiu-Jitsu Not Judo Bjj Eastern Europe


Yeah ... with all due respect to Helio, his understanding of Japanese judo/jujutsu history was shaky at best, totally wrong at worst. In addition, he was a consummate spin artist who changed his accounts of BJJ history more than once depending on what suited him at the moment.

As far as the striking goes, that was something the Gracies picked up from years of brawling rather than from Maeda. With just a few exceptions, the striking in BJJ is not tremendously systemized and is more focused on setting up grappling moves than on doing major damage.


----------



## Tez3

Hyoho said:


> They get paid for doing this stuff



Many fighters don't get paid, they compete because they enjoy it. We have basically three sets of rules, amateur, semi pro and pro. You can chose to fight in any of these sets. pro rules most likely you will get a purse perhaps only a couple of hundred pounds but by no means a fortune. Semi pros and amateurs may get expenses and a ticket deal but not always. A lot of people train MMA and don't fight, they may take part in interclubs if they fancy testing their skills.
The problem is I think many people judge MMA only form the UFC and other big promotions, they don't understand there are many people who don't fight on this and actually have no wish to, they regard their MMA as a sport/hobby to be followed. We have many people who train MMA, professional types, doctors, police officers, door supervisors etc they are often martial artists who come along to widen their skill base or who just enjoy the training.  
This is why I say look at MMA properly before judging, the chances are it's not what you think it is.


----------



## tigercrane

Tez3 said:


> What is the point then? JohnnyEnglish is against it because he feels one should not hit people on the ground...ignoring the fact that in TMAs that is what is taught...how to end a fight in any manner that is efficient.
> In MMA competition one doesn't aim to maim and as fighters have no horns they certainly can't 'gore' people. In fact they don't aim to damage at all they aim to win, the damage is certainly no worst than any full contact karate I have seen or taken part in and probably less than boxing when they will continue after a KO if the fighter can 'beat' the count but not necessarily be compos mentis
> I have just read a very good post which I shall attempt to paraphrase...that if one wants things such as humility enlightenment etc etc one should look to a psychologist or perhaps religious leader, martial arts is about defending ones self/fighting, that one learns anything that improves one life other than that it's fortuitous but not the point of martial arts.
> Detest MMA by all means, your right but do it after having an open mind as to what it actually is not what you think it is.



I see your points. Notwithstanding the rules of MMA fights, the actual contenders can harm, maim and gore each other if will be. They are skilled enough to do so, no doubt about that. The question remains about why this is called MA to begin with. Is MMA for sports, show or is it for actual combat or both?

Moreover, to keep an open mind about this as you said would be to look at opposing opinions, which is what we are doing here.

In regards to you comment, quote: _"I have just read a very good post which I shall attempt to paraphrase...that if one wants things such as humility enlightenment etc etc one should look to a psychologist or perhaps religious leader, martial arts is about defending ones self/fighting..."
_
I'd like to ask you this: Why is it that martial arts that evolved all over Asia and even Medieval Europe had religion and philosophy so closely integrated into it that it became indelible part of martial arts way. In Japan, it is Zen Buddism, in China it is Buddism and Taosim, etc. Some of the greatest martial artists of all times have written countless books on the philosophy.

Martial Arts are for defense, offense and then some.

Why did they do it if these masters could simply teach their disciples how to kick some *** and be done with it? Why bother with philosophy of movement or the religious teachings?

So, thousands of years of martial arts evolution did teach humankind nothing until now.

The answer is simple: There is much more to any martial art than a simple *** kicking. 

To keep an open mind about learning, I'd like to ask you to tell me what I could glean from MMA's perspective to make me better understand the foundation it sits on.


----------



## Tez3

tigercrane said:


> harm, maim and gore each other if will be



Only animals with horns can gore people.



tigercrane said:


> I'd like to ask you this: Why is it that martial arts that evolved all over Asia and even Medieval Europe had religion and philosophy so closely integrated into it that it became indelible part of martial arts way. In Japan, it is Zen Buddism, in China it is Buddism and Taosim, etc. Some of the greatest martial artists of all times have written countless books on the philosophy.



That's fairly simple to answer, in Asia there is far less of a division between everyday life and religion, what they do everyday and in martial arts is part and parcel of a whole. In the West we put everything into compartments, this is work, this is sports, this is a hobby, this is religion, they don't have anything to do with each other whereas in the East these things are all tied into together so you find the same attention to religion in martial arts as you do in everyday life. In the West we don't have that.




tigercrane said:


> To keep an open mind about learning, I'd like to ask you to tell me what I could glean from MMA's perspective to make me better understand the foundation it sits on.



Mixed Martial *Arts* take their perspective and their foundation from the TMA's they are made up of.


----------



## tigercrane

Tez3 said:


> Only animals with horns can gore people.


I can pick up a pointy object and gore someone with it, but I digress. 

Your quote: _"Mixed Martial *Arts* take their perspective and their foundation from the TMA's they are made up of."
_
Thank you for taking the time to reply but it does not really answer the question posed by Johnny about why some people call it an Art on its own. 

In your opinion, what defines any given art an art? Is it a set of principles, techniques, concepts, philosophy, a combination thereof or none of it?

Anyways, it was a good discussion and I enjoyed the input from you and others, peace!


----------



## Tez3

tigercrane said:


> I can pick up a pointy object and gore someone with it, but I digress.
> 
> Your quote: _"Mixed Martial *Arts* take their perspective and their foundation from the TMA's they are made up of."
> _
> Thank you for taking the time to reply but it does not really answer the question posed by Johnny about why some people call it an Art on its own.
> 
> In your opinion, what defines any given art an art? Is it a set of principles, techniques, concepts, philosophy, a combination thereof or none of it?
> 
> Anyways, it was a good discussion and I enjoyed the input from you and others, peace!



I don't call MMA 'an art', it's what it says it is... mixed martial *arts. *Why do some people call it an art? I don't know you'd have to ask them but have to say most people I know just call it MMA and get on with training. The question of whether it's an art or not doesn't come up. I will also say that 'Johnny' hates MMA and disparages it, I believe the OP is just a diatribe against something he doesn't like therefore doesn't reflect the truth about MMA just his opinion.

The reason I picked up your word 'gore ( and I agree you can gore someone with a pointy object but we don't use weapons in MMA) is because it give entirely the wrong impression of what MMAers do. I have seen thousands of live fights and a great many televised/videoed ones, the amount of injuries or damage to fighters in all those fights is tiny, far less than in soccer or rugby, certainly far less than in horse racing where deaths of jockeys are surprisingly high. The worse injury I have seen live is a broken leg, that happened when two fighters kicked at the same time clashing legs, one broke, that's something that wouldn't be unique to MMA but could happen in any kicking style. The injuries I've seen have been consistent with most martial arts, split lips, a broken nose, strains and sprains. After fights it's common for opponents to get together to chat about their fight, exchange techniques and have a beer together, the level of sportsmanship is high. The intent to wound and maim isn't in fighters minds, it's tactics, techniques and trying to win against an opponent, yes of course they are fighting but then so do boxers and that's an accepted sport.


----------



## Danny T

Where did the martial systems come from and why? What was the purpose for codifying the martial systems and its participants in religion, moral values, and lifestyles?
All combat has rules of engagement and manners. 
Do you want your martial participants to conduct themselves when at peace the same as when in combat?
Today some martial arts training include enlightenment, humility, and some even espouse some religion. But not all. I believe within the training if it is emphasized humility and respect can develop. If someone is really interested in what a school or gym has to offer in the way of training they will do what is required of them to train. If acting humbly is required they will act humble but are they? If being respectful is required they will act respectfully but are they actually Respectful?
Some are, some aren't. 
People will do what is required of them to get what they want but that doesn't mean they have changed.
Most participants in the martial arts are good humble and respectful persons to begin with. For them training simply reinforces at a higher level and expounds what they already are.
The MMA Show is different from MMA Training. One is for selling tickets for entertainment. It is loud, brash, and in your face selling selling selling! It is also a very psychological game for selling and to mentally beat the opponent. It is using the 'Art of War'; which by the way is a very highly touted book within the martial arts.
Within the MMA communities (from the U.S, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Europe, the Middle East, and Japan) most all I have had experience with have been very respectful, hard working, and open to what will help them be better in their competitions. Not all have been such but most are. Now if you have experienced what happens when a fighter is in fight mode especially toward the end of their fight camp where they are tired, sore and hurting, hungry and annoyed from their weight cutting think about how any of us feel when we are mentally and physically exhausted from work and then training and we are hungry we aren't real pleasant. We aren't real humble and respectful. I'm not anyway, I just want to eat, shower, and sleep. MMA is an awesome sport and if you were truly involved in it you would also see a completely different aspect than what is seen in the media.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah ... with all due respect to Helio, his understanding of Japanese judo/jujutsu history was shaky at best, totally wrong at worst. In addition, he was a consummate spin artist who changed his accounts of BJJ history more than once depending on what suited him at the moment.
> 
> As far as the striking goes, that was something the Gracies picked up from years of brawling rather than from Maeda. With just a few exceptions, the striking in BJJ is not tremendously systemized and is more focused on setting up grappling moves than on doing major damage.



All valid points.
Tony, 
For the purpose of being on the same page... 
Please if you would, give me a names of a few striking arts that are focused on doing major damage, other than western boxing.


----------



## drop bear

tigercrane said:


> I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA.
> All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.
> 
> So what sets TMA apart from MMA?
> 
> IMO, MMA is *not* an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.
> 
> MMA is anything but any of that.



If you haven't learned humility you will not be able to recover from loss.

Or in the case of mma be on your back getting punched in the face is one of the ultimate lessons in humility.


----------



## drop bear

Hyoho said:


> In all my years I see little humility and enlightenment in any of it. Quite sad really. In moving to Japan many years ago I had expected to find a more philosophical approach. In Japan we call it Budo Seishin. With what I have experienced over the years it's quite clear to me that if you want to incorporate these attributes along with honesty obligation to ones teacher you have to put it in there yourself. Fighters are born to it. One simply channels that ability. You are not going to make fighter out of a nerd either. So we all practice for varying reasons. With MMA it all boils down to money anyway. They get paid for doing this stuff and have an audience.




You should listen in to the dragon ball z discussions we have at our gym and then talk about nerds and fighters.

Mark hunt posted on Facebook that he is looking out for the next war hammer movie.

We take people off the street and put them in the ring in 12 weeks. Just normal people. Not fighters.


----------



## drop bear

tigercrane said:


> I can pick up a pointy object and gore someone with it, but I digress.
> 
> Your quote: _"Mixed Martial *Arts* take their perspective and their foundation from the TMA's they are made up of."
> _
> Thank you for taking the time to reply but it does not really answer the question posed by Johnny about why some people call it an Art on its own.
> 
> In your opinion, what defines any given art an art? Is it a set of principles, techniques, concepts, philosophy, a combination thereof or none of it?
> 
> Anyways, it was a good discussion and I enjoyed the input from you and others, peace!



Because it is. If I can show you a thing I don't have to logically validate its existence.

It is like asking why is a table? I mean it is made of wood so therefore it is a tree.


----------



## drop bear

OK post number whatever in a row.

Let's look at the metaphysical junk that is involved in mma. And the first place I go is returning vets using mma to help combat PTSD.

Fightland Specials MMA After War Video Blog FIGHTLAND

Now you want spiritual. Here is your spiritual. I mean there is a link between mma and a larger collection of benefits that just goring people.

Personally I think hard work done diligently creates a stronger character than navel contemplation.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> Please if you would, give me a names of a few striking arts that are focused on doing major damage, other than western boxing.


Karate
Muay Thai
TKD
Krav Maga
Kempo
Wing Chun
etc

When I say "focused on doing major damage" I just mean training to end the fight using strikes - whether by knocking the opponent out, breaking bones, or just causing enough pain to make the opponent quit. I'm not sure I can think of a striking-focused art that _doesn't _have that objective.

In contrast, strikes in BJJ are usually intended to force a reaction from the opponent that can be used to control distance, set up a takedown, improve position, or sink in a submission.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Karate
> Muay Thai
> TKD
> Krav Maga
> Kempo
> Wing Chun
> etc
> 
> When I say "focused on doing major damage" I just mean training to end the fight using strikes - whether by knocking the opponent out, breaking bones, or just causing enough pain to make the opponent quit. I'm not sure I can think of a striking-focused art that _doesn't _have that objective.
> 
> In contrast, strikes in BJJ are usually intended to force a reaction from the opponent that can be used to control distance, set up a takedown, improve position, or sink in a submission.



BJJ isn't known for advocating striking, and has mild aversion to remaining at striking range, against someone who is a striking artist.

But like the mythical sirens of the sea, their goal is to drown sailors, not cross sabers with them.

This is why I contend that a well rounded martial artist should be cross trained, starting with striking ranges, and develope to the degree where the are quite competent. But not stop there.
Imho
By the time a guy is first Dan in a striking art, he should already be a blue belt in JJ, and hungry to hit brown in JJ.

Cross training closes gaps in a martial artist's skill set.

Most fighters dont have a plan or skill set outside of kicking range either.

I teach my students to have one.


----------



## TSDTexan

Is Chun Kuk Do a martial art?
Arguably, yes.
It started with TSD as a base but has Direct injections of Karate and BJJ DNA.

But it is a full on systematic approach.
And still leaves a striker mindset more than a grappler's mind set. Yet it is a formal MMA.


----------



## jezr74

A *triathlon* is a multiple-stage competition involving the completion of three continuous and sequential endurance disciplines. While many variations of the sport exist, *triathlon*, in its most popular form, involves swimming, cycling, and running in immediate succession over various distances.

Do you train for a triathlon, or do you train for swimming, cycling and running?

This is how I see MMA.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> This is why I contend that a well rounded martial artist should be cross trained, starting with striking ranges, and develope to the degree where the are quite competen


Or you can learn a well rounded martial art.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Or you can learn a well rounded martial art.



Tell me, which single art has formalized training curriculum and methods for fighting at the following ranges
1. Rifle, pistol, bow, slingshot etc. Ranges
2. Handheld long weapons
3. Kicking and short weapons
4. Punching
5. Trapping/throwing/tripping/Kido wrist locking and breaking
6. clinching/elbows/knees/
7. Headblows/shoulder striking.
8. Ground fighting

As far as I am aware... There is no single system teaching a full range spectrum, and fully handles transitions between ranges.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JohnnyEnglish said:


> can show you plenty of videos where an opponent lays on the ground and still get's his teeth beaten out his face. And sorry, but this is not how I was raised, from childhood on, I was tought, NEVER hit somebody who is already on the ground! This is a rule I would follow in a street fight and a rule I will for sure also follow in a competition.


No point putting an attacker on the ground if they are just going to get straight up and attack you again.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> Tell me, which single art has formalized training curriculum and methods for fighting at the following ranges
> 1. Rifle, pistol, bow, slingshot etc. Ranges
> 2. Handheld long weapons
> 3. Kicking and short weapons
> 4. Punching
> 5. Trapping/throwing/tripping/Kido wrist locking and breaking
> 6. clinching/elbows/knees/
> 7. Headblows/shoulder striking.
> 8. Ground fighting
> 
> As far as I am aware... There is no single system teaching a full range spectrum, and fully handles transitions between ranges.


Except for the weapons, mine.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JohnnyEnglish said:


> eyeknocks


Aren't they those things that were chewing on the power cables of the Millennium Falcon in the asteroid after the battle of Hoth?


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Aren't they those things that were chewing on the power cables of the Millennium Falcon in the asteroid after the battle of Hoth?


Those would be "mynocks"


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Except for the weapons, mine.



And which system, or art is that?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> And which system, or art is that?


Rhee Taekwondo (The Australian one not the American one). I thought I had the details in my profile but I didn't.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Rhee Taekwondo (The Australian one not the American one). I thought I had the details in my profile but I didn't.



As far as I am aware:
The ITFA teaches ITF-style Taekwon-Do which follows the syllabus laid down by the Founder, General Choi Hong Hi, in the Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia. The syllabus includes Patterns, Step-Sparring, Free Sparring, Destruction or breaking, Martial Art Terminology, Self-Defence and Moral Culture.


As far as I am aware, General Choi didn't have a groundfighting Curriculum. And headbutting, and gripfighting generally isn't taught in most TKD places.

Prior to the formation of the and the ITF, and the ITFA, Chong Chul Rhee was a Dan under the The Korea Taekwon-Do Association (KTA; 1959/1961) which also didn't have ground fighting like Sambo, JJJ or BJJ.

So I am curious as to how your school has integrated these into your Rhee TKD.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> Silly phone never posts these right.
> 
> So JohnnyEnglish doesn't consider MMA to be a "real martial art", but if you look at Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which had a MASSIVE library of techniques, a system of standup fighting, and ground fighting, and kneeling fighting... armed and unarmed fighting.... You could go to Daitō and see this "traditional" martial art almost perfectly mirrors the curriculum of MMA.
> 
> Aiki spawned Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which is the artform that led to creation of arts like Sumo wrestling, Akido, Judo, many Japanese systems of Jujutsu, Kendo, Hapkido, Shorinji Kenpo (hybrid), Icho-ryū and Hakko-ryu draw many techniques from Daitō-ryū jujutsu, and even Brazilian Jiu Jitsu
> 
> Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has everything you would need in an MMA cage... punches, kicks, takedowns, throws, standup fighting and groundfighting.
> 
> Why does this system get accepted as a valid martial art?
> but MMA doesn't?
> 
> 
> In the 1920, Carlos Gracie took out an ad in the paper saying _"If you want to get your face beaten and well-smashed, and if you want broken arms, look for me at this address."_



JohnnyEnglish didn't like my question, apparently, and chose to down vote it. However, He still didn't answer the question.

Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has everything you would need in an MMA cage... punches, kicks, take-downs, throws, stand-up fighting joint locks, breaks and ground-fighting. 

So let me ask Johnny again...
Why does this traditional martial art system get accepted as a valid martial art but MMA doesn't?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> As far as I am aware:
> The ITFA teaches ITF-style Taekwon-Do which follows the syllabus laid down by the Founder, General Choi Hong Hi, in the Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia. The syllabus includes Patterns, Step-Sparring, Free Sparring, Destruction or breaking, Martial Art Terminology, Self-Defence and Moral Culture.
> 
> 
> As far as I am aware, General Choi didn't have a groundfighting Curriculum. And headbutting, and gripfighting generally isn't taught in most TKD places.
> 
> Prior to the formation of the and the ITF, and the ITFA, Chong Chul Rhee was a Dan under the The Korea Taekwon-Do Association (KTA; 1959/1961) which also didn't have ground fighting like Sambo, JJJ or BJJ.
> 
> So I am curious as to how your school has integrated these into your Rhee TKD.


Chapters 3, 4 and 5 in the Encyclopedia show a number of ground techniques. We do not incorporate Sambo, BJJ or JJJ into our curriculum. Unless a particular instructor had previously trained in one of those systems then he/she will introduce some techniques here and there when they teach. We don't teach ground fighting, we teach ground self defence and self defence on the ground has been taught in Rhee TKD the whole time I have been there.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> So let me ask Johnny again...



You may not get an answer, he's asked on the 'Beginner's section' to have his account deleted. You can read what he says about us there.
which strangely he seems to have removed  so 'as you were'!


----------



## Langenschwert

TSDTexan said:


> Tell me, which single art has formalized training curriculum and methods for fighting at the following ranges
> 1. Rifle, pistol, bow, slingshot etc. Ranges
> 2. Handheld long weapons
> 3. Kicking and short weapons
> 4. Punching
> 5. Trapping/throwing/tripping/Kido wrist locking and breaking
> 6. clinching/elbows/knees/
> 7. Headblows/shoulder striking.
> 8. Ground fighting
> 
> As far as I am aware... There is no single system teaching a full range spectrum, and fully handles transitions between ranges.



Ours HEMA curriculum gets pretty close. Back in the day, you would be trained to do all that from a very young age. Fiore dei Liberi was an artillery officer, so there's some incredible long range stuff he did in addition to the art of arms. Oh right, and they did it all the close range stuff on horseback in addition to on foot.

We train longsword (which can be thrown like a spear so _technically_ a ranged weapon heh heh), messer (short sword), knife, striking, takedowns, breaks, and some basic ground work.

I round out my training _personally_ with Japanese martial arts, mostly battojutsu and judo.

Also, I can't believe these kind of of MMA isn't XYZ threads are still happening in 2015. MMA is what it is. I like it, but the halcyon days of Couture, Franklin and Lidell are long gone.


----------



## Chris Parker

TSDTexan said:


> Something Johnny English is missing is that a pure art like
> Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu had a library of like 3800 techniques, armed unarmed, standing and ground fighting.



Firstly, define "pure art" in regards to Daito Ryu. Secondly, please detail the ne-waza found in Daito Ryu, including the section(s) found.



TSDTexan said:


> Out Of this many other arts



Out of Daito Ryu, some arts. Aikido, Danzan Ryu, Hakko Ryu… maybe one or two others… 



TSDTexan said:


> So JohnnyEnglish doesn't consider MMA to be a "real martial art", but if you look at Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which had a MASSIVE library of techniques, a system of standup fighting, and ground fighting, and kneeling fighting... armed and unarmed fighting.... You could go to Daitō and see this "traditional" martial art almost perfectly mirrors the curriculum of MMA.



Er…. no. There is no ne-waza in Daito Ryu… it's syllabus is separated into three different forms… tachi waza (standing), idori waza (suwari gata - seated techniques), and hanza handachi (half seated, half standing… one partner stands, the other is seated). In fact, each technique is supposed to be done in each of these forms.

And, no, Daito Ryu does not "almost perfectly mirror the curriculum of MMA". At all. I hardly know what you're meaning when you say "you could go to Daito and see this…"… do you think "Daito" is a place?



TSDTexan said:


> Aiki spawned Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which is the artform that led to creation of arts like Sumo wrestling, Akido, Judo, many Japanese systems of Jujutsu, Kendo, Hapkido, Shorinji Kenpo (hybrid), Icho-ryū and Hakko-ryu draw many techniques from Daitō-ryū jujutsu, and even Brazilian Jiu Jitsu



"Aiki spawned Daito Ryu"? Er… huh? And are you seriously suggesting that Daito Ryu, in existence only since the late 19th Century, led to the creation of Sumo?!?! Kendo?? Judo?!? Shorinji Kempo?? BJJ?!?

Dude. No.



TSDTexan said:


> Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has everything you would need in an MMA cage... punches, kicks, takedowns, throws, standup fighting and ground fighting.



Again… no ground fighting… and, no. Daito Ryu doesn't have "everything you would need in an MMA cage"… namely, it doesn't have anything geared up for fighting in an MMA cage.



TSDTexan said:


> Why does this system get accepted as a valid martial art?
> but MMA doesn't?



Er… who says MMA doesn't?



TSDTexan said:


> The 100-year-old art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu has punches and kicks. It is a traditional martial art. It may not have every single  technique found in an MMA school, but odds are it can do just fine in an MMA rules fight.



Er… okay.



TSDTexan said:


> In the 1920, Carlos Gracie took out an ad in the paper saying _"If you want to get your face beaten and well-smashed, and if you want broken arms, look for me at this address."_
> 
> Carlos was taught jujutsu by Maeda, who also spiced it up with a few things Maeda learned from "catch" wrestlers (ones that he had dueled in England.)
> 
> Helio Gracie set the record straight, that Maeda did not teach any striking to the Gracies.



Er… okay.



TSDTexan said:


> It was a little known fact that Maeda was a jujutsu-ka that had switched over to Kodokan Judo.



"Little known fact"?!? Really?



TSDTexan said:


> He said that Maeda was teaching not Kodokan Judo, but a Classical Jujutsu [often called "Kozen or Kosen Judo", by the Judoka, which is regular judo + higher teaching that incorporated from material in other branches of jujutsu, including techniques that were used in Ne-waza]



Once again, Kosen Judo (High School Judo) didn't come into being in JAPAN until 1914… Maeda left Japan by 1906… and Kosen Judo does not "incorporate material from other branches of jujutsu"… that's a statement that's flawed from every angle… including the fact that differing systems are not "branches" of jujutsu… 



TSDTexan said:


> So clearly either Carlos Gracie was already a striker when he learned Jujutsu from Maeda, or learned striking after the fact.
> Helio Gracie Sets Record Straight Maeda Was Teaching us Jiu-Jitsu Not Judo Bjj Eastern Europe



Well, honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in the way that interview presents history… for one thing, there's an emphasis that Maeda wasn't teaching "judo", he was teaching "jiujitsu"… well, yeah… that's what the Kodokan was known for at the time… Kano-ha Jujutsu (jiujitsu). So no kidding. That said, the minimal amount of striking (and the lack of sophistication in what there is) doesn't really show that Carlos was "already a striker" at all… instead, it shows that in BJJ's development (through Vale Tudo and similar contests) it encountered strikers, and came up with methods to handle them (building on Maeda's methods).



TSDTexan said:


> None the less, for over 95 years, since 1920 BJJ has been a grappling and striking art... and it definitely is a traditional martial art.



Er… okay.



TSDTexan said:


> It is worth noting here that while the name ‘judo’ has become the accepted term for Dr. Jigoro Kano’s martial art, at the time many still referred to the style as ‘ju-jitsu’, or even ‘Kano ju-jitsu’. Maeda, like so many others, had come Kano's school having studied other ju-jitsu ryu previously.



Okay… and…?



TSDTexan said:


> While the more common Romanization is ‘jujitsu’, in Brazil the spelling ‘jiu-jitsu’ stuck, and has retained that extra ‘i’ ever since.



Yeah, you're really going to have to follow developments there… I mean… that romanization (jiu-jitsu) was common at the time… currently, it's considered an incorrect form (going by Hepburn romanization), although there are alternate forms (jyu-jutsu, jiu-jutsu, ju-jutu, jyujutu, and so on). In a real way, if you want to spell it correctly, there are two methods: 柔術, or じゅうじゅつ.



TSDTexan said:


> Tell me, which single art has formalized training curriculum and methods for fighting at the following ranges
> 1. Rifle, pistol, bow, slingshot etc. Ranges
> 2. Handheld long weapons
> 3. Kicking and short weapons
> 4. Punching
> 5. Trapping/throwing/tripping/Kido wrist locking and breaking
> 6. clinching/elbows/knees/
> 7. Headblows/shoulder striking.
> 8. Ground fighting
> 
> As far as I am aware... There is no single system teaching a full range spectrum, and fully handles transitions between ranges.



Come visit my schools.

1: Long range (projectile weapons) include archery, throwing spikes and stars, blowguns, and (in our modern approach) firearms and firearm defence.
2: Handheld long weapons include rokushaku bo, yonshaku jo, hanbo, katana, kodachi, yari, naginata, nagamaki, and so on.
3: Kicking and short weapons include, well, kicking, as well as tanto, jutte, tessen, bogyaku dori (te giri bo), kunai, (in our modern approach) baton, torch, tactical pen, and more.
4: Punching. Well, we have a lot more in our hand-striking methods than just punching… but… sure.
5: Trapping, throwing, tripping, locking (not gonna use the term "kido"… the very image is just, well, wrong… I mean, we're a Japanese jujutsu-centric system… it's kinda what we do.
6: Clinching, elbows, knees… yep, got them all. Clinching, to us, is kumiuchi, elbows are shukki-ken, knees are sokki ken… 
7: Headblows/shoulders striking… yep. We call a head but a zu-tsuki (literally head thrust) or kikaku ken… shoulder strikes come under tai ken (body weapons)… 
8: Ground fighting. And, again, yep. Although, as with many traditional Japanese systems, it's almost non-existent in the old material, and comes up in our modern approach.

This, by the way, is far from an exhaustive list… I mean, we haven't covered flexible weaponry, de-escalation, or many, many other areas we cover. So… your point is?



TSDTexan said:


> Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has everything you would need in an MMA cage... punches, kicks, take-downs, throws, stand-up fighting joint locks, breaks and ground-fighting.



One more time, there is no ground fighting in Daito Ryu… but, far more importantly, do you seriously think that it's this vague grouping of technical approaches (devoid of any actual context that would ground your claims in reality) are what would make Daito Ryu suitable or not to an MMA match? Not in the slightest… 



TSDTexan said:


> So let me ask Johnny again...
> Why does this traditional martial art system get accepted as a valid martial art but MMA doesn't?



You won't get an answer from him, as he's no longer a member here.


----------



## TSDTexan

Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, define "pure art" in regards to Daito Ryu. Secondly, please detail the ne-waza found in Daito Ryu, including the section(s) found.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of Daito Ryu, some arts. Aikido, Danzan Ryu, Hakko Ryu… maybe one or two others…
> 
> 
> 
> Er…. no. There is no ne-waza in Daito Ryu… it's syllabus is separated into three different forms… tachi waza (standing), idori waza (suwari gata - seated techniques), and hanza handachi (half seated, half standing… one partner stands, the other is seated). In fact, each technique is supposed to be done in each of these forms.
> 
> And, no, Daito Ryu does not "almost perfectly mirror the curriculum of MMA". At all. I hardly know what you're meaning when you say "you could go to Daito and see this…"… do you think "Daito" is a place?
> 
> 
> 
> "Aiki spawned Daito Ryu"? Er… huh? And are you seriously suggesting that Daito Ryu, in existence only since the late 19th Century, led to the creation of Sumo?!?! Kendo?? Judo?!? Shorinji Kempo?? BJJ?!?
> 
> Dude. No.
> 
> 
> 
> Again… no ground fighting… and, no. Daito Ryu doesn't have "everything you would need in an MMA cage"… namely, it doesn't have anything geared up for fighting in an MMA cage.
> 
> 
> 
> Er… who says MMA doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> Er… okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Er… okay.
> 
> 
> 
> "Little known fact"?!? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Kosen Judo (High School Judo) didn't come into being in JAPAN until 1914… Maeda left Japan by 1906… and Kosen Judo does not "incorporate material from other branches of jujutsu"… that's a statement that's flawed from every angle… including the fact that differing systems are not "branches" of jujutsu…
> 
> 
> 
> Well, honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in the way that interview presents history… for one thing, there's an emphasis that Maeda wasn't teaching "judo", he was teaching "jiujitsu"… well, yeah… that's what the Kodokan was known for at the time… Kano-ha Jujutsu (jiujitsu). So no kidding. That said, the minimal amount of striking (and the lack of sophistication in what there is) doesn't really show that Carlos was "already a striker" at all… instead, it shows that in BJJ's development (through Vale Tudo and similar contests) it encountered strikers, and came up with methods to handle them (building on Maeda's methods).
> 
> 
> 
> Er… okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay… and…?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're really going to have to follow developments there… I mean… that romanization (jiu-jitsu) was common at the time… currently, it's considered an incorrect form (going by Hepburn romanization), although there are alternate forms (jyu-jutsu, jiu-jutsu, ju-jutu, jyujutu, and so on). In a real way, if you want to spell it correctly, there are two methods: 柔術, or じゅうじゅつ.
> 
> 
> 
> Come visit my schools.
> 
> 1: Long range (projectile weapons) include archery, throwing spikes and stars, blowguns, and (in our modern approach) firearms and firearm defence.
> 2: Handheld long weapons include rokushaku bo, yonshaku jo, hanbo, katana, kodachi, yari, naginata, nagamaki, and so on.
> 3: Kicking and short weapons include, well, kicking, as well as tanto, jutte, tessen, bogyaku dori (te giri bo), kunai, (in our modern approach) baton, torch, tactical pen, and more.
> 4: Punching. Well, we have a lot more in our hand-striking methods than just punching… but… sure.
> 5: Trapping, throwing, tripping, locking (not gonna use the term "kido"… the very image is just, well, wrong… I mean, we're a Japanese jujutsu-centric system… it's kinda what we do.
> 6: Clinching, elbows, knees… yep, got them all. Clinching, to us, is kumiuchi, elbows are shukki-ken, knees are sokki ken…
> 7: Headblows/shoulders striking… yep. We call a head but a zu-tsuki (literally head thrust) or kikaku ken… shoulder strikes come under tai ken (body weapons)…
> 8: Ground fighting. And, again, yep. Although, as with many traditional Japanese systems, it's almost non-existent in the old material, and comes up in our modern approach.
> 
> This, by the way, is far from an exhaustive list… I mean, we haven't covered flexible weaponry, de-escalation, or many, many other areas we cover. So… your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, there is no ground fighting in Daito Ryu… but, far more importantly, do you seriously think that it's this vague grouping of technical approaches (devoid of any actual context that would ground your claims in reality) are what would make Daito Ryu suitable or not to an MMA match? Not in the slightest…
> 
> 
> 
> You won't get an answer from him, as he's no longer a member here.




Thank you Chris.

But I remember that you "corrected", me already on the Daito Ryu didn't lead to BJJ so much of this is a redundant correction.

Secondly, this is really old
  This was written before you "corrected" me, of course I could be wrong with regard to which happened first.
But I feel pretty secure in saying so.

I expect you will come across more of the same at some point. Please dont repeat yourself on DRAJJ not being the Jujutsu that BJJ came from. I have heard you, clearly on this matter already.
While you and I may not agree on this matter, I am not advocating a position that I am right and you are wrong.
I am more agnostic about it. You feel my position is wrong.

That's fine.

You have told me so. And I have acknowledged that you have told me so. I am not yet persuaded on the matter, and I suspect that I won't be for a while.

Further discussion about this specific topic ideally should be held in a separate thread.

Thirdly, I am glad your schools are pretty well rounded,
And equip students to fight and to transition between ranges. Not that my happiness means anything at all, but it makes me happy to hear when schools dont send students ill-prepared, and with gapping holes in their skill set.

And yes conflict avoiding and deescalation are both pretty helpful self defense measures. Glad this is in your teaching.

Fourthly, re Hepburn and Romanization of jujutsu and jiu jitsu. It was correct to the Japanese people who were instructing the Brazilians, otherwise they would have told their students to correct the spelling.

And a hundred years of spelling it that way is barking up wrong tree, if you think they are going to change, for us or any one else.
Its fait acompli.

The only time I have an objection to the use of the spelling Jiu Jitsu by someone is if they are referring to something non-bjj. Like any Japanese Jujutsu.

Fiftly,
you are late in telling me Johhny is gone. I have been told about 6 times already. As this is an older post, it is understandable that this could happen. My last message to him was on the Sixth of Aug. You are telling me on the Twenty Fourth. But, I do appreciate you trying to let me know. That was thoughtful and generous on your part.

Lastly,
You mentioned you have schools. May I inquire as to the name of your art?


----------



## ballen0351

TSDTexan said:


> You mentioned you have schools. May I inquire as to the name of your art?


Click the website in his signature


----------



## Chris Parker

TSDTexan said:


> Thank you Chris.
> 
> But I remember that you "corrected", me already on the Daito Ryu didn't lead to BJJ so much of this is a redundant correction.



Hmm… you seem to have noticed three words out of my entire post… yeah, I corrected your take on Daito Ryu being part of the history of BJJ again… but I also gave new corrections to your other ideas on Daito Ryu… most in particular that there is any ne-waza there… as well as the idea that it helped form sumo and other arts.



TSDTexan said:


> Secondly, this is really old
> This was written before you "corrected" me, of course I could be wrong with regard to which happened first.
> But I feel pretty secure in saying so.



Once again, you're fixated on a couple of words out of the whole thing, and missing what you were actually being informed of.



TSDTexan said:


> I expect you will come across more of the same at some point. Please dont repeat yourself on DRAJJ not being the Jujutsu that BJJ came from. I have heard you, clearly on this matter already.



Read the rest of the post… seriously… three words… 

While you are doing that, if you wouldn't mind answering what I actually asked… namely, can you define "pure art" as it relates to Daito Ryu, and secondly, can you detail where you feel the ne-waza is in Daito Ryu, including the section of the ryu in which is it found, and any details as to the material itself?



TSDTexan said:


> While you and I may not agree on this matter, I am not advocating a position that I am right and you are wrong.
> I am more agnostic about it. You feel my position is wrong.



You're "agnostic" on the topic? How does that work? You don't know for sure, so you won't listen to someone who does? And what makes you think historical facts and records are a matter of opinion? This mentality is, frankly, disturbing.



TSDTexan said:


> That's fine.



Okay… 



TSDTexan said:


> You have told me so. And I have acknowledged that you have told me so. I am not yet persuaded on the matter, and I suspect that I won't be for a while.



Then read more.

Look, frankly, at this point it's like you saying that the sun rises in the West, to which I then reply that it actually rises in the East… then point to the sun in the morning in the East, saying "there it is"… and you saying "maybe you're right, maybe you're not… I'm agnostic on this, and am yet to be persuaded".

Dude. This isn't opinion. It's not a matter of perspective. It's factual reality. You can not be persuaded all you want, but it's like arguing that the sun rises in the West… you're just going to look ill-informed at best, and wilfully ignorant to boot.



TSDTexan said:


> Further discussion about this specific topic ideally should be held in a separate thread.



Sure… then might I suggest you stop bringing into various topics an art you obviously know so little about. I mean… I'm only responding to what you brought in, not bringing it up myself.



TSDTexan said:


> Thirdly, I am glad your schools are pretty well rounded,
> And equip students to fight and to transition between ranges. Not that my happiness means anything at all, but it makes me happy to hear when schools dont send students ill-prepared, and with gapping holes in their skill set.



Honestly, even with the list above, you have no idea whether or not my schools do any of the kind… the idea of "gaping holes (one 'p', by the way…)" in skill sets is honestly a false idea. So is looking for a set of vague, context-less "skills" as you brought up.



TSDTexan said:


> And yes conflict avoiding and deescalation are both pretty helpful self defense measures. Glad this is in your teaching.



Okay.



TSDTexan said:


> Fourthly, re Hepburn and Romanization of jujutsu and jiu jitsu. It was correct to the Japanese people who were instructing the Brazilians, otherwise they would have told their students to correct the spelling.



You understand that this makes no sense, yeah? I mean… the Japanese weren't exactly learning English spelling and romanization of their words… so they wouldn't have had any way of "correcting" anything… 



TSDTexan said:


> And a hundred years of spelling it that way is barking up wrong tree, if you think they are going to change, for us or any one else.
> Its fait accompli.



Er… what? I get what you're trying to say, but… maybe more work on syntax?



TSDTexan said:


> The only time I have an objection to the use of the spelling Jiu Jitsu by someone is if they are referring to something non-bjj. Like any Japanese Jujutsu.



Many Western systems use the "jitsu" spelling… so you know… 



TSDTexan said:


> Fiftly,
> you are late in telling me Johhny is gone. I have been told about 6 times already. As this is an older post, it is understandable that this could happen. My last message to him was on the Sixth of Aug. You are telling me on the Twenty Fourth. But, I do appreciate you trying to let me know. That was thoughtful and generous on your part.



Well, here, only Tez had said anything (once)… only saying that he'd requested to have his account deleted (we don't do that here). Couple that with the fact that it's difficult to see if a member has been banned (you have to go onto their member page to find out), it wasn't clear that the message had been passed to you.

Oh, and the phrase you're looking for is that it was "informative" of me. Nothing to do with thoughtfulness or generosity.



TSDTexan said:


> Lastly,
> You mentioned you have schools. May I inquire as to the name of your art?



As mentioned, look to the website in my signature for one of the things I do.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> Thank you Chris.
> 
> But I remember that you "corrected", me already on the Daito Ryu didn't lead to BJJ so much of this is a redundant correction.
> 
> Secondly, this is really old
> This was written before you "corrected" me, of course I could be wrong with regard to which happened first.
> But I feel pretty secure in saying so.
> 
> I expect you will come across more of the same at some point. Please dont repeat yourself on DRAJJ not being the Jujutsu that BJJ came from. I have heard you, clearly on this matter already.
> While you and I may not agree on this matter, I am not advocating a position that I am right and you are wrong.
> I am more agnostic about it. You feel my position is wrong.
> 
> That's fine.
> 
> You have told me so. And I have acknowledged that you have told me so. I am not yet persuaded on the matter, and I suspect that I won't be for a while.



Dude, seriously?

I had a full-on apocalyptic catastrophe nightmare, last night, the first in a long time, so I can waste a little time persuading you-it's a matter of simple history, really:

Maeda Mitsuyo taught the Gracies judo-Kodokan judo. Pre-war judo, that was sometimes called Kano jujutsu. While there's some argument that there were men who studied with Takeda Sokaku (Daito ryu) among the earlier members of the Kodokan, there's no evidence at all that Maeda was one of those.
Takeda kept extensive records of those who studied Daito ryu-Maeda's name isn't in there.
There is no ground fighting per se in Daito ryu, though its principles can be used in ground fighting.

Mitsuyo Maeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BJJ comes from judo, and whatever else the Gracie's grafted on afterwards: a little boxing, a little catch wrestling,Helio Gracie's inventions of different angles and transitions,  but it's still *B*asically *J*ust *J*udo
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Wherever you got this information from, that BJJ comes from Daito ryu, is just wrong.

As are you.


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> Wherever you got this information from, that BJJ comes from Daito ryu, is just wrong.
> 
> As are you.



Part A. Your statement regarding where: I got my information being wrong... Perfectly good statement, in the sense that it is clear that you are asserting that this information is incorrect.

Part B.
Your statement "as are you" is problematic in the least. You are being pretty vague, and this statement requires the reader to make guesses as to the meaning.

Are you implying that "TsdTexan is just wrong" in some sort of personal sense? Gosh, I hope not.

Surely, you wouldn't need to use an ad hominem attack, after you clearly destroyed what you think is TsdTexan's position.

Though I will admit the Maeda-Takada is a great strawman. Argument. It is a verifiable fact, as Takeda kept meticulous records as to who attended his seminars and classes, and Yes, Maeda probably isn't listed. I never even bothered to look or inquire.

The point is completely bogus because it is not something I brought to bear in supporting my position. Namely that the art form that came to be known as DRAJJ had a role in the formation of what would come to be called BJJ.

Nowhere at anytime ever... Not even once have I ever said Maeda was a student of Takeda.

So if you would like to join in the discussion already in progress, and argue against my position, PLEASE argue against what was actually said by me, instead of things I _NEVER_ said.

If you are willing to put words into TsdTexan's mouth, so you can defeat such an expressed view... We have no reasonable basis of conversation here on this topic.

I would like to enjoy friendly martial arts talk with you. But let us remain reasonable fellows and not put words in each others mouth like this... Please?


----------



## Steve

I've got a great idea.  Let's get the thread back on topic.  The origins of BJJ are interesting, and the relationship between BJJ and the various threads of japanese jujutsu is loads of fun, but has no bearing on the topic at hand.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> I've got a great idea.  Let's get the thread back on topic.  The origins of BJJ are interesting, and the relationship between BJJ and the various threads of japanese jujutsu is loads of fun, but has no bearing on the topic at hand.



Great Idea. Just what exactly was the actual topic?
The original poster posted the Original Post (redundancy is redundant) asking: So how did it happen that we call MMA an own martial art now?

This is a hard question to answer (I think). JohnnyEnglish was asking was something along the lines of "How". So, how did, We come to call a collection of martial arts, as practiced by a multitude of artists, and technicians/crafters in the combat sport promotion and event systems of today, the term Martial Art?

Part of the problem, that I see, is that no one can seem to come up with an objective standard to determine a meaning to the phrase "martial art" that can be agreed up as a consensus view that satisfies everyone. I ran into the problem when I tried to get the MT community to define the difference between what is, and what is not a martial art. Like the terms beauty, or as a judge described pornography... many cannot define it, but know it when they see it. But for whatever reason, it seems that no one will agree on terms.

Like Tony D. said, He is a description-ist, and thinks Chris is a proscriptionist. This is just one paradigm, among a few, that challenges the effort of defining martial art/arts. Until terms can be defined, to such a degree, that views can be articulated with fine deftness, our discussions will pretty much devolve into caricatures of the thing being described rather than Hi-Def renderings.

Other things that hinder the OP's question and answer search... such as, the issue: by what definition to we use for the term MMA in his question. 
Modern MMA with ground-fighting like the OP brought up, or other MMA events that didn't have ground fighting (K1). 
The OP seems to include one but then he excludes the others.
We are left to accept his inaccuracy in term use, as a forgone conclusion, as we try to search for an answer.

And... what about martial arts that are a fork, or a split away from sanctioned combative sport towards real world or reality based self-defense oriented MA. 

Stuff that looks at the combative sports for validation of techniques and strategies that work in the purpose of submitting a resisting opponent or rendering him unconscious but instead of records, winning belts, and rankings have a different application and underlying goal or philosophy. Like maybe self-preservation, and property loss prevention.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> The point is completely bogus because it is not something I brought to bear in supporting my position. Namely that the art form that came to be known as DRAJJ had a role in the formation of what would come to be called BJJ.
> 
> Nowhere at anytime ever... Not even once have I ever said Maeda was a student of Takeda.
> 
> So if you would like to join in the discussion already in progress, and argue against my position, PLEASE argue against what was actually said by me, instead of things I _NEVER_ said.
> 
> If you are willing to put words into TsdTexan's mouth, so you can defeat such an expressed view... We have no reasonable basis of conversation here on this topic.
> 
> I would like to enjoy friendly martial arts talk with you. But let us remain reasonable fellows and not put words in each others mouth like this... Please?



You're still wrong As in factually and fundamentally incorrect.

BJJ came from judo. Kano invented judo. Kano did not study Daito ryu. It's said that one throw-*one*-_might_ have come to him through one of his students, much like he gleaned _kata garuma_, the fireman's carry, from wrestling. No daito ryu of any significance to be called "an influence, " though. We have a pretty fair record of what Kano studied, and daito ryu isn't in the mix.

Kanō Jigorō - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, _you're_ *wrong*. 

Nothing "problematic" about that. It apparently happens all the time.


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> You're still wrong As in factually and fundamentally incorrect.
> 
> BJJ came from judo. Kano invented judo. Kano did not study Daito ryu. It's said that one throw-*one*-_might_ have come to him through one of his students, much like he gleaned _kata garuma_, the fireman's carry, from wrestling. No daito ryu of any significance to be called "an influence, " though. We have a pretty fair record of what Kano studied, and daito ryu isn't in the mix.
> 
> Kanō Jigorō - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So, _you're_ *wrong*.
> 
> Nothing "problematic" about that. It apparently happens all the time.



Did Kano create the entire Kodakan curriculum by himself in a vacuum? Yes or No
Did Kano ever bring in outsiders to teach new material to his school? Yes or No

If anything, Kano was far more more jujutsu editor for his school curriculm than inventor of new techniques for his school. 

Even the term Judo itself pre-existed Kano's own art.

The point of contention between Chris and Myself, is on hold, with His position not being further challenged by me while I am doing research.

I notice that you have not acknowledged the truth, of the fact, that you used a strawman attack against my position, and were called on it.

This was called to your attention, because, again this wasn't about my main point... the one that was offered to watergal (bjj/drjj) being right or wrong. This was about your attacking a position, I never held, and declaring my position wrong because of that point.

I hear the silence... and the changing of the attack.

But, this is my last post re:drajj and bjj on this thread. In other words, you can have the last word about it, because I am not continuing to argue about the subject, I will listen to your answers to my questions without response. But try and stay on topic for the thread please. I know I am going to try to do so.


----------



## Drose427

TSDTexan said:


> As far as I am aware:
> The ITFA teaches ITF-style Taekwon-Do which follows the syllabus laid down by the Founder, General Choi Hong Hi, in the Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia. The syllabus includes Patterns, Step-Sparring, Free Sparring, Destruction or breaking, Martial Art Terminology, Self-Defence and Moral Culture.
> 
> 
> As far as I am aware, General Choi didn't have a groundfighting Curriculum. And headbutting, and gripfighting generally isn't taught in most TKD places.
> 
> Prior to the formation of the and the ITF, and the ITFA, Chong Chul Rhee was a Dan under the The Korea Taekwon-Do Association (KTA; 1959/1961) which also didn't have ground fighting like Sambo, JJJ or BJJ.
> 
> So I am curious as to how your school has integrated these into your Rhee TKD.



This very much depends on the school/association

Like yourself, my system is TSD. My KJN trained under Rhee for much of his life, and we've always done headbutts, Judo Style grappling in SD for color belts, starting at 1st dan Takedowns become a regular part of sparring.

That said, the floor in our new space is gonna make these things hurt a great bit more and increase the risk of injury so people are less inclined to do them since we;ve moved


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> I hear the silence... and the changing of the attack.
> 
> But, this is my last post re:drajj and bjj on this thread. In other words, you can have the last word about it, because I am not continuing to argue about the subject, I will listen to your answers to my questions without response. But try and stay on topic for the thread please. I know I am going to try to do so.



DRAJJ is not ideally suited for the cage. It has no ne waza to speak of

You're *still* wrong.


----------



## Tez3

The OP stated several times before he left us that he hated MMA, that it was disgusting, barbaric and generally not nice so we can take from his question he was questioning the fact it existed and was actually recognised by some instead of being outlawed. He really does detest MMA so you can be sure that the question wasn't asked with any good intentions.


----------



## TSDTexan

Drose427 said:


> This very much depends on the school/association
> 
> Like yourself, my system is TSD. My KJN trained under Rhee for much of his life, and we've always done headbutts, Judo Style grappling in SD for color belts, starting at 1st dan Takedowns become a regular part of sparring.
> 
> That said, the floor in our new space is gonna make these things hurt a great bit more and increase the risk of injury so people are less inclined to do them since we;ve moved




You seriously make me want to sail down to Perth for a few weeks. I mean that. I love TSD, or TSD under any other name... As much as I love Okinawan "Te" under any name.
I have been to NSW, and QL so many times but I have never been further west into Oz than Alice Springs, back before they renamed Ayers Rock to Uluru in 2002 under a reversal of the 1993 dual name policy. Maybe some day I will get to pet some Perth wallabies.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I've got a great idea.  Let's get the thread back on topic.  The origins of BJJ are interesting, and the relationship between BJJ and the various threads of japanese jujutsu is loads of fun, but has no bearing on the topic at hand.




It really isn't interesting at all.

Let's watch Jules the jackle really hurt himself.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> You seriously make me want to sail down to Perth for a few weeks. I mean that. I love TSD, or TSD under any other name... As much as I love Okinawan "Te" under any name.
> I have been to NSW, and QL so many times but I have never been further west into Oz than Alice Springs, back before they renamed Ayers Rock to Uluru in 2002 under a reversal of the 1993 dual name policy. Maybe some day I will get to pet some Perth wallabies.



If you get to qld look up Kudo if you want to get your karate with takedowns headbutts and groin kicks.

Every single one of them is a kill monster. You will love it.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> It really isn't interesting at all.
> 
> Let's watch Jules the jackle really hurt himself.




Ouch... Yep... Last night, minutes before bed.. On facebook I saw a some Russian K1 llushin low kick to the thigh/knee get checked bone on bone... The kicker's leg turned into floppy rubber and he tried to stand after the kick, but it folded... Had nightmares.


Here is the link..
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=968866219817853&id=143826492321834&refid=12&__tn__=H


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> If you get to qld look up Kudo if you want to get your karate with takedowns headbutts and groin kicks.
> 
> Every single one of them is a kill monster. You will love it.




Kudo... Is that Karate + Judo?


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Kudo... Is that Karate + Judo?



Kind of.


----------



## Chris Parker

elder999 said:


> Dude, seriously?
> 
> I had a full-on apocalyptic catastrophe nightmare, last night, the first in a long time, so I can waste a little time persuading you-it's a matter of simple history, really:
> 
> Maeda Mitsuyo taught the Gracies judo-Kodokan judo. Pre-war judo, that was sometimes called Kano jujutsu. While there's some argument that there were men who studied with Takeda Sokaku (Daito ryu) among the earlier members of the Kodokan, there's no evidence at all that Maeda was one of those.
> Takeda kept extensive records of those who studied Daito ryu-Maeda's name isn't in there.
> There is no ground fighting per se in Daito ryu, though its principles can be used in ground fighting.
> 
> Mitsuyo Maeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> BJJ comes from judo, and whatever else the Gracie's grafted on afterwards: a little boxing, a little catch wrestling,Helio Gracie's inventions of different angles and transitions,  but it's still *B*asically *J*ust *J*udo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wherever you got this information from, that BJJ comes from Daito ryu, is just wrong.
> 
> As are you.



Now, to be fair to TSDTexan, Elder, his theory/belief on Daito Ryu and it's relationship to BJJ isn't quite what you're suggesting there… although what you're suggesting is eminently more plausible… 

His actual assertion is that Daito Ryu was one of the foundations of Takenouchi Ryu (which, of course, it wasn't)… and that Kano studied Takenouchi Ryu (which he didn't)… and that Kodokan Judo then gave rise to Kosen Judo, which Maeda brought to Brazil (leaving off the annoying fact that Kosen Judo, as a rule-set, rather than a subset of skills, wasn't formulated until nearly a decade after Maeda left Japan)… therefore, what Maeda taught is based in Daito Ryu, because… apparently it's all in Takenouchi Ryu… which has no bearing on Judo at all…

Er… did we follow all of that…?



TSDTexan said:


> Part A. Your statement regarding where: I got my information being wrong... Perfectly good statement, in the sense that it is clear that you are asserting that this information is incorrect.



Sure. But, of course, where you did get your information was still wrong… 



TSDTexan said:


> Part B.
> Your statement "as are you" is problematic in the least. You are being pretty vague, and this statement requires the reader to make guesses as to the meaning.



Really? I didn't think it was that vague… "(the information) is wrong. As are you". Pretty clear to me… 



TSDTexan said:


> Are you implying that "TsdTexan is just wrong" in some sort of personal sense? Gosh, I hope not.



Nope, just completely incorrect in your assessment of historical facts and reality… 



TSDTexan said:


> Surely, you wouldn't need to use an ad hominem attack, after you clearly destroyed what you think is TsdTexan's position.



Man, it wasn't a personal attack… it was an observation of you not being right… pretty simple.



TSDTexan said:


> Though I will admit the Maeda-Takada is a great strawman. Argument. It is a verifiable fact, as Takeda kept meticulous records as to who attended his seminars and classes, and Yes, Maeda probably isn't listed. I never even bothered to look or inquire.



Ha, kay… not sure why you're continuing to go over the aspect you say you didn't believe in the first place… 



TSDTexan said:


> The point is completely bogus because it is not something I brought to bear in supporting my position. Namely that the art form that came to be known as DRAJJ had a role in the formation of what would come to be called BJJ.
> 
> Nowhere at anytime ever... Not even once have I ever said Maeda was a student of Takeda.



No, you didn't… of course, the idea that "the art form that came to be known as DRAJJ had a role in the formation of what would come to be called BJJ" was still wrong… ha!



TSDTexan said:


> So if you would like to join in the discussion already in progress, and argue against my position, PLEASE argue against what was actually said by me, instead of things I _NEVER_ said.



Honestly, this is fair, and I agree. 



TSDTexan said:


> If you are willing to put words into TsdTexan's mouth, so you can defeat such an expressed view... We have no reasonable basis of conversation here on this topic.



Sure… on that topic, can you answer my questions about your understanding and experience with Takenouchi Ryu and Daito Ryu? The ones detailing the ne-waza in Daito Ryu? And what you meant by a "pure art" in regards to Daito Ryu? I mean… without you engaging in answers, we don't have much of a basis for conversation here… 



TSDTexan said:


> I would like to enjoy friendly martial arts talk with you. But let us remain reasonable fellows and not put words in each others mouth like this... Please?



Sure.



Steve said:


> I've got a great idea.  Let's get the thread back on topic.  The origins of BJJ are interesting, and the relationship between BJJ and the various threads of japanese jujutsu is loads of fun, but has no bearing on the topic at hand.



Eh, the topic was dead on arrival, Steve… it was basically "How can we call MMA a martial art, cause I don't like it!" from the OP… not sure there's any real ground left to cover on it… 



TSDTexan said:


> Did Kano create the entire Kodakan curriculum by himself in a vacuum? Yes or No
> Did Kano ever bring in outsiders to teach new material to his school? Yes or No



In a vacuum? No. By himself? Well… in a very real way, yes. Did he ever bring outsiders in? Yep. Does that mean that they had any real part in "creating" Judo? No, not really. In a real sense, Kano WAS Judo. It was simply what he felt should be there.



TSDTexan said:


> If anything, Kano was far more more jujutsu editor for his school curriculm than inventor of new techniques for his school.



Er… not quite sure you get how things went there… cause… well… no.

I mean… you do get that it's not about "inventing techniques", yeah?



TSDTexan said:


> Even the term Judo itself pre-existed Kano's own art.



Kinda. There is a reference using the term "柔道" in the Jikishinkage Ryu some 150 years prior to Kano… however, it's really not related to Judo (Kodokan/Kano-ha) at all. You know that there's the term "剣道" in Musashi's writings that have nothing at all to do with "Kendo", yeah? What I'm getting at is that usage of similar terminology doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to indicating a relationship between them… 



TSDTexan said:


> The point of contention between Chris and Myself, is on hold, with His position not being further challenged by me while I am doing research.



Yeah, again… good luck with that… 



TSDTexan said:


> I notice that you have not acknowledged the truth, of the fact, that you used a strawman attack against my position, and were called on it.



No, he made a logical assumption about what you most likely were referring to (by looking at the most plausible and logical way your assertion could have taken place)… 



TSDTexan said:


> This was called to your attention, because, again this wasn't about my main point... the one that was offered to watergal (bjj/drjj) being right or wrong. This was about your attacking a position, I never held, and declaring my position wrong because of that point.



Actually, the position you held (and, seemingly, continue to hold) is wrong… Elder didn't correctly assess where your position came from… honestly, understandably… but that's it.



TSDTexan said:


> I hear the silence... and the changing of the attack.



Er… huh?



TSDTexan said:


> But, this is my last post re:drajj and bjj on this thread. In other words, you can have the last word about it, because I am not continuing to argue about the subject, I will listen to your answers to my questions without response. But try and stay on topic for the thread please. I know I am going to try to do so.



Sure. Oh, by the way, feel free to start a thread on the topic if you want… bringing it up in other threads is just going to have us retread the same ground again…


----------



## drop bear

Here is Jules the jackal getting bashed.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> If you get to qld look up Kudo if you want to get your karate with takedowns headbutts and groin kicks.
> 
> Every single one of them is a kill monster. You will love it.



This is kudo


----------



## Tez3

It's also good old fashioned karate, there's still a fair few  who do it that way.


----------



## elder999

Chris Parker said:


> Now, to be fair to TSDTexan, Elder, his theory/belief on Daito Ryu and it's relationship to BJJ isn't quite what you're suggesting there… although what you're suggesting is eminently more plausible…
> 
> His actual assertion is that Daito Ryu was one of the foundations of Takenouchi Ryu (which, of course, it wasn't)… and that Kano studied Takenouchi Ryu (which he didn't)… and that Kodokan Judo then gave rise to Kosen Judo, which Maeda brought to Brazil (leaving off the annoying fact that Kosen Judo, as a rule-set, rather than a subset of skills, wasn't formulated until nearly a decade after Maeda left Japan)… therefore, what Maeda taught is based in Daito Ryu, because… apparently it's all in Takenouchi Ryu… which has no bearing on Judo at all…
> 
> Er… did we follow all of that…?
> 
> …


*Yeah*

It's even worse than I thought.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> If you get to qld look up Kudo if you want to get your karate with takedowns headbutts and groin kicks.
> 
> Every single one of them is a kill monster. You will love it.



At this point, its better just to go to a MMA school. Why waste time looking for a needle in a haystack when there's a legit MMA school on just about every corner in the industrialized world?

Maybe 20 years ago, doing Kudo would be a solid option, but MMA simply does that sort of thing better.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> At this point, its better just to go to a MMA school. Why waste time looking for a needle in a haystack when there's a legit MMA school on just about every corner in the industrialized world?
> 
> Maybe 20 years ago, doing Kudo would be a solid option, but MMA simply does that sort of thing better.



Depends. The guys in qld are legit. So if you are desperate to train with a GI on and throw head kicks then it is a viable option.

It is more of a case of what floats your boat there rather than one being fundamentally better.

BLACK DRAGON KAI |  Home


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> Depends. The guys in qld are legit. So if you are desperate to train with a GI on and throw head kicks then it is a viable option.
> 
> It is more of a case of what floats your boat there rather than one being fundamentally better.
> 
> BLACK DRAGON KAI |  Home




Hehe. I don't think fashion has a great bearing on combative sport. Or even free sparing/ fight simulation. I do think the introduction of the GI (dobok) is a good thing. I think it is preferable to fight in a GI as opposed a kimono.

I do like traditional attire.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Hehe. I don't think fashion has a great bearing on combative sport. Or even free sparing/ fight simulation. I do think the introduction of the GI (dobok) is a good thing. I think it is preferable to fight in a GI as opposed a kimono.
> 
> I do like traditional attire.




What has fashion got to do with anything, drop bear didn't say anything about it. In BJJ a kimono is a gi.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> You have told me so. And I have acknowledged that you have told me so. I am not yet persuaded on the matter, and I suspect that I won't be for a while.





Chris Parker said:


> You're "agnostic" on the topic? How does that work? You don't know for sure, so you won't listen to someone who does?



I can't seem to find it at the moment, but didn't TSDTexan have a post at some point where he linked to his source for his ... unusual ideas about the history of DRJJ?

_If_ TSDTexan is doing what he says he is - doing research to find evidence for Chris's explanation of the relevant history vs his own previous ideas before deciding which is correct - then I have to say he's doing the right thing. He started out by accepting the word of someone who claimed to be knowledgeable about the history of classical Japanese martial arts. Now he's encountered someone else (Chris) who claims to be knowledgeable about the same field telling him his previous information is all wrong. As it so happens, Chris is correct, but without a better grounding in the field TSDTexan has no way of knowing that. If he just takes Chris's word for it based on Chris's claims of expertise then he's in the same boat he was before - taking the word of a self-proclaimed "expert" with no sources to back it up.

If TSDTexan does his research well, he will discover that Chris is correct. That will a) give him more background to judge such claims in the future and b) give him more reason to trust Chris's word on other matters.

It doesn't make things easy that the world of martial arts is filled with historical misinformation. It doesn't just come from unqualified charlatans either. Lots of well-respected, very high-ranked instructors have \been responsible for spreading unsubstantiated myths and wishful thinking, heavily distorted spin, and downright lies as the "official" history of their arts. It's hard to blame someone who falls into the trap of buying into some of these stories.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Hehe. I don't think fashion has a great bearing on combative sport. Or even free sparing/ fight simulation. I do think the introduction of the GI (dobok) is a good thing. I think it is preferable to fight in a GI as opposed a kimono.
> 
> I do like traditional attire.



I have a spiderman licra suit for sparring. Fashion is vital.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I have a spiderman licra suit for sparring. Fashion is vital.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> I have a spiderman licra suit for sparring. Fashion is vital.




Scary visuals tho... Especially when you rip the crotch doing high roundhouse kicks.


----------



## Ariyan Parraya

isn't different with free brawling (^^)> ithink...


----------



## Sub Zero

drop bear said:


> I have a spiderman licra suit for sparring. Fashion is vital.



Nice I got a Green and White Ranger one.  Thinking about getting another Green Ranger rashie but with The Dragon Shield and short sleeved.


----------



## drop bear

Sub Zero said:


> Nice I got a Green and White Ranger one.  Thinking about getting another Green Ranger rashie but with The Dragon Shield and short sleeved.



Power ranger gear would rock.


----------



## FriedRice

JohnnyEnglish said:


> I am a big fan of full contact in martial arts like kickboxing,boxing or even Karate, but I think all the " borders " are crossed when you hit somebody who is already on the ground, this has nothing to do with martial arts, this is just having a dirty fight with someone.
> 
> So how did it happen that we call MMA an own martial art now ?




You don't understand, real fighting.


----------



## Ironbear24

MMA is not a martial art, but it is however a collection of martial arts.


----------



## Buka

TSDTexan said:


> This is kudo



I was away part of the summer and completely missed this.
That is what I think should be the sparring aspect of training in every karate school. (In the ones that have sparring)


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I was away part of the summer and completely missed this.
> That is what I think should be the sparring aspect of training in every karate school. (In the ones that have sparring)



Yeah interesting system. Those hats are really good. You can elbow head butt them and eye gouge them with as much juice as you want without dropping people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah interesting system. Those hats are really good. You can elbow head butt them and eye gouge them with as much juice as you want without dropping people.


Looks good - my only concern was the sheer abandon in the head butts - looked like they could easily knock themselves out with that if the gear wasn't there. Everything else was really good - nice commitment, reasonable power, good speed and form. Much better than many fights I've seen.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Looks good - my only concern was the sheer abandon in the head butts - looked like they could easily knock themselves out with that if the gear wasn't there. Everything else was really good - nice commitment, reasonable power, good speed and form. Much better than many fights I've seen.



It is a top class competition. You can represent your country in it.


----------



## TSDTexan

Ironbear24 said:


> MMA is not a martial art, but it is however a collection of martial arts.


Actually... Karate is arguably an MMA that became a formalized or specialliazed MA in its own right.


----------



## Hanzou

In all honesty all martial arts are mixed. The issue arises when an art refuses to fill its weaknesses and chooses to adhere to tradition instead of adapting to the changing world around it. The thing about MMA and Bjj is that they're both very dynamic styles that are evolving rapidly in multiple directions, unlike say Okinawan karate which is pretty traditional, and adverse towards change.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> In all honesty all martial arts are mixed. The issue arises when an art refuses to fill its weaknesses and chooses to adhere to tradition instead of adapting to the changing world around it. The thing about MMA and Bjj is that they're both very dynamic styles that are evolving rapidly in multiple directions, unlike say Okinawan karate which is pretty traditional, and adverse towards change.


I don't know many instructors in any art who aren't working on filling gaps in what they teach their students, except those who teach arts purely for internal development. Those who train folks for competition are filling gaps that fit the competition, and those who train for self-defense are filling gaps for the street. Sometimes they fill those gaps from other arts and styles, sometimes they fill those gaps with techniques that belong in the style but were left out at some point, and some fill those gaps with what other instructors in their art are doing. This has been one of the bonuses of things like YouTube - instructors can see what's being done elsewhere in their art, as well as in other arts.

I'm certain not all are successful, regardless of their area of focus, and I know there are some instructors who either ignore the gaps or leave them for the students to fill with other training. In the end, most students won't train often enough or long enough to fill all those gaps, anyway, so the gap-filling is mostly for the benefit of the small percentage who do.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> In all honesty all martial arts are mixed. The issue arises when an art refuses to fill its weaknesses and chooses to adhere to tradition instead of adapting to the changing world around it. The thing about MMA and Bjj is that they're both very dynamic styles that are evolving rapidly in multiple directions, unlike say Okinawan karate which is pretty traditional, and adverse towards change.



Our Sigung often encouraged us to learn from other martial arts. But then again I guess kenpo is very different from most forms of karate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> Our Sigung often encouraged us to learn from other martial arts. But then again I guess kenpo is very different from most forms of karate.


I have known instructors who didn't encourage experimenting with or learning from other arts, and some who even discouraged it. Most that I've known, however, are much like your Sigung, and appreciate the cross-pollination of thoughts and ideas. The biggest challenge is when someone doesn't understand why they can't do something in one dojo the same way they did in another.


----------



## Ironbear24

gpseymour said:


> I have known instructors who didn't encourage experimenting with or learning from other arts, and some who even discouraged it. Most that I've known, however, are much like your Sigung, and appreciate the cross-pollination of thoughts and ideas. The biggest challenge is when someone doesn't understand why they can't do something in one dojo the same way they did in another.



I see it like this, you don't go to Calculus class to show off your skills in Geometry and you wouldn't go to a Spanish class to show everyone how well you speak French. You go there to learn from them and not to teach them or show them what you know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> I see it like this, you don't go to Calculus class to show off your skills in Geometry and you wouldn't go to a Spanish class to show everyone how well you speak French. You go there to learn from them and not to teach them or show them what you know.



Agreed. There are exceptions, of course. If an experienced BJJ guy shows up for my classes, I'll eventually ask to roll with him to see if he knows enough for me to learn some new stuff from him. That's like someone in the Spanish class asking you to say something in French, then asking you to teach them to count to ten in French. If it's invited, it's okay. Otherwise, stick to the purpose at hand.


----------



## dmsaint

It should be called Mixed Combat Sports


----------



## Steve

dmsaint said:


> It should be called Mixed Combat Sports


Why?


----------



## dmsaint

Because all the "martial arts" involved in my favorite martial art are combat sports. The term "martial arts" is generic, covering things it doesn't apply to imo. Some arts are martial arts, some are martial arts and combat sports, some are combat sports without any real art to them at all. In MMA even the art element of those arts that are arts and sports is not used, just the combat side. On the flip side of the coin, MMA wouldn't be very usable in the forms competition at the local martial arts tournament.....it seems there are arts and there are combat sports. There are also military combatives , which are expressed in many martial arts, but that is a different topic. MMA is a popular combat sport. Tai Chi, Aikido, and Bagua(for instance) can be combined to create mixed martial arts.....in the literal sense of the word.


----------



## Steve

So, combat sports aren't martial arts.   Is judo a martial art or a combat sport?   What about kendo?

Just trying to figure out what you mean by martial art and combat sport.   I see martial art as a much broader term.    Th way I usually use the terms, a combat sport is a subset of martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So, combat sports aren't martial arts.   Is judo a martial art or a combat sport?   What about kendo?
> 
> Just trying to figure out what you mean by martial art and combat sport.   I see martial art as a much broader term.    Th way I usually use the terms, a combat sport is a subset of martial arts.


Who is this a reply to? For most folks I know, we differentiate between "art" and "sport" with a hazy grey area of overlap between. Judo falls in both categories, as does Kendo. Some styles (or, more accurately, some schools) are all sport. Some are all art. Some are a mix. MMA isn't an art in my mind, because it's not a single style. Frankly, MMA is a style of competition, which includes several different martial arts/martial sports.


----------



## dmsaint

I practice Judo, it's definitely a combat sport. I also practice American Kenpo Karate, it is mostly art....forms, choreographed techniques, rituals etc (art). I don't really need a training partner to practice kenpo and don't need equipment to enhance my fitness. I can zone out and meditate on the art side of it for hours (the dance) (the imagination)....art is artistic expression. Sport is competitive application


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dmsaint said:


> I practice Judo, it's definitely a combat sport. I also practice American Kenpo Karate, it is mostly art....forms, choreographed techniques, rituals etc (art). I don't really need a training partner to practice kenpo and don't need equipment to enhance my fitness. I can zone out and meditate on the art side of it for hours (the dance) (the imagination)....art is artistic expression. Sport is competitive application


Interesting. I've never viewed the word "art" in "martial art" as being related to artistic expression, because I've never learned anything remotely artistic in my training (even the forms I experienced in Karate decades ago weren't artistic). To me, it's more in line with the (antiquated) phrase: "the art and artistry of the thing". I actually wish a different term had been coined so many years ago, but I don't know what a better choice would have been.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. I've never viewed the word "art" in "martial art" as being related to artistic expression, because I've never learned anything remotely artistic in my training (even the forms I experienced in Karate decades ago weren't artistic). To me, it's more in line with the (antiquated) phrase: "the art and artistry of the thing". I actually wish a different term had been coined so many years ago, but I don't know what a better choice would have been.



art1
ɑːt/
_noun_

*1*.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
"he studied art"
*2*.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"


----------



## Hanzou

It can be argued that Judo and Kendo are sports in that their entire system is based upon competition rules. In other words, almost every Judo school out there is based on tournament rules. Very few are self defense-based, or revolve around street fighting like you'd see in a Bjj (usually Gracie-based) school.

For example, leg locks are completely nonexistent in modern Judo, to the point where Judokas don't learn them period. Why? Because of competition rules that don't allow them.  Double Leg, Single Leg, and Guard takedowns have suffered a similar fate, and if you do them in a Judo dojo, you'll get chastised for it.

With that said, I'd put Judo's effectiveness as a martial system a cut above many MAs that claim that their art is "too deadly for sport".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It can be argued that Judo and Kendo are sports in that their entire system is based upon competition rules. In other words, almost every Judo school out there is based on tournament rules. Very few are self defense-based, or revolve around street fighting like you'd see in a Bjj (usually Gracie-based) school.
> 
> For example, leg locks are completely nonexistent in modern Judo, to the point where Judokas don't learn them period. Why? Because of competition rules that don't allow them.  Double Leg, Single Leg, and Guard takedowns have suffered a similar fate, and if you do them in a Judo dojo, you'll get chastised for it.
> 
> With that said, I'd put Judo's effectiveness as a martial system a cut above many MAs that claim that their art is "too deadly for sport".


Actually, the same could be said of some of the BJJ schools I've seen. I have a friend who teaches GJJ (as well as NGA), and he takes a self-defense approach. Some other schools have turned their attention almost wholly toward competition, and now more resemble the attitude I saw in my Judo classes. I wonder if it was much the same in Judo early on.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the same could be said of some of the BJJ schools I've seen. I have a friend who teaches GJJ (as well as NGA), and he takes a self-defense approach. Some other schools have turned their attention almost wholly toward competition, and now more resemble the attitude I saw in my Judo classes. I wonder if it was much the same in Judo early on.



Well there's a difference here. Bjj has pretty close proximity to MMA, there's the nogi component, and sport Bjj has a slightly more open rule set (for now). Those things will keep even sport Bjj from ending up like Judo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well there's a difference here. Bjj has pretty close proximity to MMA, there's the nogi component, and sport Bjj has a slightly more open rule set (for now). Those things will keep even sport Bjj from ending up like Judo.



Let's hope BJJ keeps close to MMA (whatever that ends up being, long-term), and the rules don't progress like Judo's seem to have. I don't know the history, but I'd suspect that's part of the reason for the branching of BJJ from its Judo roots.


----------



## Andrew Green

gpseymour said:


> Let's hope BJJ keeps close to MMA (whatever that ends up being, long-term), and the rules don't progress like Judo's seem to have. I don't know the history, but I'd suspect that's part of the reason for the branching of BJJ from its Judo roots.




I would suspect we will see a split.  And in a sense I think we already are, which complicates the matter because we also have this idea that styles have names, and the name stays.  When BJJ broke off it got a new name, when Sambo broke off it got a new name, when Judo broke from jujitsu it got a new name...  This happened in other styles, we got tons of flavours of karate.

In BJJ there are schools that are very much MMA based, some that are very much sport BJJ based, some that are self-defence based.  Some are all gi, some are all no-gi.  Standards in rank are diverging. 

It's all good though, there is room for all of those things.  Including schools that try to do a little bit of everything.  No "style" needs to stay unified and under a single set of guidelines and curriculum.    As long as it keeps the core ideas, which are fighting to submission against a opponent  trying to do the same thing to you it will remain an amazing style regardless of the schools particular focus.

And if IBJJF rules start going crazy, another organization will pop up.  They already have, there is IBJJF, FILA, ABDCC, Grapplers Quest, etc.


----------



## Ironbear24

I recommend everyone take a judo class. Kenpo is brutal but judo is a different kind of brutal. It is a very humbling experience to be checked into the floor by a 120 poind woman while you are 205 pound man.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> I recommend everyone take a judo class. Kenpo is brutal but judo is a different kind of brutal. It is a very humbling experience to be checked into the floor by a 120 poind woman while you are 205 pound man.



Not if you are the 120 pound woman!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> I recommend everyone take a judo class. Kenpo is brutal but judo is a different kind of brutal. It is a very humbling experience to be checked into the floor by a 120 poind woman while you are 205 pound man.


I had that experience, in a different way. I was a teen when I took Judo, and had my *** handed to me on a regular basis by a woman who was proably in her late 50's. Back then, that was an "old woman" to me, and she kicked my butt every time we hit the mats.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Let's hope BJJ keeps close to MMA (whatever that ends up being, long-term), and the rules don't progress like Judo's seem to have. I don't know the history, but I'd suspect that's part of the reason for the branching of BJJ from its Judo roots.



It will because Bjj is pretty core to MMA fighting. No one steps into MMA without significant Bjj training, and within that training you have to learn how to deal with striking while grappling. There's simply no way around it.



Ironbear24 said:


> I recommend everyone take a judo class. Kenpo is brutal but judo is a different kind of brutal. It is a very humbling experience to be checked into the floor by a 120 poind woman while you are 205 pound man.



Meh. Judo is fantastic, but their dumb rules are destroying the art.


----------



## dmsaint

My Judo instructor is a chiropractor for a reason...dojo and Dr office are connected. I don't think Kenpo is brutal. But I definitely think it is theoretically brutal. I love the art, don't get me wrong, but the way it's trained is so cerebral...even sparring in Kenpo isn't brutal on the level of a judo match or other combat sports like boxing, kickboxing, mma etc savate for sure....


----------



## Ironbear24

dmsaint said:


> My Judo instructor is a chiropractor for a reason...dojo and Dr office are connected. I don't think Kenpo is brutal. But I definitely think it is theoretically brutal. I love the art, don't get me wrong, but the way it's trained is so cerebral...even sparring in Kenpo isn't brutal on the level of a judo match or other combat sports like boxing, kickboxing, mma etc savate for sure....



It really depends on your dojo that had the kenpo training at. Mine was pretty brutal and focused on full contact sparring at least once a week. While the other two days focused on ground mechanics and form/technique.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> It will because Bjj is pretty core to MMA fighting. No one steps into MMA without significant Bjj training, and within that training you have to learn how to deal with striking while grappling. There's simply no way around it.



There are plenty of fighters who don't train in it. Everyone does train how to deal with grappling but not all of that is bjj. Hell even marines with their basic training seem to have been able to deal with popular ufc fighters.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> There are plenty of fighters who don't train in it. Everyone does train how to deal with grappling but not all of that is bjj. Hell even marines with their basic training seem to have been able to deal with popular ufc fighters.



I know an ex Royal Marine Commando who is a pretty good MMA fighter, he was a PTI as well so had *all *bases covered lol. However going on deployments didn't do his fighting career a lot of good. He was on TUF but after he'd left that he was deployed to Afghan a couple of times.
Incidentally if anyone remembers a poster we had on here, a so called female telling us about her fights etc claiming to train at a club here which organised a really dangerous fight night where 'she' was injured, the chap from that club, Dave Jackson, who came on here to tell us it was _all_ a figment of that posters fevered imagination etc was the assistant coach to Bisping on that TUF. He's a good bloke.
There you go a bit of trivia for you.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Who is this a reply to? For most folks I know, we differentiate between "art" and "sport" with a hazy grey area of overlap between. Judo falls in both categories, as does Kendo. Some styles (or, more accurately, some schools) are all sport. Some are all art. Some are a mix. MMA isn't an art in my mind, because it's not a single style. Frankly, MMA is a style of competition, which includes several different martial arts/martial sports.


I was responding to dmsaint.

I pretty much agree with your post.  I would further differentiate MMA from either a sport or an art.  It's kind of both, but really, MMA refers to a specific rule set.  In other words, MMA is trained specifically for success in a particular sport with specific rules.  This makes it more like Kendo than Judo.  More like boxing than BJJ or Tae Kwon Do.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Let's hope BJJ keeps close to MMA (whatever that ends up being, long-term), and the rules don't progress like Judo's seem to have. I don't know the history, but I'd suspect that's part of the reason for the branching of BJJ from its Judo roots.


BJJ is getting weird.  At least, the IBJJF is getting fully as wonky as Judo. 

But, fortunately, anything that works on the ground is BJJ.  AND, there are always other forms of competition, from national competitions like the ADCC to sub only competitions like Metamoris.  There are all kinds of different venues and rule sets to suit any sensibility.


----------



## Steve

Andrew Green said:


> I would suspect we will see a split.  And in a sense I think we already are, which complicates the matter because we also have this idea that styles have names, and the name stays.  When BJJ broke off it got a new name, when Sambo broke off it got a new name, when Judo broke from jujitsu it got a new name...  This happened in other styles, we got tons of flavours of karate.
> 
> In BJJ there are schools that are very much MMA based, some that are very much sport BJJ based, some that are self-defence based.  Some are all gi, some are all no-gi.  Standards in rank are diverging.
> 
> It's all good though, there is room for all of those things.  Including schools that try to do a little bit of everything.  No "style" needs to stay unified and under a single set of guidelines and curriculum.    As long as it keeps the core ideas, which are fighting to submission against a opponent  trying to do the same thing to you it will remain an amazing style regardless of the schools particular focus.
> 
> And if IBJJF rules start going crazy, another organization will pop up.  They already have, there is IBJJF, FILA, ABDCC, Grapplers Quest, etc.


Agree with everything, but would point out that most schools are both gi and no-gi.  The ALL gi or ALL no-gi are pretty rare.  10th Planet is the only ALL NOGI affiliation I know of that purports to be BJJ.  Typically, they will allege to be CACC wrestling if they roll NOGI (which, truly, is just BJJ because anything that works on the ground is BJJ. )


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> There are plenty of fighters who don't train in it.



Yeah? Name some.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Yeah? Name some.



Damn it Hanzou. Making me do homework and ****. Brb.


----------



## Ironbear24

Mark hunt. Matt mitroine. Jared rosholt. Chance Williams. Soichi Nishida (maybe?).


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Mark hunt. Matt mitroine. Jared rosholt. Chance Williams. Soichi Nishida (maybe?).



LoL! I stand corrected.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Mark hunt. Matt mitroine. Jared rosholt. Chance Williams. Soichi Nishida (maybe?).


They've all defended or executed submissions on the ground, soooooo... They have all trained bjj.  It's simple.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> They've all defended or executed submissions on the ground, soooooo... They have all trained bjj.  It's simple.



No.  They could have done submission wrestling.  Big in Australian mma.

But yeah.  Ground submissions is bjj is kind of limited.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> No.  They could have done submission wrestling.  Big in Australian mma.
> 
> But yeah.  Ground submissions is bjj is kind of limited.


Yeah, but that doesn't compute.  Submission wrestling is just bjj.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't compute.  Submission wrestling is just bjj.



But bjj is just judo


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> But bjj is just judo


Judo wishes...


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Judo wishes...



If you are ever in Australia i will put you in touch with rob gruifrida who is one of the best submission guys in the game. 

You couldnt squeeze that guy into a gi.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Judo wishes...



Bjj came from Judo. Just ask hanzou he will tell you. Plus bjj is not the only style with ground submissions. Hell even in kenpo which is a more stand up style we learned a couple.  Wrestling has many and Judo has them too.


----------



## Skullpunch

Ironbear24 said:


> Mark hunt. Matt mitroine. Jared rosholt. Chance Williams. Soichi Nishida (maybe?).



Not sure about the others but I know Mark Hunt trains with ATT and Mitrione trains with the Blackzilians.  Both camps do extensive bjj training.


----------



## Ironbear24

Skullpunch said:


> Not sure about the others but I know Mark Hunt trains with ATT and Mitrione trains with the Blackzilians.  Both camps do extensive bjj training.



My point is that there can be successful fighters without it. Training against it is also different than training in it.


----------



## Skullpunch

Ironbear24 said:


> My point is that there can be successful fighters without it. Training against it is also different than training in it.



If you train against high level bjj guys then you're not going without it.  Most submission and position escapes used in MMA are bjj moves.  Using a style's techniques defensively means you are using the style.  Nobody debates against the fact that a sprawl is a wrestling move, or that slipping a jab is a boxing move.

Besides, it's not exactly unheard of for Hunt to use his jits offensively.  Remember the armbar from the mount attempt against Rothwell?


----------



## Ironbear24

Skullpunch said:


> If you train against high level bjj guys then you're not going without it.  Most submission and position escapes used in MMA are bjj moves.  Using a style's techniques defensively means you are using the style.  Nobody debates against the fact that a sprawl is a wrestling move, or that slipping a jab is a boxing move.
> 
> Besides, it's not exactly unheard of for Hunt to use his jits offensively.  Remember the armbar from the mount attempt against Rothwell?



So if I am being taught how to break a full Nelson hold in a kenpo dojo. Does that mean I am training in wrestling? Or how about if I am taught how to use my opponents spear tackle takedown to my own advantage? Does that mean I train in bjj? 

Many other martial arts are trained to deal with these situations and not exclusively bjj.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> So if I am being taught how to break a full Nelson hold in a kenpo dojo. Does that mean I am training in wrestling? Or how about if I am taught how to use my opponents spear tackle takedown to my own advantage? Does that mean I train in bjj?
> 
> Many other martial arts are trained to deal with these situations and not exclusively bjj.



You are training martial arts.


----------



## Skullpunch

Ironbear24 said:


> So if I am being taught how to break a full Nelson hold in a kenpo dojo. Does that mean I am training in wrestling?



To make this comparison accurate to the kind of training that goes on at a place like ATT (or really any other high level camp for that matter) you would have to re-word it to "So if I'm being taught how to break a full Nelson hold in a kenpo dojo by competitive wrestlers and wrestling coaches, and I'm training it against wrestlers on the reg, does that mean I am training in wrestling?"  And the answer to that would be yes, absolutely.


----------



## Ironbear24

Skullpunch said:


> To make this comparison accurate to the kind of training that goes on at a place like ATT (or really any other high level camp for that matter) you would have to re-word it to "So if I'm being taught how to break a full Nelson hold in a kenpo dojo by competitive wrestlers and wrestling coaches, and I'm training it against wrestlers on the reg, does that mean I am training in wrestling?"  And the answer to that would be yes, absolutely.



You would be training how to deal with wrestling.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> So if I am being taught how to break a full Nelson hold in a kenpo dojo. Does that mean I am training in wrestling? Or how about if I am taught how to use my opponents spear tackle takedown to my own advantage? Does that mean I train in bjj?
> 
> Many other martial arts are trained to deal with these situations and not exclusively bjj.


If it's grappling and it works, it's bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Bjj came from Judo. Just ask hanzou he will tell you. Plus bjj is not the only style with ground submissions. Hell even in kenpo which is a more stand up style we learned a couple.  Wrestling has many and Judo has them too.



While Bjj came from Judo there's some pretty significant differences between the two. Most of those differences stem from a fundamental difference in purpose and philosophy. Judo is heavily geared towards sport while Bjj is heavily geared towards street fighting and self defense. In essence, you could argue that Bjj is what Judo would have turned into if Kano was more interested in beating the crap out of people than creating a recreational sport.

And while Bjj isn't the only style that contains ground submissions, it's arguably the most comprehensive in that department. Further, given its eclectic nature there's new subs being "discovered" all the time.


----------



## Skullpunch

Ironbear24 said:


> You would be training how to deal with wrestling.



Yes, that you would.  You would also be doing so by training wrestling.  There's no need to try and force a dichotomy here where one does not exist.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> If it's grappling and it works, it's bjj.



Riiight because shoot wrestling, sambo, ninjutsu and Judo have no grappling that works. Its very clear I'm talking to biased people here.


----------



## Ironbear24

Skullpunch said:


> Yes, that you would.  You would also be doing so by training wrestling.  There's no need to try and force a dichotomy here where one does not exist.



Unfortunately dichotomy does exist here and even you are using it yourself. For example the apparent need to claim if someone is training how to deal with grappling then they are training bjj even though their style maybe the furthest thing from it.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Riiight because shoot wrestling, sambo, ninjutsu and Judo have no grappling that works. Its very clear I'm talking to biased people here.


Hey now!  I never said "shoot wrestling, sambo... or judo have no grappling that works." Quite the opposite.  I know that they have stuff that works.  What I'm saying is, "if it is grappling and it works, it's BJJ."  If something works in Judo, it is folded into BJJ.  If something works in sambo, any kind of wrestling (shoot, folk, CACC), BJJ welcomes it.  BJJ isn't confined to a canon of techniques, or a single ruleset.  BJJ as a style is very practical.  If it is grappling and it works, it is incorporated. 

I did actually laugh out loud that you chose to include ninjutsu in with wrestling, sambo and judo.  That was a real "one of these things doesn't belong" moment.    I've never seen any ninjutsu grappling that isn't a staged demo or compliant partner exercise.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or work, but as far as I'm concerned, it's like Sasquatch.  People swear they've seen it, but I'm not completely convinced.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Hey now!  I never said "shoot wrestling, sambo... or judo have no grappling that works." Quite the opposite.  I know that they have stuff that works.  What I'm saying is, "if it is grappling and it works, it's BJJ."  If something works in Judo, it is folded into BJJ.  If something works in sambo, any kind of wrestling (shoot, folk, CACC), BJJ welcomes it.  BJJ isn't confined to a canon of techniques, or a single ruleset.  BJJ as a style is very practical.  If it is grappling and it works, it is incorporated.
> 
> I did actually laugh out loud that you chose to include ninjutsu in with wrestling, sambo and judo.  That was a real "one of these things doesn't belong" moment.    I've never seen any ninjutsu grappling that isn't a staged demo or compliant partner exercise.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or work, but as far as I'm concerned, it's like Sasquatch.  People swear they've seen it, but I'm not completely convinced.



You can thank Ashida Kim and other "entertainers" for that, many of the serious places do practice lots of it rather than silly gymnastics.

My question is if bjj is "eclectic" why does it have practically no standing experience? Many bjj places I visit claim to be Street and competition bjj yet all I have seen them do is begin the match on the ground. Like you see wrestlers do, there is no real fight that is going to start that way.

I will admit I have only been to about two places though, so that could be coincidental.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Unfortunately dichotomy does exist here and even you are using it yourself. For example the apparent need to claim if someone is training how to deal with grappling then they are training bjj even though their style maybe the furthest thing from it.


If you're referring to me, I think you're mistaken, and going about it from the absolute wrong direction. 

f you're training BJJ, you're training a little of everything.  You will see the technique in BJJ influenced by wrestling, sambo, judo, and anything else that works.  Heck, since Aikido is a current, hot topic, I can think of at least one very skilled BJJ black belt who also has a black belt in Aikido and has synthesized a lot of what he's learned from aikido to inform his BJJ.  So, you could even say that if you're training BJJ in his school, you're training Aikido (and Judo). 

If you're training something else, and it's the furthest thing from BJJ, I think you might be in trouble... that is, if you want it to work.  BJJ, sambo, judo, and wrestling are all close cousins.  There is a lot of overlap, and a lot of cross pollination.  If it's too far are away from BJJ, it's also a long way from just about every other style of grappling that has a chance of functioning as designed.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> You can thank Ashida Kim and other "entertainers" for that, many of the serious places do practice lots of it rather than silly gymnastics.
> 
> My question is if bjj is "eclectic" why does it have practically no standing experience? Many bjj places I visit claim to be Street and competition bjj yet all I have seen them do is begin the match on the ground. Like you see wrestlers do, there is no real fight that is going to start that way.
> 
> I will admit I have only been to about two places though, so that could be coincidental.



Yeah, you should check out old school Bjj from the Gracie, Machado, or Fadda lineages. There's lots of stand up in those systems.

And yeah, as a beginner you tend to start from the ground when you're rolling. It minimizes injury and allows you to work directly on groundwork. However, you can always request to start from a standing position.

As for Ninjutsu, yeah it doesn't really belong with Judo, Bjj, Sambo, and wrestling.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> You can thank Ashida Kim and other "entertainers" for that, many of the serious places do practice lots of it rather than silly gymnastics.
> 
> My question is if bjj is "eclectic" why does it have practically no standing experience? Many bjj places I visit claim to be Street and competition bjj yet all I have seen them do is begin the match on the ground. Like you see wrestlers do, there is no real fight that is going to start that way.
> 
> I will admit I have only been to about two places though, so that could be coincidental.


I think you answered your own question at the end there.  Every match in every BJJ competition, regardless of ruleset, starts standing. 

Regarding the ninja thing, I truly have no idea.  It's something I hear a lot of people talk about, but as I said, it's like Bigfoot.  Some people insist it's real, but I've seen no evidence of it beyond some enthusiastic rhetoric.  I've never trained Sambo, but I can see evidence of it's efficacy if I take just a few minutes to look for it.  Shiu Jao is a very foreign way of grappling to me, but I can look at it and it makes sense.  Based upon what I know about how people move, and the mechanics of grappling, I get it.  It's a different system, but I've no doubt that it can work. 

If I look for effective ninja grappling, I find little to distinguish Ashida Kim from anyone else.  Once again, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Just saying I've never seen it or any evidence of it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Hey now!  I never said "shoot wrestling, sambo... or judo have no grappling that works." Quite the opposite.  I know that they have stuff that works.  What I'm saying is, "if it is grappling and it works, it's BJJ."  If something works in Judo, it is folded into BJJ.  If something works in sambo, any kind of wrestling (shoot, folk, CACC), BJJ welcomes it.  BJJ isn't confined to a canon of techniques, or a single ruleset.  BJJ as a style is very practical.  If it is grappling and it works, it is incorporated.
> 
> I did actually laugh out loud that you chose to include ninjutsu in with wrestling, sambo and judo.  That was a real "one of these things doesn't belong" moment.    I've never seen any ninjutsu grappling that isn't a staged demo or compliant partner exercise.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or work, but as far as I'm concerned, it's like Sasquatch.  People swear they've seen it, but I'm not completely convinced.



If it is grappling and it works it is mma.  For exactly the same reason.

Actually there are elements of grappling that are almost mma specific like striking and working off a wall.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> If it is grappling and it works it is mma.  For exactly the same reason.
> 
> Actually there are elements of grappling that are almost mma specific like striking and working off a wall.


Yeah, there are some differences.  But the mindset is the same.  Which, I think, is why BJJ and MMA are so commonly associated with each other.  I was working a tournament just this weekend, and I'd say about 30% of the schools represented were "MMA" or "combat" schools, and not just BJJ.


----------



## Skullpunch

Ironbear24 said:


> For example the apparent need to claim if someone is training how to deal with grappling then they are training bjj even though their style maybe the furthest thing from it.



You're making this up.  What I claimed was that if someone is training at a camp like American Top Team they're likely doing bjj everyday.  Seriously, you have to not have any idea who American Top Team is to even begin to try and deny that.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> While Bjj came from Judo there's some pretty significant differences between the two. Most of those differences stem from a fundamental difference in purpose and philosophy. Judo is heavily geared towards sport while Bjj is heavily geared towards street fighting and self defense. In essence, you could argue that Bjj is what Judo would have turned into if Kano was more interested in beating the crap out of people than creating a recreational sport.



Wow. Well, that's a heavily biased and largely inaccurate reading of many aspects… in fact, I'd say that you could argue that only if you were blind to reality, history, and, well, anything that didn't show your favoured pastime as the most incredible art that ever existed…

My point is that no, BJJ is not "heavily geared towards street fighting and self defence"… while it can be useful there, it simply isn't geared in that fashion, and thinking it is is only evidence of not having any clue as to either context… and while Kano Sensei's ideal was not the basic, minor, and amateurish desire to "beat the crap out of people", it was also not to "create a recreational sport".



Steve said:


> Hey now!  I never said "shoot wrestling, sambo... or judo have no grappling that works." Quite the opposite.  I know that they have stuff that works.  What I'm saying is, "if it is grappling and it works, it's BJJ."  If something works in Judo, it is folded into BJJ.  If something works in sambo, any kind of wrestling (shoot, folk, CACC), BJJ welcomes it.  BJJ isn't confined to a canon of techniques, or a single ruleset.  BJJ as a style is very practical.  If it is grappling and it works, it is incorporated.



No. The closest you can say is that, if it's a grappling action, it can potentially be incorporated into BJJ, but won't necessarily be.

Frankly, you have a very limited perspective on what grappling is, and what defines "works".



Steve said:


> I did actually laugh out loud that you chose to include ninjutsu in with wrestling, sambo and judo.  That was a real "one of these things doesn't belong" moment.    I've never seen any ninjutsu grappling that isn't a staged demo or compliant partner exercise.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or work, but as far as I'm concerned, it's like Sasquatch.  People swear they've seen it, but I'm not completely convinced.



Bluntly, your opinion, being based on being thoroughly clueless about the actual subject itself (to be clear, I'm referring to ninjutsu and it's approach to grappling here), doesn't amount to much, Steve. I will say, though, that this level of art bashing is something you normally tell others to knock off… and this is the first of a few comments you make here.



Steve said:


> If you're referring to me, I think you're mistaken, and going about it from the absolute wrong direction.
> 
> f you're training BJJ, you're training a little of everything.  You will see the technique in BJJ influenced by wrestling, sambo, judo, and anything else that works.  Heck, since Aikido is a current, hot topic, I can think of at least one very skilled BJJ black belt who also has a black belt in Aikido and has synthesized a lot of what he's learned from aikido to inform his BJJ.  So, you could even say that if you're training BJJ in his school, you're training Aikido (and Judo).



No. To pretty much all of that. If you're training BJJ, you're training BJJ. The particular mechanical method might have originally been transported from another methodology (albeit highly similar in many respects, from the list you give), but it becomes BJJ once incorporated into BJJ. I would also argue pretty strongly that, in the example school you mention, when you're training BJJ, you're only training BJJ… his approach will undoubtedly be influenced by his Aikido, but to say that you'd be training Aikido at the same time is to completely misunderstand what makes each art what it is, what Aikido is, what separates it from BJJ, and more.



Steve said:


> If you're training something else, and it's the furthest thing from BJJ, I think you might be in trouble... that is, if you want it to work.  BJJ, sambo, judo, and wrestling are all close cousins.  There is a lot of overlap, and a lot of cross pollination.  If it's too far are away from BJJ, it's also a long way from just about every other style of grappling that has a chance of functioning as designed.



You really need to come to some definition of "work" here… there's plenty of approaches, methods, and more that "work" in their context, but aren't really compatible with BJJ (or similar) at all. After all, the various systems you mention are, as you said, "close cousins"… with very similar contexts, applications, training methodologies, and so on. It's natural to expect a fair amount of cross-pollination and overlap in their approaches… but to then say that's the only thing that "works" is to show a great lack of appreciation for anything that doesn't match your small area of understanding.

By the way, it's ideas like this that have garnered you and others such nicknames as the "BJJ mafia"… if you were wondering.



Hanzou said:


> As for Ninjutsu, yeah it doesn't really belong with Judo, Bjj, Sambo, and wrestling.



It's not meant to… but not for the reasons you're thinking.



Steve said:


> I think you answered your own question at the end there.  Every match in every BJJ competition, regardless of ruleset, starts standing.



Bjj Eastern Europe   – Vinny Magalhaes: ‘BJJ Became a Weird Game with Pussified Rules’

"The direction that sport BJJ is going is worrying many. Nowadays modern Ju-Jitsu is guard centric and most competitors don’t even bother with takedowns. They just pull guard and aim to sweep from the guard. BJJ has become more of a game than a combat system."

Oh… and watch the video at the end… just saying… 



Steve said:


> Regarding the ninja thing, I truly have no idea.  It's something I hear a lot of people talk about, but as I said, it's like Bigfoot.  Some people insist it's real, but I've seen no evidence of it beyond some enthusiastic rhetoric.  I've never trained Sambo, but I can see evidence of it's efficacy if I take just a few minutes to look for it.  Shiu Jao is a very foreign way of grappling to me, but I can look at it and it makes sense.  Based upon what I know about how people move, and the mechanics of grappling, I get it.  It's a different system, but I've no doubt that it can work.



Frankly, Steve, you aren't in any position to offer any qualified opinion. Mainly as you then follow up with this:



Steve said:


> If I look for effective ninja grappling, I find little to distinguish Ashida Kim from anyone else.  Once again, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Just saying I've never seen it or any evidence of it.



What that tells me is that you haven't really seen anything genuine… or, at least, not recognised what you were seeing. So I'm going to break things down for you a bit.

"Grappling" does not mean "ground fighting". It also does not mean "submission wrestling", or anything similar. Those are some aspects of the entire concept of grappling, but hardly the definitive nor exhaustive definition of the word. 

Martial arts are not their techniques (although you seem to be equating techniques to "what works")… but, if you want to go that route, here you go:

What is called a "Kimura" in BJJ is called a Gyaku Oni Kudaki with us.
What is called an Arm-Bar is called a Muso Dori with us.
What is called a "whizzer" is called a Musha Dori with us.
What is called a "goose-neck" is called a Take Ori with us.
What is called a "Overhand Wrist Lock" is called an Oni Kudaki with us.
Throws in Ninjutsu include many of the same ones found in Judo (albeit sometimes done slightly differently, due to differing contexts), such as Seoi Nage, Gyaku Seoi Nage, Katate Nage, Kata Guruma, Koshi Nage, Ippon Seoi Nage, Uchimata (O-uchi Gari), Uchigake, Osoto Gari, Osoto Gake, O Guruma, Tomoe Nage, Yoko Nagare, Tai Otoshi, Morote Gari, and many, many more. In fact, I recently went through a list of our throws… came up with about 42 (compared with Judo's 64, for the record), with many having a Judo equivalent if not basically being exactly the same).
Chokes include gi-chokes (Hon Jime, Gyaku Jime, Osae Shime, Gyaku Osae Jime, and more), and chokes that don't involve the gi (sankaku jime, basically a RNC, kata-hagai jime, and more).
Body holds/chokes include Hagai Jime (full nelson), Do Jime/Karada Jime (a variety of bear hugs), and more.

From each of these techniques there are a number of counters and escapes as well… in addition to a range of methods to apply these techniques against striking attacks, or weapon attacks (in different forms).

So here's my point. We have (largely) the same techniques… however, we do them all standing. We don't focus on the ground much at all. It's a very minor aspect in our context, honestly. We also don't give a damn about competition… it's really the opposite of what we do. As a result, our training methodologies aren't focused around the same context as yours. That will naturally lead in a different direction… sometimes with a minor deviation, sometimes a little more dramatically… but that doesn't mean that what we do isn't "grappling"… nor that it doesn't "work"… it's just not what you do.

I will say, though, that if you're only looking at ground fighting as your definition of "grappling" (which certainly seems to be the prevailing, albeit inaccurate, interpretation), then we don't have anything like it. There is nothing in any of our traditional methods that deals in ground fighting, especially the way it's done in Judo and BJJ… much of the videos you might have seen that way are attempts to apply some principles and ideas in a different context, which is not always understood. I offer no excuses for that, and am as against it as you guys are… personally, I feel that if something isn't understood, it shouldn't be presented as if it is.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Wow. Well, that's a heavily biased and largely inaccurate reading of many aspects… in fact, I'd say that you could argue that only if you were blind to reality, history, and, well, anything that didn't show your favoured pastime as the most incredible art that ever existed…
> 
> My point is that no, BJJ is not "heavily geared towards street fighting and self defense"… while it can be useful there, it simply isn't geared in that fashion, and thinking it is is only evidence of not having any clue as to either context… and while Kano Sensei's ideal was not the basic, minor, and amateurish desire to "beat the crap out of people", it was also not to "create a recreational sport".



Uh, that's exactly what it's geared towards. The methodology behind the system is to take an opponent to the ground and control them from there. While on the ground, their advantages are nullified while yours are enhanced if you are trained from that range of fighting. That methodology has been proven to be effective in a variety of context over the course of several decades, and several MAs have adopted it because of its proven effectiveness.

I'm curious as to why you think that viewpoint is blind to reality, history, etc. when we have examples of people using Bjj to defend themselves, the style being a mainstay in combat sports, it being included in various law enforcement and self defense systems, and the creators themselves being known as some of the toughest fighters around. Is there some hidden history that you're privy to that Bjj's creators, practitioners, and MA historians are unaware of?

As for Judo, there's nothing biased about my perspective. Judo is a system that is heavily controlled by its competitive side, and (IMO) the art itself has suffered because of it. The breadth of practical application simply isn't in Judo while its all over Bjj, because Judo simply sees no purpose for it. Why? Because it almost exclusively views itself as a sport instead of a self defense system. A prime example is Bjj's near complete adoption of striking, leg locks, wrestling takedowns, and no-gi grappling into standard practice. You're simply not going to see any of that in modern Judo practice and that's why you're seeing so many Judoka cross train in Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> I will say, though, that if you're only looking at ground fighting as your definition of "grappling" (which certainly seems to be the prevailing, albeit inaccurate, interpretation), then we don't have anything like it. There is nothing in any of our traditional methods that deals in ground fighting, especially the way it's done in Judo and BJJ… much of the videos you might have seen that way are attempts to apply some principles and ideas in a different context, which is not always understood. I offer no excuses for that, and am as against it as you guys are… *personally, I feel that if something isn't understood, it shouldn't be presented as if it is.*








Agreed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*I have often said* a really nice "eye opening" experience is for BJJ guys to train with Budo Taijutsu or FMA guys and vice versa.  Some cross over and a different perspective to be gained by each!  It is a big world out there and if you define what you do as only a certain area you may just not be able to deal with all the variables that can come into play in a "real world" personal protection situation!  *Broaden your minds folks and it will only make you a better martial practitioner!!!*


----------



## Hanzou

I don't agree with the notion that cross training in Ninjutsu would be beneficial for a student of Bjj. A bjj practicioner would be better served finding styles that are similar to the general mindset of Bjj.

Boxing would be a far superior alternative for example.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Well that comes from a pretty limited perspective Hanzou*.  A BJJ practitioner working in Budo Taijutsu would be exposed to extensive options for dealing with weapons and more.  Heck I was showing a BJJ instructor awhile ago a counter to a hip throw that is from Budo Taijutsu that works like a charm.  If you ever make it to Vegas I will be happy to show you.  Like wise I have opened many a Budo Taijutsu practitioners eyes to the effectiveness of BJJ!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I will say that every BJJ practitioner that I know who trains in the FMA *absolutely loves it*!  Particularly the heavy stick or knife sparring.  They all love learning how to utilize a knife and the skill sets and mind sets that this brings out in them.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

My point is that if you only play in a certain sand box you will have a "limited perspective"!  That perspective could be detrimental in a personal protection situation on the street where you might need a different skill set!


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Well that comes from a pretty limited perspective Hanzou*.  A BJJ practitioner working in Budo Taijutsu would be exposed to extensive options for dealing with weapons and more. !



If those "options" are of the same quality as the grappling and other antics being showcased by Hatsumi, I'll pass. I'm sure that there's vastly superior alternatives available.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I have often said* a really nice "eye opening" experience is for BJJ guys to train with Budo Taijutsu or FMA guys and vice versa.  Some cross over and a different perspective to be gained by each!  It is a big world out there and if you define what you do as only a certain area you may just not be able to deal with all the variables that can come into play in a "real world" personal protection situation!  *Broaden your minds folks and it will only make you a better martial practitioner!!!*



Some sort of open mat.  Sure.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> No. The closest you can say is that, if it's a grappling action, it can potentially be incorporated into BJJ, but won't necessarily be.
> 
> Frankly, you have a very limited perspective on what grappling is, and what defines "works".


LOL.  The point was completely lost on you, because you say, "No," and then actually say the same thing in different words.  The main point is that BJJ is open to what works.  It's a pragmatic style that welcomes correction over time.  If it works, it's welcome.  This is in contrast to a style, such as Judo, where there is a concern about what is the essence of the style.  Judo restricts what techniques will count and what won't based upon a sense of what is central to being Judo, such as when the Morote Gari (aka, the double leg) was banned from competition.  BJJ, in contrast, welcomes outside techniques that work, and if necessary will just create a new rule set.  There are literally dozens of completely different rulesets for BJJ practitioners to compete within, from MMA to no limit, sub only competitions to IBJJF.  Gi, no-gi, clothing optional (just kidding about that, I hope).  It's all there.  It's an openness that people either appreciate or don't, but it's central to the mindset of the art.    If you don't agree with the current IBJJF prohibition against knee reaping, you can compete in other venues that allow it.  You don't like the points systems?  Compete in one that is submission only.

Look, you don't have to like it.  Heck, you don't even have to understand it.  Just accept it and move on.  





> Bluntly, your opinion, being based on being thoroughly clueless about the actual subject itself (to be clear, I'm referring to ninjutsu and it's approach to grappling here), doesn't amount to much, Steve. I will say, though, that this level of art bashing is something you normally tell others to knock off… and this is the first of a few comments you make here.


I'm not bashing any arts and I am appalled that you would suggest otherwise.  I tried to be very clear and I think that you are looking for offense where none was given or even intended. 

In what universe does ninjutsu belong in a group with BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Sambo and Shiu Jiao?  Ninjutsu is nothing like these other styles.  The training model is completely different, and you even go into great lengths to outline this point yourself when you acknowledge that BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Sambo and Shiu Jiao are like cousins.  It's like the song from Sesame Street:

"One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?"

Beyond that, I think you're being incredibly rude.  You usually are whenever you lead with "Bluntly."  I guess I can just consider myself lucky you haven't resorted to calling me "son" or some other obvious diminutive. 

And as usual, you can't decide if you agree with me or not.  You certainly make it clear you don't want to, but when you get down to brass tacks and start trying to support your position, you essentially restate my premises.


> No. To pretty much all of that. If you're training BJJ, you're training BJJ. The particular mechanical method might have originally been transported from another methodology (albeit highly similar in many respects, from the list you give), but it becomes BJJ once incorporated into BJJ. I would also argue pretty strongly that, in the example school you mention, when you're training BJJ, you're only training BJJ… his approach will undoubtedly be influenced by his Aikido, but to say that you'd be training Aikido at the same time is to completely misunderstand what makes each art what it is, what Aikido is, what separates it from BJJ, and more.


Just for the record, I can understand how in a sentence by sentence, out of context dissection of several posts one could get confused as you did, but overall, the point I was suggesting is that it is all BJJ, and that BJJ welcomes outside influences.  





> You really need to come to some definition of "work" here… there's plenty of approaches, methods, and more that "work" in their context, but aren't really compatible with BJJ (or similar) at all. After all, the various systems you mention are, as you said, "close cousins"… with very similar contexts, applications, training methodologies, and so on. It's natural to expect a fair amount of cross-pollination and overlap in their approaches… but to then say that's the only thing that "works" is to show a great lack of appreciation for anything that doesn't match your small area of understanding.
> 
> By the way, it's ideas like this that have garnered you and others such nicknames as the "BJJ mafia"… if you were wondering.


Once again, if it is grappling and it works, it's fair game in BJJ, regardless of where it comes from.  If someone comes into a BJJ school and uses techniques learned in Hapkido, great.  Or karate, or anywhere else.  It's very practical that way.  By the way, this is the part where you actually contradicted yourself above.  So, while I certainly did not suggest that BJJ is the only thing that works (just the opposite, actually), I appreciate that you go out of your way to articulate the reasons why ninjutsu grappling does not belong in a conversation with other grappling arts, as they are really very dissimilar in... how did you say it?  Oh yeah, contexts, applications, training methodologies and so on.  





> It's not meant to… but not for the reasons you're thinking.


Ah, you're being snarky.  Agreeing with me and yet somehow being argumentative.  I know that you write very, very long posts, but you should consider re-reading them from time to time, for consistency.





> Bjj Eastern Europe   – Vinny Magalhaes: ‘BJJ Became a Weird Game with Pussified Rules’
> 
> "The direction that sport BJJ is going is worrying many. Nowadays modern Ju-Jitsu is guard centric and most competitors don’t even bother with takedowns. They just pull guard and aim to sweep from the guard. BJJ has become more of a game than a combat system."
> 
> Oh… and watch the video at the end… just saying…


This is funny because you don't get it.  You went to google to find something that supports your pre-determined position.

Do you think that there is only one game in town?  As I have said in previous posts and earlier in this one, there is a competitive rule set to suit anyone, and a lot of guys compete in several.  MMA, ADCC, IBJJF, Grappler's Quest, Metamoris... these are international competitions, and then add local or regional competitions and you have competitions that are as hard or soft as you want. 





> Frankly, Steve, you aren't in any position to offer any qualified opinion. Mainly as you then follow up with this:
> 
> What that tells me is that you haven't really seen anything genuine….


That's what I've been saying!!!  It took you like 1000 words to finally get there.  I haven't seen it.  That's not art bashing.  It's acknowledging that I haven't seen it.  I didn't say it doesn't exist.  I said I haven't seen it.  By god, I think you may have just had a moment of clarity, Chris.

I had to snip the rest out, Chris.  It was, frankly, very patronizing and I couldn't get through it.  It's the same old rhetoric we've all heard a thousand times.  You train for death and destruction on the mean streets, don't train for competition, basically do BJJ, just not on the ground and of course I would completely understand if I could only comprehend the very fundamental meaning of the word "grappling" to begin with, because surely, as a BJJ guy, I am stupid and can only think about the world as it exists from the ground.  Give me a break.

The difference between styles, or even schools within a style, has little to do with technique.   Surely you know this.  What makes one BJJ school "good" and one "bad?"  It's about how things are trained.   Listing the names of techniques does not equal training.  As I said before, ninjutsu may teach grappling that works.  I don't know.  I've seen it talked about a lot.  Lord knows, you're nothing if not prolific and can bang out a few thousand words in no time flat.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> My point is that if you only play in a certain sand box you will have a "limited perspective"! That perspective could be detrimental in a personal protection situation on the street where you might need a different skill set!



What kind of environment of trading are we talking about though?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> If those "options" are of the same quality as the grappling and other antics being showcased by Hatsumi, I'll pass. I'm sure that there's vastly superior alternatives available.



That would show just how little you have been able to observe or understand.  However, if you are not interested that is cool.  I have no problem with it at all.  Yet, since you have not actually experienced anything in Budo Taijutsu then I think you should not be dismissive or condescending of it.  *You really have no frame of reference!*


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> What kind of environment of trading are we talking about though?



Just training on the mats.  I am a firm believer that any martial practitioner should get out of their "sand box" and experience other forms of training with different instructors.  *Cross training is at the core with what I do!*


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That would show just how little you have been able to observe or understand.  However, if you are not interested that is cool.  I have no problem with it at all.  Yet, since you have not actually experienced anything in Budo Taijutsu then I think you should not be dismissive or condescending of it.  *You really have no frame of reference!*



Who's fault is that? Why would you waste time in a martial art that isn't verified anywhere?

I mean you look for good training. You dont do every bit of bad training that exists until you have isolated what works. Nobody has time for that.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Just training on the mats.  I am a firm believer that any martial practitioner should get out of their "sand box" and experience other forms of training with different instructors.  *Cross training is at the core with what I do!*



Well yeah. But you do try and find quality guys. And train with them.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

No, if you have never trained in another system then to bag on it based on "no experience" is just being ignorant.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No, if you have never trained in another system then to bag on it based on "no experience" is just being ignorant.



Really?

OK so you come and train drop bear fu for a class and you decide it is rubbish. Or you do compliant drills or fixed scenarios and so still have no clue whether the stuff works or it dosent.

You can't trash on a martial art after a day?

Bjj. You will know. Because a black belt will either towel you up or you will towel him up.

So how long do you give dbf with my promises of secret techniques at higher levels?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Drop Bear the point is I wouldn't trash your martial art not after one day or seeing a video of it.  I may be able to make a determination that it isn't quite for me but.... I would still respect you for what you are doing!


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Drop Bear the point is I wouldn't trash your martial art not after one day or seeing a video of it.  I may be able to make a determination that it isn't quite for me but.... I would still respect you for what you are doing!



Why?

If I am peddaling garbage I should be told. Hell someone might actually fight me one day. And you haven't done me any favors by letting me believe my rubbish works.

You are being my Ronda rousey striking coach. "Yeah you can bang with holley"


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

It is kind've like someone bashing Hatsumi Sensei because they see a clip of him doing some thing that they do not like.  Frankly, he is 99.9 percent better than the vast majority of martial practitioner's out there.  He is also a senior to almost all of us in the Martial Sciences.  His life long commitment to training and teaching has achieved him awards from around the world including FBI, DEA, Japanese Government, etc.  We should all respect what he does and understand that a video clip that we might view could be a glimpse of a moment in time when he is experimenting. (like BJJ people do not experiment)  To bash him, never having experienced what he does in person is frankly ignorant.  Yet, we live in times when bashing people is the accepted norm.  Which is sad!


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That would show just how little you have been able to observe or understand.  However, if you are not interested that is cool.  I have no problem with it at all.  Yet, since you have not actually experienced anything in Budo Taijutsu then I think you should not be dismissive or condescending of it.  *You really have no frame of reference!*



Who says I have never experienced anything from Ninjutsu? You assume that since I have a different opinion about a style that I've never practiced it or experienced it? Rather arrogant don't you think?

As for observing and understanding, I observe a system that gives black belts and Dan grades like candy, and the system's originator who can't perform basic level escapes, and performs "funny" antics. That, along with my personal experience with the system leads me to my current opinion.

My frame of reference is my experience in grappling. I know garbage when I see it, and Hatsumi was performing garbage in that video I posted. Stephen Hayes also performed nonsense in another video that I posted awhile ago. What does it say when two of the highest ranked ninja in the world can't perform basic grappling?

Now, I never said don't cross train. I said that someone who practices Bjj wouldn't gain much from practicing Ninjutsu, and they should honestly look elsewhere. That said, to each their own. Some people enjoy believing that they're 16th century samurai and ninja.......


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yet, I know BJJ blackbelts that train in Budo Taijutsu Hanzou.  Obviously, their opinion differs with yours!  Or maybe they just have a more informed opinion!


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yet, I know BJJ blackbelts that train in Budo Taijutsu Hanzou.  Obviously, their opinion differs with yours!  Or maybe they just have a more informed opinion!



And I know former Ninjutsu black belts and instructors who now train in Bjj and MMA and  say that BT is a waste of time and a money grab. 

Now what?


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> It is kind've like someone bashing Hatsumi Sensei because they see a clip of him doing some thing that they do not like.  Frankly, he is 99.9 percent better than the vast majority of martial practitioner's out there.  He is also a senior to almost all of us in the Martial Sciences.  His life long commitment to training and teaching has achieved him awards from around the world including FBI, DEA, Japanese Government, etc.  We should all respect what he does and understand that a video clip that we might view could be a glimpse of a moment in time when he is experimenting. (like BJJ people do not experiment)  To bash him, never having experienced what he does in person is frankly ignorant.  Yet, we live in times when bashing people is the accepted norm.  Which is sad!



And we come back to this point where we we can see some good ninjitsu?

We can't put protective bubbles around these people. That should not be the accepted norm either.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Listen Hanzou, I understand that you feel, think the BJJ is the great*.  I personally feel that BJJ is one of the best martial systems out there myself and hence why I train in it.  Having said the above your personal shots on other systems on this board is distasteful to many people here.  I feel you should just understand this which may also help you understand why many people just tune you out.  I have very little time to devote here and getting into debates with you is really pointless to me.  My point of coming into this thread was to make the point that people should "cross train" and be amenable to new experiences in the Martial Sciences.  *If you feel different then this, I frankly do not know what to say!
*
Now, I am off to watch my basketball team play so I am out for awhile.  Enjoy the thread but remember "art bashing" is not allowed and people are treading close here!


----------



## Steve

I agree that sweeping generalizations should be avoided.   But we do seem to be in a bit of a pickle when it comes to some assertions around here about some fundamental truths.   For example, we are asked to accept on faith that there are entire styles better suited for self defense training than others, based entirely on "trust me, son, because bluntly, I'm very smart and write really long posts."   doesn't set a very high bar for positive discourse.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Listen Hanzou, I understand that you feel, think the BJJ is the great*.  I personally feel that BJJ is one of the best martial systems out there myself and hence why I train in it.  Having said the above your personal shots on other systems on this board is distasteful to many people here.  I feel you should just understand this which may also help you understand why many people just tune you out.  I have very little time to devote here and getting into debates with you is really pointless to me.  My point of coming into this thread was to make the point that people should "cross train" and be amenable to new experiences in the Martial Sciences.  *If you feel different then this, I frankly do not know what to say!*



Where did I say that cross training in of itself was a bad idea? I simply said that going from a style like Bjj to a system like BT may not be the best investment since the two diverge on a variety of points.



> Now, I am off to watch my basketball team play so I am out for awhile.  Enjoy the thread but remember "art bashing" is not allowed and people are treading close here!



Would that include our dear friend Chris Parker who stated that Bjj isn't really a self defense system, and stating such is tantamount to fantasy?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Would that include our dear friend Chris Parker who stated that Bjj isn't really a self defense system, and stating such is tantamount to fantasy?



*NO.*


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> *NO.*


No what, elder?  I got a kick out of the video.  The guy literally asked the same question four times to finally get Royce to answer the way he wanted.    He may as well have said, "Royce, can you say something bad about your uncle and the IBJJF?"


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> *NO.*



Uh, he said that Bjj is a system designed for self defense and street fighting several times in that interview.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Uh, he said that Bjj is a system designed for self defense and street fighting several times in that interview.


And the interviewer was like, "no...   Wrong answer.  Try again and take the hint.   I want you to say something bad about the IBJJF guys."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Why?
> 
> If I am peddaling garbage I should be told. Hell someone might actually fight me one day. And you haven't done me any favors by letting me believe my rubbish works.
> 
> You are being my Ronda rousey striking coach. "Yeah you can bang with holley"


I agree. Even if the video is misleading (looks much worse than it is), an instructor should want to know how it's perceived. Most of them are in business, and getting that sort of feedback - if they are actually capable of better - will allow them to put up better examples.

If they aren't capable of better, as you said, they need to know it before they find out on the street. I was certainly culpable of high hubris somewhere around my brown belt. I thought I was invincible (hey, I was in my 20's - who isn't invincible at that age?). Some partners who made me see my weaknesses helped cure that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Really?
> 
> OK so you come and train drop bear fu for a class and you decide it is rubbish. Or you do compliant drills or fixed scenarios and so still have no clue whether the stuff works or it dosent.
> 
> You can't trash on a martial art after a day?
> 
> Bjj. You will know. Because a black belt will either towel you up or you will towel him up.
> 
> So how long do you give dbf with my promises of secret techniques at higher levels?


I don't know that you'd necessarily be able to tell first day with all arts/schools. Even with BJJ, it would not be useful to pair a BB with a new student and ask them to compete. Yes, if you did, you'd know. But the point is supposed to be to learn. My new students get simple, easy-to-learn techniques first day (how to slip a wrist grip, that sort of thing).

That said, to agree with your point, if there are experienced students in the room, someone skilled in martial arts should be able to get an idea if those folks are competent, unless they are working on a drill that makes it hard to see (like practicing forms, working on their falls, etc.). The physics is the same, and most of us can tell if what's being done is crap, clearly functional, or something we can't quite figure out (so we need more time to assess it). I have seen many demonstrations where I was absolutely certain a school was crap in under 15 minutes. And that's without me even getting a chance to work with them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't know that you'd necessarily be able to tell first day with all arts/schools. Even with BJJ, it would not be useful to pair a BB with a new student and ask them to compete. Yes, if you did, you'd know. But the point is supposed to be to learn. My new students get simple, easy-to-learn techniques first day (how to slip a wrist grip, that sort of thing).
> 
> That said, to agree with your point, if there are experienced students in the room, someone skilled in martial arts should be able to get an idea if those folks are competent, unless they are working on a drill that makes it hard to see (like practicing forms, working on their falls, etc.). The physics is the same, and most of us can tell if what's being done is crap, clearly functional, or something we can't quite figure out (so we need more time to assess it). I have seen many demonstrations where I was absolutely certain a school was crap in under 15 minutes. And that's without me even getting a chance to work with them.



The issue there is there are so many tricks out there that give the appearance off effectiveness.

We are quite often not very good judges. 

Eg.  The spazzy submission. You demonstrate on a compliant partner and then crank on a wrist lock or something. Because it hurts like hell you consider it a viable defence without ever considering how you would actually fight into that position.


----------



## Ironbear24

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Well that comes from a pretty limited perspective Hanzou*.  A BJJ practitioner working in Budo Taijutsu would be exposed to extensive options for dealing with weapons and more.  Heck I was showing a BJJ instructor awhile ago a counter to a hip throw that is from Budo Taijutsu that works like a charm.  If you ever make it to Vegas I will be happy to show you.  Like wise I have opened many a Budo Taijutsu practitioners eyes to the effectiveness of BJJ!



If it is not commonly found in UFC than odds are the bjj guys aren't going to like it. They might even go as far as to call it useless.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> If it is not commonly found in UFC than odds are the bjj guys aren't going to like it. They might even go as far as to call it useless.


I think you're going about it backwards.   If it's useful, it is likely to find its way into the UFC. May not be there yet, but it will find its way there eventually.  But you never find it f you aren't open to cross training.   Brian has a great attitude.  Others around here not so much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The issue there is there are so many tricks out there that give the appearance off effectiveness.
> 
> We are quite often not very good judges.
> 
> Eg.  The spazzy submission. You demonstrate on a compliant partner and then crank on a wrist lock or something. Because it hurts like hell you consider it a viable defence without ever considering how you would actually fight into that position.



Agreed. The lock is, in fact, useful, but only if you get into a situation that sets it up. This is why so many students get into the, "but, what if he..." questions. The answer is often, "Then do what works there. This won't." It's an unsatisfying answer to the student, but it's true. The problem comes when an instructor doesn't giver that answer, but asserts (sometimes in so many words) that the technique will always work "if you are good enough." Nothing always works, and some defensive techniques are what I call "gap fillers" and "targets of opportunity".


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> If it is not commonly found in UFC than odds are the bjj guys aren't going to like it. They might even go as far as to call it useless.



FMA isn't found in the UFC, and I like it very much. Boxing wasn't prevelant in MMA for years, but I've always been a fan of it. A martial art's representation in MMA is only part of the overall equation. If I'm seeing the founder of BT performing complete nonsense and passing it off as effective technique, that's pretty unforgivable IMO because as a teacher he has a responsibility to his art and to his students. 

That btw is why I said that BT may not be the best fit for a Bjj practitioner looking to cross train. In Bjj if we're deficient in something we go and find the experts in it and learn it, even if they aren't Bjj. What Hatsumi is doing here is saying that there's no need to cross train elsewhere because all of the answers are within Ninjutsu. That's never a good philosophy to follow, and his shoddy results are proof of that.

It makes you wonder if they're willing to perform complete nonsense on that end of the spectrum, what else are they willing to compromise?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Uh, he said that Bjj is a system designed for self defense and street fighting several times in that interview.



Within the Brazilian culture of machismo and code duello, it may well be "designed for street fighting," given that a Brazilian "street fight," encounters are generally confined to a one-on-one scenario, where you have the luxury of rolling around on the ground until a superior position is attained. Beyond that, most of the BJJ studios that I've been in (and it's more than just a few) don't regularly practice the throws of judo that are part of BJJ and the part that was "designed for self defense and street fighting," in fact, most of them-as in something like 90%-prefer wrestling take downs, which generally aren't defensive at all.



Hanzou said:


> . What Hatsumi is doing here is saying that there's no need to cross train elsewhere because all of the answers are within Ninjutsu. That's never a good philosophy to follow, and his shoddy results are proof of that.



I've got to wonder how it is that you know what Hatsumi is doing there _actuall_y says, or is _mean_t to demonstrate, given that there's no explanation, even in Japanese, just a title and comments by someone else?


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Within the Brazilian culture of machismo and code duello, it may well be "designed for street fighting," given that a Brazilian "street fight," encounters are generally confined to a one-on-one scenario, where you have the luxury of rolling around on the ground until a superior position is attained.



Uh okay, but that doesn't change the *FACT* that he said that Bjj was designed for street fighting AND self defense. Further, there are street fights here in the states that are one on one affairs. 

My point is this; To say that Bjj wasn't designed for street fighting and self defense is a form of style bashing because we have masters of system saying that that was what the system was specifically designed for. So either you're wrong, or the various masters and creators of the system are liars attempting to purposely mislead people.



> Beyond that, most of the BJJ studios that I've been in (and it's more than just a few) don't regularly practice the throws of judo that are part of BJJ and the part that was "designed for self defense and street fighting," in fact, most of them-as in something like 90%-prefer wrestling take downs, which generally aren't defensive at all.



Mainly because Judo throws require a great deal of precision, and strong loose clothing to perform properly, neither of which are guarantees in a self defense or street fighting situation. Bjj focuses more on clinch throws and wrestling takedowns which require less precision, and aren't dependent on the gi to perform. Case in point, an ankle pick is much higher percentage take down than an Uchi Mata. My background is largely Relson Gracie Gjj, and their fundamental program is made up entirely of clinch throws and wrestling style takedowns. There's zero Judo throws in there because the chances of you encountering someone wearing a thick kimono is pretty slim.

I personally practice Judo on the side because I enjoy it. However, if someone were to ask me if they should practice wrestling or Judo to improve their Bjj, I would say wrestling without hesitation.



> I've got to wonder how it is that you know what Hatsumi is doing there _actuall_y says, or is _mean_t to demonstrate, given that there's no explanation, even in Japanese, just a title and comments by someone else?



What nonsense. There is no mystery behind what Hatsumi is doing. There's no secret code that only Ninja masters can decipher. He is performing bad grappling technique period. Frankly, the only thing worse than Hatsumi performing that silliness on the ground are the people here attempting to defend it.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> If it is not commonly found in UFC than odds are the bjj guys aren't going to like it. They might even go as far as to call it useless.



Found in the UFC or MMA? one is a profit making company, the other is a martial arts competitive ruleset/competition.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> the various masters and creators of the system are liars attempting to purposely mislead people.



Not "lying." It's called _*hype*_.

Can't help that you believe it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





(Really. I mean, just how many "street fights," or occasions for self defense, single combat or otherwise, have you been involved in over the past year?

If the answer is more than......."_*n*one_"....you fail.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)





Hanzou said:


> Mainly because Judo throws require a great deal of precision, and strong loose clothing to perform properly, neither of which are guarantees in a self defense or street fighting situation.



No, and no.

They don't require anymore "precision" than any other takedown-they require practice, practice, practice, and internalization of principles.

They don't require "strong, loose clothing" to perform properly, they require understanding...if you "practice judo on the side," you should ask your _sensei_, because there are very few throws that actually require *any* clothing to perform if the person doing them understands them.



Hanzou said:


> Case in point, an ankle pick is much higher percentage take down than an Uchi Mata.



Case in point: _uchi mata_ doesn't require clothing at all.






Tori's right hand could as easily be wrapped around uke's shoulder here, than grasping the jacket (in fact, it's preferable) and the left could be grasping the wrist, rather than the jacket (again, preferable).

What judo throws mostly require (that wrestling takedowns like an ankle pick might not) is blending with an offensive motion-in this, they are great for self-defense if they are understood-they mostly aren't something one does "offensively." You're just not gonna grab someone and perform _uchi mata_ on them; they've gotta be attacking you in some way. Wrestling takedowns are, largely, offensive: single leg, double leg, ankle-pick-all can be performed as attacks, with the objective of winding up on the mat in a superior position, or, at least, _getting the point for a takedown._See below



Hanzou said:


> My background is largely Relson Gracie Gjj, and their fundamental program is made up entirely of clinch throws and wrestling style takedowns. There's zero Judo throws in there because the chances of you encountering someone wearing a thick kimono is pretty slim.



Actually, in talking with some of the senior practitioners of BJJ, the reason the_ gyoku waza_ are _de-emphasized_ in BJJ is because of the possibility of "giving up the back," a disadvantage in BJJ's sport rule set.  That, and from what I've seen, most of them simply aren't equipped or trained to  to practice them safely. There really aren't many differences between many wrestling takedowns and judo throws, other than what can be initiated offensively-some of them aren't practiced much by the other because of differing rule sets, and-as someone who wrestled and did judo in high school, I can say that much has always been true.....though it's even more true today.




Hanzou said:


> What nonsense. There is no mystery behind what Hatsumi is doing. There's no secret code that only Ninja masters can decipher. He is performing bad grappling technique period. Frankly, the only thing worse than Hatsumi performing that silliness on the ground are the people here attempting to defend it.



Not defending it at all. How do you *know*, though,that it wasn't a demonstration of what* not* to do?


----------



## Skullpunch

Hanzou said:


> Mainly because Judo throws require a great deal of precision, and strong loose clothing to perform properly, neither of which are guarantees in a self defense or street fighting situation. Bjj focuses more on clinch throws and wrestling takedowns which require less precision, and aren't dependent on the gi to perform. Case in point, an ankle pick is much higher percentage take down than an Uchi Mata. My background is largely Relson Gracie Gjj, and their fundamental program is made up entirely of clinch throws and wrestling style takedowns. There's zero Judo throws in there because the chances of you encountering someone wearing a thick kimono is pretty slim.
> 
> I personally practice Judo on the side because I enjoy it. However, if someone were to ask me if they should practice wrestling or Judo to improve their Bjj, I would say wrestling without hesitation.



A few things I disagree with here.

O goshi, Harai Goshi, and Sukui Nage are examples of judo takedowns that are easy to adapt to no gi.  I'm wondering how many of those clinch throws in the system of which you speak are no gi adaptations of judo takedowns?  There are 67 of them in total and the overlap between these and wrestling takedowns tends to blur the lines at times.  That doesn't mean judo > wrestling for no gi but judo is very much adaptable to no gi, far more so than many people credit it.

Also, while chances of you encountering someone wearing a thick kimono is slim, chances of that same person trying to use *your* clothing against you in some way are quite high and countering that is where judo has all other martial arts beat hands down.  In MMA class I've even had wrestlers who only really train in bodylocks try to grab my shirt just out of basic instinct, which leads me to believe that grip counters are very useful for a lot more than just doing randori with other judoka.

As for the precision argument, yes to execute a judo throw PERFECTLY requires a lot of precision but oftentimes you can fight through a slight misstep and get the takedown anyway, that's not at all uncommon, especially against other skilled practitioners.  I mean, compare it to wrestling for example.  A textbook double leg takedown executed with perfect precision will result in you elevating your opponent up to around shoulder level and dropping him on his clavicle with his feet flying over his head and all of your weight coming down on his ribs...but how many double leg takedowns actually go like that in competition?  Very few, they typically tend to struggle for coming as close as they can get which is often not close at all.  It's the same as judo, the most coveted O Goshi is the textbook picture perfect one-shot ippon but more often than not you will meet resistance that will throw you off balance or force you to reposition in order to stifle a counter that prevents you from executing it the way you want and you end up having to fight and adapt and just worry about getting the guy over your hip as opposed to perfection.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> There's zero Judo throws in there because the chances of you encountering someone wearing a thick kimono is pretty slim.



THere are judo throws in BJJ-always have been-they just aren't practiced by a majority of academies. They do find their way into BJJ competition, in modified form. Case in point, here's a compiliation of _morote seoi nage_ and _ morote seoi otoshi_ ippons from judo competitions:






And here (at about 2:10) is Rudolfo Viera executing _morote seoi otoshi_ in competition. Note how he's modified it to reduce risk of giving up the back and losing points or getting submitted-he's basically changed the angles, _ala_ *just about everything* in *B*asically *J*ust *J*udo.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(this was a pretty awesome match, btw....)


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Not "lying." It's called _*hype*_.
> 
> Can't help that you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Really. I mean, just how many "street fights," or occasions for self defense, single combat or otherwise, have you been involved in over the past year?
> 
> If the answer is more than......."_*n*one_"....you fail.



It's more than none. And in that more than none I had to use my training to get out of that situation because I was knocked to the ground with a larger person on top of me. I believe it because I've experienced it. And frankly given the number of street fights and SD situations out there, the methodology and philosophy behind Gjj makes a whole lot of sense.



> No, and no.
> 
> They don't require anymore "precision" than any other takedown-they require practice, practice, practice, and internalization of principles.



Yet there are untrained people who can perform an effective ankle pick or DLT. Heck, I picked up a takedown from Dan Henderson online because it was stupidly simple. Wrestling takedowns are just far more simpler to perform than text book Judo throws. I can't believe that you're trying to argue this.



> They don't require "strong, loose clothing" to perform properly, they require understanding...if you "practice judo on the side," you should ask your _sensei_, because there are very few throws that actually require *any* clothing to perform if the person doing them understands them.
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point: _uchi mata_ doesn't require clothing at all.



My argument wasn't that Uchi Mata didn't require clothing. My argument was that Uchi Mata is a lot more complex than an ankle pick.



> Actually, in talking with some of the senior practitioners of BJJ, the reason the_ gyoku waza_ are _de-emphasized_ in BJJ is because of the possibility of "giving up the back," a disadvantage in BJJ's sport rule set.  That, and from what I've seen, most of them simply aren't equipped or trained to  to practice them safely. There really aren't many differences between many wrestling takedowns and judo throws, other than what can be initiated offensively-some of them aren't practiced much by the other because of differing rule sets, and-as someone who wrestled and did judo in high school, I can say that much has always been true.....though it's even more true today.



Um, someone taking your back is a real danger in a self defense situation as well, not just within the Bjj sport ruleset. Wrestlers and even untrained people are going to go for your back if they have the opportunity, hence why people say you should never turn your back to someone in a SD situation or a street fight. Again, a highlight of Bjj being designed for a street fight or self defense over simply just sport.



> Not defending it at all. How do you *know*, though,that it wasn't a demonstration of what* not* to do?



I disagree. Saying that I simply don't understand what Hatsumi was doing is a way to defend the deplorable technique in that video. Saying that its really a "What not to do" video is another form of defending him.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> THere are judo throws in BJJ-always have been-they just aren't practiced by a majority of academies. They do find their way into BJJ competition, in modified form. Case in point, here's a compiliation of _morote seoi nage_ and _ morote seoi otoshi_ ippons from judo competitions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here (at about 2:10) is Rudolfo Viera executing _morote seoi otoshi_ in competition. Note how he's modified it to reduce risk of giving up the back and losing points or getting submitted-he's basically changed the angles, _ala_ *just about everything* in *B*asically *J*ust *J*udo.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (this was a pretty awesome match, btw....)



FYI, Viera trains in Judo. I think he's either a brown belt or a black belt.


----------



## Hanzou

Skullpunch said:


> A few things I disagree with here.
> 
> O goshi, Harai Goshi, and Sukui Nage are examples of judo takedowns that are easy to adapt to no gi.  I'm wondering how many of those clinch throws in the system of which you speak are no gi adaptations of judo takedowns?  There are 67 of them in total and the overlap between these and wrestling takedowns tends to blur the lines at times.  That doesn't mean judo > wrestling for no gi but judo is very much adaptable to no gi, far more so than many people credit it.



Many of them are indeed no-gi modifications of Judo throws/takedowns. Bjj came from Judo after all, and it came from a Judo practitioner who had a history of NHB competition and consistent run-ins with catch wrestlers and street fighters. So him adapting the gi throws to no-gi makes plenty of sense.



> Also, while chances of you encountering someone wearing a thick kimono is slim, chances of that same person trying to use *your* clothing against you in some way are quite high and countering that is where judo has all other martial arts beat hands down.  In MMA class I've even had wrestlers who only really train in body locks try to grab my shirt just out of basic instinct, which leads me to believe that grip counters are very useful for a lot more than just doing randori with other judoka.



And that's simply not our approach. In our system if someone is close enough to grab your clothing, they're close enough to start punching you. We close distance and go for a clinch instead of having someone push/pull us via our clothing. We view that as simply far too risky. Better to wrap them up with a clinch and then perform a takedown from that clinch. Our takedowns are also extremely simple and fairly easy to perform.



> As for the precision argument, yes to execute a judo throw PERFECTLY requires a lot of precision but oftentimes you can fight through a slight misstep and get the takedown anyway, that's not at all uncommon, especially against other skilled practitioners.  I mean, compare it to wrestling for example.  A textbook double leg takedown executed with perfect precision will result in you elevating your opponent up to around shoulder level and dropping him on his clavicle with his feet flying over his head and all of your weight coming down on his ribs...but how many double leg takedowns actually go like that in competition?  Very few, they typically tend to struggle for coming as close as they can get which is often not close at all.  It's the same as judo, the most coveted O Goshi is the textbook picture perfect one-shot ippon but more often than not you will meet resistance that will throw you off balance or force you to reposition in order to stifle a counter that prevents you from executing it the way you want and you end up having to fight and adapt and just worry about getting the guy over your hip as opposed to perfection.



Again, my point is that even a sloppy DLT can be brutally effective, which is partly why the IJF banned it from competition. You can screw up several aspects of the DLT and it'll still take someone to the floor. You simply don't have that level of cushion in Judo throws which require a great deal of technique to pull off properly, and as stated earlier, if not performed properly can leave you wide open for punishment.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> I disagree. Saying that I simply don't understand what Hatsumi was doing is a way to defend the deplorable technique in that video. Saying that its really a "What not to do" video is another form of defending him.



Not "defending him." Saying I don't know, _and neither do *you.*



Hanzou said:



			FYI, Viera trains in Judo. I think he's either a brown belt or a black belt.
		
Click to expand...


Yeah, I knew that._


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> It's more than none.



you fail.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Not "defending him." Saying I don't know, _and neither do *you.*_



Really? So you're saying you can't tell good technique from bad technique?

Speak for yourself please.
_



			Yeah, I knew that.
		
Click to expand...

_
Then how can you say that Rodolfo is pulling Judo throws out of his Bjj training if he's actually training Judo *separately* to learn those throws?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Really? So you're saying you can't tell good technique from bad technique?
> 
> Speak for yourself please.



I can't even tell it's "technique," and neither can you
_
_



Hanzou said:


> Then how can you say that Rodolfo is pulling Judo throws out of his Bjj training if he's actually training Judo *separately* to learn those throws?



In part, because he trained under Julio Cesar Pereira, an Oswaldo Fadda black belt *AND* judo black belt himself-that particular lineage has preserved the gyoku waza taught by Maeda to Gracie and Franca-it's a non-Gracie line of BJJ, and preserved the pre-war throws and foot and leg locks that Gracie jiujutsu often lacks, or frowns upon.

So it's because throws like _morote seoi nag_e  have been  part of BJJ from the beginning, and because of the way he modified it for BJJ competition: going to both knees immediately, throwing uke at an angle instead of directly in front, and placing his body at an angle-all of these negated (somewhat) the disadvantage of exposing the back in that particular type of competition...


----------



## Skullpunch

Hanzou said:


> And that's simply not our approach. In our system if someone is close enough to grab your clothing, they're close enough to start punching you. We close distance and go for a clinch instead of having someone push/pull us via our clothing. We view that as simply far too risky. Better to wrap them up with a clinch and then perform a takedown from that clinch. Our takedowns are also extremely simple and fairly easy to perform.



Your previous statement "chances of you running into someone with a kimono etc etc" sounded like you were talking about someone on the street attacking you and if so then what I said absolutely stands.  If that statement on your part was meant to imply someone who trains to strike from close quarters as opposed to grabbing whatever they can then what you say is more valid.  However, even then there is some trepidation for me to fully accept what you say, as grabbing one's clothing can still easily happen in the chaos of a scrap regardless of whether you're trained to do so or not.





			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Again, my point is that even a sloppy DLT can be brutally effective, which is partly why the IJF banned it from competition. You can screw up several aspects of the DLT and it'll still take someone to the floor. You simply don't have that level of cushion in Judo throws which require a great deal of technique to pull off properly, and as stated earlier, if not performed properly can leave you wide open for punishment.



And again, my point is that everything you say applies to judo takedowns also applies to wrestling takedowns.  A sloppy DLT indeed *can* bring you to the ground, but it also *can* get you guillotined, anaconda/d'arce choked, sprawled on and kneed in the head, reversed to mount/side control/rear mount, etc and so forth.

Also the IJF didn't ban the morote gari because it's "too dangerous", that was a made up justification on their part.  They banned leg grabs because using leg grabs to stall was becoming a major issue that made competitive judo hard to watch.  The unfortunate trend with the IJF is that they are all too happy to ban effective technique in favor of aesthetic value.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> I can't even tell it's "technique," and neither can you



Again, speak for yourself.
_
_


> In part, because he trained under Julio Cesar Pereira, an Oswaldo Fadda black belt *AND* judo black belt himself-that particular lineage has preserved the gyoku waza taught by Maeda to Gracie and Franca-it's a non-Gracie line of BJJ, and preserved the pre-war throws and foot and leg locks that Gracie jiujutsu often lacks, or frowns upon.
> 
> So it's because throws like _morote seoi nag_e  have been  part of BJJ from the beginning, and because of the way he modified it for BJJ competition: going to both knees immediately, throwing uke at an angle instead of directly in front, and placing his body at an angle-all of these negated (somewhat) the disadvantage of exposing the back in that particular type of competition...



You need to update your info about Gjj and leg locking. I was trained leg locking within both Relson's and Rickson's systems. One of the best leg lockers in competitive Bjj is part of team Renzo Gracie, and was trained by two Renzo Gracie black belts. I also know that Ralph and Roger Gracie's academies practice leg locking. So, I don't know which Gracie affiliation you're talking about that is ignoring or shunning leg locks.

Now Judo on the other hand has ignored and shunned leg locks for what? About 80 years now?

As for the Fadda lines of Bjj, they typically don't teach Bjj and Judo together. What they do is have Bjj classes and Judo classes, and practitioners have belts in Bjj and Judo, just like Rodolfo Viera.

That btw flies in the face of your pet theory above. I find it interestI got that the Brazilians actively separate Bjj from Judo, yet you seem obsessed with making them the exact same.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Again, speak for yourself.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> You need to update your info about Gjj and leg locking. I was trained leg locking within both Relson's and Rickson's systems. One of the best leg lockers in competitive Bjj is part of team Renzo Gracie, and was trained by two Renzo Gracie black belts. I also know that Ralph and Roger Gracie's academies practice leg locking. So, I don't know which Gracie affiliation you're talking about that is ignoring or shunning leg locks.



It comes from my age, of course. For most of the 20th century, Gracie JJ frowned on leg locks, toe-holds and such because they thought they were low-class or something. Here, Eddie Bravo talks about how leg attacks were frowned on, with a story from the first Pan-Ams, where he and Erik Paulson got yelled at and got told to release leg locks and toe holds.(this is a Joe Rogan podcast, and thus, NSFW). This is because, even though they were legal techniques under the rules, they were frowned upon-because they did them in the "suburbs" outside of Rio, and because, maybe, of injuries.






This is briefer, and more to the point Eddie Bravo tells the 1st Pan Am story at 4 minutes:







Hanzou said:


> Now Judo on the other hand has ignored and shunned leg locks for what? About 80 years now?



Not always ignored or shunned, _just not used in competition.

_


Hanzou said:


> As for the Fadda lines of Bjj, they typically don't teach Bjj and Judo together. What they do is have Bjj classes and Judo classes, and practitioners have belts in Bjj and Judo, just like Rodolfo Viera.
> 
> That btw flies in the face of your pet theory above. I find it interestI got that the Brazilians actively separate Bjj from Judo, yet you seem obsessed with making them the exact same.



No, it doesn't fly in the face, and no, I'm not obsessed with making them the exact same-they're taught separately, and not the exact same because they have different *competitive *rules-the techniques, though, are the same.


----------



## Hanzou

Skullpunch said:


> Your previous statement "chances of you running into someone with a kimono etc etc" sounded like you were talking about someone on the street attacking you and if so then what I said absolutely stands.  If that statement on your part was meant to imply someone who trains to strike from close quarters as opposed to grabbing whatever they can then what you say is more valid.  However, even then there is some trepidation for me to fully accept what you say, as grabbing one's clothing can still easily happen in the chaos of a scrap regardless of whether you're trained to do so or not.



Again, our goal is to never be close enough to let someone grab our clothing. If someone is that close, I should already have wrapped them up in a clinch so that they can't hit me. Allowing someone to get that close to you and control you via grabbing your clothes is too dangerous.

As I said, simply a difference of approach.




> And again, my point is that everything you say applies to judo takedowns also applies to wrestling takedowns.  A sloppy DLT indeed *can* bring you to the ground, but it also *can* get you guillotined, anaconda/d'arce choked, sprawled on and kneed in the head, reversed to mount/side control/rear mount, etc and so forth.



I never said that a DLT can't be countered. What I said was that a DLT is far more idiot proof than an Uchi Mata or an Ashi Guruma. If your goal is take someone to the ground, a DLT is far more likely to get them there than the Judo throws simply because the Judo throws are more complex and reliant on various factors.



> Also the IJF didn't ban the morose geri because it's "too dangerous", that was a made up justification on their part.  They banned leg grabs because using leg grabs to stall was becoming a major issue that made competitive judo hard to watch.  The unfortunate trend with the IJF is that they are all too happy to ban effective technique in favor of aesthetic value.



Well it wasn't just the DLT, it was the entire family of leg-based takedowns. IJF reasoning aside, the loss of those takedowns cripples Judo stand up since those leg based attacks are some of the most common takedowns in grappling.

Which btw, is another reason I would tell a person to cross-train in wrestling over Judo.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> It comes from my age, of course. For most of the 20th century, Gracie JJ frowned on leg locks, toe-holds and such because they thought they were low-class or something. Here, Eddie Bravo talks about how leg attacks were frowned on, with a story from the first Pan-Ams, where he and Erik Paulson got yelled at and got told to release leg locks and toe holds.(this is a Joe Rogan podcast, and thus, NSFW). This is because, even though they were legal techniques under the rules, they were frowned upon-because they did them in the "suburbs" outside of Rio, and because, maybe, of injuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is briefer, and more to the point Eddie Bravo tells the 1st Pan Am story at 4 minutes:



Of course. However, your post implied that that was still the case today, which isn't even close to being accurate.




> Not always ignored or shunned, _just not used in competition._



And banned from randori/rolling/sparring practice, which essentially means that its ignored and shunned.
_
_


> No, it doesn't fly in the face, and no, I'm not obsessed with making them the exact same-they're taught separately, and not the exact same because they have different *competitive *rules-the techniques, though, are the same.



You bring up this silly nonsense every time someone mentions Bjj and Judo in the same sentence, so yes it is obsessive. Further I've already described several differences between Judo and Bjj that you continue to completely ignore. In the end, this simply follows a typical pattern of yours where you believe that you know more than the actual practitioners in the field, and in some cases the actual creators of the field itself. You did it with the Gracies and their claims of self defense and street fighting, and you're doing it again with the Fadda line's training methodology with Bjj and Judo.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> FMA isn't found in the UFC, and I like it very much. Boxing wasn't prevelant in MMA for years, but I've always been a fan of it. A martial art's representation in MMA is only part of the overall equation. If I'm seeing the founder of BT performing complete nonsense and passing it off as effective technique, that's pretty unforgivable IMO because as a teacher he has a responsibility to his art and to his students.
> 
> That btw is why I said that BT may not be the best fit for a Bjj practitioner looking to cross train. In Bjj if we're deficient in something we go and find the experts in it and learn it, even if they aren't Bjj. What Hatsumi is doing here is saying that there's no need to cross train elsewhere because all of the answers are within Ninjutsu. That's never a good philosophy to follow, and his shoddy results are proof of that.
> 
> It makes you wonder if they're willing to perform complete nonsense on that end of the spectrum, what else are they willing to compromise?



So he is a bad guy for trying to market his fighting style? How is this any different from what the gracies say in all their dvds? That bjj is the best ever and all the other styles fail in comparison, then they show the silly Gracie challenge videos where members of the family beat a couple of people in matches therefore said style is bad and theirs is better? In reality they don't mention that what it ACTUALLY means is that those individuals were simply bested by a better martial artist, and not a better fighting style. That perpetuats the lie that if just anyone takes up bjj then they will be better than all of these other styles.

It's really nothing different and everyone does this.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> So he is a bad guy for trying to market his fighting style?



He's a bad guy because he's showing something that doesn't work at all and passing it off as a viable method of self defense. As shown in this thread, Hatsumi is generally a respected figure in the MA world, so putting out something like that is going to be believed by a segment of the MA community, and maybe people outside of the MA community who don't know any better. You attempt that stuff when 1-2 people are on top of you and you're going to get hurt or killed, and that's frankly irresponsible and wrong.



> How is this any different from what the gracie say in all their dads? That bjj is the best ever and all the other styles fail in comparison, then they show the silly Gracie challenge videos where members of the family beat a couple of people in matches therefore said style is bad and theirs is better? In reality they don't mention that what it ACTUALLY means is that those individuals were simply bested by a better martial artist, and not a better fighting style. That perpetuate the lie that if just anyone takes up bjj then they will be better than all of these other styles.



Watch their videos again. They say plainly that you should learn to fight on the ground because its a neglected range of fighting. They never say that other martial arts are useless or that theirs is the best. In fact, the Gracies themselves have actively trained in other MAs.



> It's really nothing different and everyone does this.



Feel free to show the instructional tapes from the Gracies that are showcasing outright bogus techniques.


----------



## Ironbear24

A quote from the video. "Be a complete martial artist with a style that knows ground fighting."

And to be honest I didn't see much wrong with that video. The one thing I can say is a lot of it looks staged for the sake of showing off the techniques easier, but the technique is still there. By no means should any moron look at this video a few times and think "oh I can do this in a real fight." Because first off that would require a lot of practice to actually do it in the first place.

If you don't like it that's fine though, but not liking it and not being effective are very seperated things.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> A quote from the video. "Be a complete martial artist with a style that knows ground fighting."



Wouldn't you agree that someone who goes from being a martial arts dynamo on their feet to almost completely helpless once they got knocked on their back is an incomplete martial artist?


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't you agree that someone who goes from being a martial arts dynamo on their feet to almost completely helpless once they got knocked on their back is an incomplete martial artist?



I'm saying that that is a more individual problem rather than a fighting style problem. I have literally never seen any martial arts that has zero focus in grappling defense. Only one I can think of boxing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't you agree that someone who goes from being a martial arts dynamo on their feet to almost completely helpless once they got knocked on their back is an incomplete martial artist?


I like that - "incomplete". Mind you, I think that depends upon the individual's purpose. I know people who study martial arts not for defense (even some who study defensive styles), but for the challenge and expertise. For that, lacking a ground game is not necessarily incomplete. For defense, it definitely is.

To Ironbear's point - I don't know of any styles/arts that lack ground work. I do know schools/teachers that don't teach any, and some (not sure if it's the art or the teacher) that have ineffective ground work.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm saying that that is a more individual problem rather than a fighting style problem. I have literally never seen any martial arts that has zero focus in grappling defense. Only one I can think of boxing.



Grappling defense isn't the same as ground fighting. Asian systems tend to not possess ground fighting because culturally fighting from the ground wasn't viewed very highly. Look what happened when the Kodokan got beat by Mataemom Tanabe for example. Tenable used a range of fighting almost completely alien to many Asian fighters.



gpseymour said:


> I like that - "incomplete". Mind you, I think that depends upon the individual's purpose. I know people who study martial arts not for defense (even some who study defensive styles), but for the challenge and expertise. For that, lacking a ground game is not necessarily incomplete. For defense, it definitely is.
> 
> To Ironbear's point - I don't know of any styles/arts that lack ground work. I do know schools/teachers that don't teach any, and some (not sure if it's the art or the teacher) that have ineffective ground work.



How much ground work is in Aikido? Just curious.


----------



## Ironbear24

Ground fighting is not a new pheonoemon and as such these styles do have defenses for it. Kenpo for example does, it is simply just not so fixated on only the ground. 

My point is, is simply that the technique was there, it seems that you simply just didn't like it because of how it was presented. I will admit I didn't like it either because of how staged it felt. In my opinion if you are going to showcase your skill or your fighting style than do it full speed and at least close to full force as possible.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> How much ground work is in Aikido? Just curious.



I would like to know this too, my experience with aikido is very limited and sparring against it always felt more like I was a bull trying to destroy a river. Despite all my speed and power all I could do was make splashes.

Aikido from what I have seen seems to be more of a defense style than a fighting style.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> My point is, is simply that the technique was there, it seems that you simply just didn't like it because of how it was presented. I will admit I didn't like it either because of how staged it felt. In my opinion if you are going to showcase your skill or your fighting style than do it full speed and at least close to full force as possible.



If we're talking about the Hatsumi video I'd be very curious as to which techniques you viewed as effective or realistic.


----------



## Ironbear24

gE

22 would work. The one after that seems entirely staged, looks like the guy just stood up and fell on purpose. I can see 49 working, but I doubt it would get that same response from the attacker. If they simply pivot their leg they could break that hold. But everything has a way out of it if you know what to do.

58 was a bad angle, I have no clue what happened there at all as I could see was the guys back. The leg hold after that I can see working.

The armbar at 1:14 is good, but the way he lead to it was again, entirely staged, the guy laid down and put himself in the positioning to be armbared.

So yeah, good techniques so to speak, but way too rehearsed and stage to be taken seriously.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> gE
> 
> 22 would work. The one after that seems entirely staged, looks like the guy just stood up and fell on purpose. I can see 49 working, but I doubt it would get that same response from the attacker. If they simply pivot their leg they could break that hold. But everything has a way out of it if you know what to do.
> 
> 58 was a bad angle, I have no clue what happened there at all as I could see was the guys back. The leg hold after that I can see working.
> 
> The armbar at 1:14 is good, but the way he lead to it was again, entirely staged, the guy laid down and put himself in the positioning to be armbared.
> 
> So yeah, good techniques so to speak, but way too rehearsed and stage to be taken seriously.



I think your times are a bit off...

Here's the problem, individual working parts mean nothing if the entire sequence is wrong. For example, by "22" I'm assuming you're talking about the arm lock he performs on the guy he's rolled over? Well that's all fine and dandy, except that the roll he performed to get to that point (before he said "bridge the body" ) is laughably wrong. If you attempted that with someone on top of you, you would either not go anywhere and eat fists all day, or your assailant would allow you to roll over so that they can choke you from behind. The "bridging" that he does is lifting his hip and simply rolling to his side. That isn't how you're supposed to bridge. You're supposed to bridge at an angle. Rickson Gracie explains exactly why you shouldn't bridge the way Hatsumi is bridging here;






You should really watch the whole thing. It's a clinic on that technique, but the part I'm talking about starts around 3:30.


Further, you typically don't start bridging until you've trapped their leg so that they can't base out. There was zero attempt at that in Hatsumi's vid. The guy on top actually purposely trapped his own leg as Hatsumi rolled, which is absolutely ridiculous.

And that's really the problem; The point of the Hatsumi video is showing Ninjutsu counters to the mount. If the mount escape itself is wrong, everything is wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Grappling defense isn't the same as ground fighting. Asian systems tend to not possess ground fighting because culturally fighting from the ground wasn't viewed very highly. Look what happened when the Kodokan got beat by Mataemom Tanabe for example. Tenable used a range of fighting almost completely alien to many Asian fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> How much ground work is in Aikido? Just curious.


In Ueshiba's art, I've seen schools teach a range of fighting from the ground. Most just teach defense against a standing attacker, but I've seen some teach actual groundwork, using the principles of the larger art. I doubt Ueshiba taught any ground fighting (perhaps for the reason you stated), but it certainly is in the art, at least in some branches. I've long been curious as to how early it showed up. Tohei did demonstrations with wrestlers and Judo players when he came to the US, and I wonder if he added any ground work at that point. I don't know enough of that art to be more informative.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> I would like to know this too, my experience with aikido is very limited and sparring against it always felt more like I was a bull trying to destroy a river. Despite all my speed and power all I could do was make splashes.
> 
> Aikido from what I have seen seems to be more of a defense style than a fighting style.


I love that - "a bull trying to destroy a river". I've felt that way working with some people in that art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I think your times are a bit off...
> 
> Here's the problem, individual working parts mean nothing if the entire sequence is wrong. For example, by "22" I'm assuming you're talking about the arm lock he performs on the guy he's rolled over? Well that's all fine and dandy, except that the roll he performed to get to that point (before he said "bridge the body" ) is laughably wrong. If you attempted that with someone on top of you, you would either not go anywhere and eat fists all day, or your assailant would allow you to roll over so that they can choke you from behind. The "bridging" that he does is lifting his hip and simply rolling to his side. That isn't how you're supposed to bridge. You're supposed to bridge at an angle. Rickson Gracie explains exactly why you shouldn't bridge the way Hatsumi is bridging here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really watch the whole thing. It's a clinic on that technique, but the part I'm talking about starts around 3:30.
> 
> 
> Further, you typically don't start bridging until you've trapped their leg so that they can't base out. There was zero attempt at that in Hatsumi's vid. The guy on top actually purposely trapped his own leg as Hatsumi rolled, which is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> And that's really the problem; The point of the Hatsumi video is showing Ninjutsu counters to the mount. If the mount escape itself is wrong, everything is wrong.



I agree - and that's a great video. One comment: those bridging movements aren't entirely ineffective, if the attacker isn't trained in ground fighting. Those are the kinds of movements I learned first, and I was able to successfully combine those with my understanding of body mechanics to roll with some folks who were trained. I wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped (as I said, I was using mediocre bridging techniques), but the opponent wasn't Rickson, either. If your timing is good and you have enough other tools in your kit, even weak bridging can be useful.

That said, I've loved upgrading my ground work over the years and getting a better understanding of the mechanics down on the ground. One of my laments is that I can no longer do much of that stuff - my knees and feet are pretty much constant pain now, so all of my ground work is just escape and stand.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> I think your times are a bit off...
> 
> Here's the problem, individual working parts mean nothing if the entire sequence is wrong. For example, by "22" I'm assuming you're talking about the arm lock he performs on the guy he's rolled over? Well that's all fine and dandy, except that the roll he performed to get to that point (before he said "bridge the body" ) is laughably wrong. If you attempted that with someone on top of you, you would either not go anywhere and eat fists all day, or your assailant would allow you to roll over so that they can choke you from behind. The "bridging" that he does is lifting his hip and simply rolling to his side. That isn't how you're supposed to bridge. You're supposed to bridge at an angle. Rickson Gracie explains exactly why you shouldn't bridge the way Hatsumi is bridging here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really watch the whole thing. It's a clinic on that technique, but the part I'm talking about starts around 3:30.
> 
> 
> Further, you typically don't start bridging until you've trapped their leg so that they can't base out. There was zero attempt at that in Hatsumi's vid. The guy on top actually purposely trapped his own leg as Hatsumi rolled, which is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> And that's really the problem; The point of the Hatsumi video is showing Ninjutsu counters to the mount. If the mount escape itself is wrong, everything is wrong.



Yeah we are more or less on the same page, individually these parts look good but all of the before and after parts are not shown at all. For example the armbar is good but as I stated before, the guy layed down and put himself in that position where an armbar would work. 

Techniques no matter what they are need to be demonstrated in their entirety and not just selected parts. If he is advertising his skill or his style than he needs to show these techniques done at full speed, against a person that is actually providing resistance. I'll check out your video in a few minutes and see how that is but I'm positive it does well.

This individual is a good martial artist I just think he needs to sell his product better.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I agree - and that's a great video. One comment: those bridging movements aren't entirely ineffective, if the attacker isn't trained in ground fighting. Those are the kinds of movements I learned first, and I was able to successfully combine those with my understanding of body mechanics to roll with some folks who were trained. I wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped (as I said, I was using mediocre bridging techniques), but the opponent wasn't Rickson, either. If your timing is good and you have enough other tools in your kit, even weak bridging can be useful.



Well keep in mind, Jake was still 90% correct in his overall technique even though Rickson was able to counter it. Hatsumi's technique was far less than that, so you don't need to be Rickson to counter what he was doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ironbear24 said:


> Yeah we are more or less on the same page, individually these parts look good but all of the before and after parts are not shown at all. For example the armbar is good but as I stated before, the guy layed down and put himself in that position where an armbar would work.
> 
> Techniques no matter what they are need to be demonstrated in their entirety and not just selected parts. If he is advertising his skill or his style than he needs to show these techniques done at full speed, against a person that is actually providing resistance. I'll check out your video in a few minutes and see how that is but I'm positive it does well.
> 
> This individual is a good martial artist I just think he needs to sell his product better.


Just a note, this looks to me like he's giving instruction, rather than demonstrating his skill. That doesn't excuse poor technique, but it may explain part of what we see here. If I want students to see the parts of a technique, I'll have a partner who knows when to pause, etc., so I can explain where the next move comes from. I wouldn't post those without audio (and not without something closer to full-speed along with it), but I think most instructors could be caught doing something that looks awful unless you see what it ends up as. Mind you, I see things that I think won't work well, but maybe in a flow they work better than I can see here.

I tend to be more optimistic than Hanzou. He's probably closer to right than me on this one.


----------



## Skullpunch

Hanzou said:


> Allowing someone to get that close to you and control you via grabbing your clothes is too dangerous.



So is allowing someone to attain side mount.  It still happens and you still need to know what to do if it does happen.




			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> I never said that a DLT can't be countered. *What I said was that a DLT is far more idiot proof than an Uchi Mata or an Ashi Guruma.* If your goal is take someone to the ground, a DLT is far more likely to get them there than the Judo throws simply because the Judo throws are more complex and reliant on various factors.



Actually what you said was "You can screw up several aspects of the DLT and it'll still take someone to the floor. You simply don't have that level of cushion in Judo throws" which is wrong for exactly the reasons I stated before.  As for a double leg being more likely to get an opponent on the ground....if you're on the outside then yes.  If you're in various clinch positions then obviously variations of o goshi/harai goshi/sukui nage are better options and not half as complicated as you're making them sound, especially against an attacker who doesn't understand the clinch.





			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> IJF reasoning aside, the loss of those takedowns cripples Judo stand up since those leg based attacks are some of the most common takedowns in grappling.



You say that as if as soon as IJF bans something every judo school out there just forgets about it and the techniques are lost forever.  Unfortunately, you may eventually be right if the leg grab rule stands throughout the course of a generation or two but for the time being it still gets trained and drilled at a good number of clubs.



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Which btw, is another reason I would tell a person to cross-train in wrestling over Judo.



I would tell the same person to do both


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, Jake was still 90% correct in his overall technique even though Rickson was able to counter it. Hatsumi was far less than that, so you don't need to be Rickson to counter what he was doing.


Oh, definitely agreed. My point was that I've made poor bridging work by pairing it with other mechanics. Good bridging doesn't need that help.

Jake is probably at least as competent as I was at my best in ground work. I loved the demonstration Rickson used there - the kind of "all he'd have to do is this" I show to my students all the time. These kinds of things make it very clear why some techniques are done the way they are, rather than the "easier" way.


----------



## Hanzou

Skullpunch said:


> So is allowing someone to attain side mount.  It still happens and you still need to know what to do if it does happen.



And we do, but my point is that it's nothing like Judo which requires a great deal more timing and precision. The clinch for example is far more intuitive than the Judo lapel and sleeve grips.




> Actually what you said was "You can screw up several aspects of the DLT and it'll still take someone to the floor. You simply don't have that level of cushion in Judo throws" which is wrong for exactly the reasons I stated before.  As for a double leg being more likely to get an opponent on the ground....if you're on the outside then yes.  If you're in various clinch positions then obviously variations of o goshi/harai goshi/sukui nage are better options and not half as complicated as you're making them sound, especially against an attacker who doesn't understand the clinch.



So you disagree that Judo throws require more overall technique than wrestling takedowns? Interesting.



> You say that as if as soon as IJF bans something every judo school out there just forgets about it and the techniques are lost forever.  Unfortunately, you may eventually be right if the leg grab rule stands throughout the course of a generation or two but for the time being it still gets trained and drilled at a good number of clubs.



Well the club I visited a few months ago had banned it from practice. Additionally I've seen various Judoka throughout the web discuss how their clubs have had to follow suit because they are partially funded by the IJF and their coaches have to abide by their rules. So honestly that knowledge will be lost far sooner than a generation or two.



> I would tell the same person to do both



Why?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> And we do, but my point is that it's nothing like Judo which requires a great deal more timing and precision. The clinch for example is far more intuitive than the Judo lapel and sleeve grips.


I'll agree that the clinch is fairly intuitive, but I don't see it as more intuitive (or less for that matter) than grabbing the front of someone's shirt, which is about the same as Judo's sleeve and lapel grabs. I was just talking today about how a person can end up being grabbed that way when someone is getting aggressive with them.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I'll agree that the clinch is fairly intuitive, but I don't see it as more intuitive (or less for that matter) than grabbing the front of someone's shirt, which is about the same as Judo's sleeve and lapel grabs. I was just talking today about how a person can end up being grabbed that way when someone is getting aggressive with them.



I would argue that it's more intuitive because it's a more natural reaction to stopping someone from hitting you. If someone is hitting you, you're not going to grab the front of their shirt, because that's not going to stop the blows, you're going to try to clinch them.

Additionally, I said the lapel and the sleeve grab in Judo, a typical starting position that is pretty far removed from a self defense application, and not very intuitive.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> I would argue that it's more intuitive because it's a more natural reaction to stopping someone from hitting you. If someone is hitting you, you're not going to grab the front of their shirt, because that's not going to stop the blows, you're going to try to clinch them.
> 
> Additionally, I said the lapel and the sleeve grab in Judo, a typical starting position that is pretty far removed from a self defense application, and not very intuitive.



Clinching is also taught in many martial arts styles because it prevents your opponent from running away from you. It can prevent your opponent from punching and kicking you as well. Everyone should practice how to so it effectively and deal with it effectively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I would argue that it's more intuitive because it's a more natural reaction to stopping someone from hitting you. If someone is hitting you, you're not going to grab the front of their shirt, because that's not going to stop the blows, you're going to try to clinch them.
> 
> Additionally, I said the lapel and the sleeve grab in Judo, a typical starting position that is pretty far removed from a self defense application, and not very intuitive.



Okay, if we're talking about someone hitting you, I'll agree. If they grab you (okay, not you - you're trained - but an untrained person), one natural response is to put a hand in the way (close enough to the lapel grab). Another could be to reach for a shoulder, since that's where your hand might land anyway (close enough to the sleeve grab). Each half is a natural attack or response by an untrained person, so we can build on that as we train.

I'm not arguing against the clinch, mind you. I think it is a great position to train to and from. I also think lapel grabs, especially, (and sleeve grabs to a much lesser extent) are good to work with. Interestingly, when I teach responses to a lapel/shirt grab, I teach the opposite of a clinch. A clinch is a trapping/pulling position, and I teach a framing out position that forces space, which is the opposite of the attacker's intention.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Clinching is also taught in many martial arts styles because it prevents your opponent from running away from you. It can prevent your opponent from punching and kicking you as well. Everyone should practice how to so it effectively and deal with it effectively.



"You can't have good Jiujitsu without a good clinch." Is a pretty common motto within Gjj. I took up boxing to improve my clinch. 



gpseymour said:


> Okay, if we're talking about someone hitting you, I'll agree. If they grab you (okay, not you - you're trained - but an untrained person), one natural response is to put a hand in the way (close enough to the lapel grab). Another could be to reach for a shoulder, since that's where your hand might land anyway (close enough to the sleeve grab). Each half is a natural attack or response by an untrained person, so we can build on that as we train.
> 
> I'm not arguing against the clinch, mind you. I think it is a great position to train to and from. I also think lapel grabs, especially, (and sleeve grabs to a much lesser extent) are good to work with. Interestingly, when I teach responses to a lapel/shirt grab, I teach the opposite of a clinch. A clinch is a trapping/pulling position, and I teach a framing out position that forces space, which is the opposite of the attacker's intention.



I think it would be interesting to see which came first in Judo; The clinch, or the lapel/sleeve grip. I'm almost certain that the clinch and no-gi Nage Waza came from Maeda and was adopted by the Brazilians. It would be interesting to see if early Judo was geared around the clinch, and gradually evolved into the lapel/sleeve grip, or if clinching was developed by Maeda (and others who left Japan) as a response to fighting wrestlers, boxers, and other shirtless fighters.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> "You can't have good Jiujitsu without a good clinch." Is a pretty common motto within Gjj. I took up boxing to improve my clinch.



But boxing is not supposed to clinch . Dirty boxing?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> "You can't have good Jiujitsu without a good clinch." Is a pretty common motto within Gjj. I took up boxing to improve my clinch.


That's a nice bit of insight into GJJ. Next time I'm feeling good enough to roll with one of my BJJ friends, I'm going to deny the clinch every time and see what happens. I'll probably get hurt. 



> I think it would be interesting to see which came first in Judo; The clinch, or the lapel/sleeve grip. I'm almost certain that the clinch and no-gi Nage Waza came from Maeda and was adopted by the Brazilians. It would be interesting to see if early Judo was geared around the clinch, and gradually evolved into the lapel/sleeve grip, or if clinching was developed by Maeda (and others who left Japan) as a response to fighting wrestlers, boxers, and other shirtless fighters.


Since early Judo used the gi, and practiced against it, I'd guess the sleeve/lapel grab was earliest, and the clinch was a good adaptation to working with other arts.  All of us who practice in gi have to watch out for "gi fixation". I now allow my starting students to work in regular clothes until yellow belt, to force us all to work without a gi to grab - a counter to my old Judo training.


----------



## Skullpunch

Hanzou said:


> And we do, but my point is that it's nothing like Judo which requires a great deal more timing and precision. The clinch for example is far more intuitive than the Judo lapel and sleeve grips.



And my point is that even if this is true it’s still good - if not necessary from a self defense perspective - to know how to COUNTER someone grabbing your clothing, because it happens and Judo’s counters against a haphazard grip work brilliantly.




			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> So you disagree that Judo throws require more overall technique than wrestling takedowns? Interesting.



No but I disagree that the difference is as big as you say.  You are underestimating how technical wrestling is.



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Well the club I visited a few months ago had banned it from practice. Additionally I've seen various Judoka throughout the web discuss how their clubs have had to follow suit because they are partially funded by the IJF and their coaches have to abide by their rules. So honestly that knowledge will be lost far sooner than a generation or two.



I know the IJF has a tendency to over reach (understatement of the century) but there’s no way they can enforce this.  Many clubs are still training leg grabs, the IJF can’t stop it.  Short of sending UC’s into the clubs or something like that.

As for it being lost sooner than a generation or two, we don’t even know if it will be lost yet at all.  There are already talks of reinstating leg attacks in 2017 but with rules to prevent using them for stalling or false attacks (aka belly flopping in some sad attempt to trick the ref into thinking you’re going for a double leg when really you’re just trying not to get thrown), which is really what they should’ve done in the first place.



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Why?



Ask Randy Couture and the ouichi/osoto gari takedowns he’s landed in numerous fights - particularly against opponents who were able to stifle his initial wrestling attacks (Kevin Randleman and Tito Ortiz come to mind).  Or Jon Jones and the osoto gari, harai goshi, and de ashi barai takedowns he’s so fond of.  Or any practitioner of guerilla jiujitsu (guerilla jj is judo + bjj) - such as Cain Velasquez, Jon Fitch, Josh Thomson, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Luke Rockhold, etc.

Wrestling, Bjj, and Judo complement each other with near perfect synergy.

Also, if you’re a gi player in bjj then the benefits of judo should be quite obvious there


----------



## BrothersMA

> I was tought, NEVER hit somebody who is already on the ground! This is a rule I would follow in a street fight


I Like the honor in this but your enemies might not share it. You hit them until the threat is neutralized. In a street fight you cant afford to honor rules because you dont know how serious this could get, you might die.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BrothersMA said:


> I Like the honor in this but your enemies might not share it. You hit them until the threat is neutralized. In a street fight you cant afford to honor rules because you dont know how serious this could get, you might die.


Agreed, within reason. If he's still trying to attack/fight, you keep defending, regardless of whether he's on the ground or standing. (The "within reason" is mostly this: you can't pummel while he's on the ground and expect someone watching to see you as the defender.)


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No, if you have never trained in another system then to bag on it based on "no experience" is just being ignorant.


Just want to point out that limited experience is not the same as no experience.  Just by virtue of being active on this forum, we all have some experience with a wide variety of martial arts styles, even though we do not train in them.  The danger is in remembering that this experience may be superficial, as it is more academic than practical.  But it is not without value.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> Just want to point out that limited experience is not the same as no experience.  Just by virtue of being active on this forum, we all have some experience with a wide variety of martial arts styles, even though we do not train in them.  The danger is in remembering that this experience may be superficial, as it is more academic than practical.  But it is not without value.



*No not without value but*.... this is a forum where by and large within the rules people can say all kinds of stuff that may or may not be true!  Or completely misinformed...


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *No not without value but*.... this is a forum where by and large within the rules people can say all kinds of stuff that may or may not be true!  Or completely misinformed...


My personal opinion is that knowing ABOUT something is a kind of experience.  It's not practical experience, but it's also not the same as zero experience. 

The information I'm thinking of is the more concrete information that can be independently verified.  For example, I have never trained in WC (or VT or any of the other variants).  But I know that they exist because of this forum.  Further, I'm not completely unfamiliar with what chi sao is, even though I can't do it, and have learned quite a bit about the various, underlying philosophies of the style from the debates (some pretty heated) by the various practitioners.  I've learned that there are several variants of tai chi, including chen and yang.  I know a little about aikido, judo, kendo.  Heck, I've learned about various firearms, including the difference between a clip and a magazine.  If someone says the term Krav Maga, I have a pretty good idea what they're talking about. 

Point is, if we're doing this right, we're learning quite a bit around this place.  Don't get me wrong.  We have a professor or two around here who I'm sure have learned nothing (and believe they have nothing to learn), but that's a bad way to go about it, I think. 

Also, just to be clear, knowing about something isn't the same things as knowing how to do something.  A baseball fan may be able to dissect the mechanics of swinging the bat in excruciating detail, but that doesn't mean he can hit a 95 mph fast ball.  This is where the professor gets into trouble, not distinguishing between academic expertise and practical expertise, and failing to understand the limitations of one vs the other.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *No not without value but*.... this is a forum where by and large within the rules people can say all kinds of stuff that may or may not be true!  Or completely misinformed...



Yeah. But you see when a person comes up with his made up in a backyard martial art. All those people who are defendants of "if you haven't trainined in it you can't understand it's merits"
Jump on him like fat kids on cake.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*That is the crux right there Steve.*  Everyone will have an idea, some exposure and a small bit of experience if they get all their information from a forum.  That is it.  It is not the same as going and training with someone or in a system to have a feel for what they do.  Forums are incredibly useful to help broaden your horizon but like anything in life you probably need some first hand experience before you right some thing off as ineffective or useless.  You can of course rely on other people's opinions and their impression based of their experience.  However, that is *"their experience"* not yours and certainly not everyone else's!


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *That is the crux right there Steve.*  Everyone will have an idea, some exposure and a small bit of experience if they get all their information from a forum.  That is it.  It is not the same as going and training with someone or in a system to have a feel for what they do.  Forums are incredibly useful to help broaden your horizon but like anything in life you probably need some first hand experience before you right some thing off as ineffective or useless.  You can of course rely on other people's opinions and their impression based of their experience.  However, that is *"their experience"* not yours and certainly not everyone else's!


just to make sure I understand, are you saying that you can't draw a conclusion or have an opinion about something unless you have first hand experience?   If so, I completely disagree.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*No, just that an opinion could be misinformed and not at all accurate*.  Then again it could be!

By the way lots of people have opinions and some times they are not worth anything.  Some times thought they are very accurate!

This all started on this particular thread because I said broaden your horizons and train! * I stand by that*, do not be one dimensional and train in one system and think that it is the best.   Instead, experience training with lots of people and in lots of systems.  *Experience varied training methods and find what works for you!  
*
Now, as you know I have limited time here Steve and well frankly, it feels like you are badgering me.*  My opinion is clearly stated so I think you can figure out that I stand for cross training and broadening your horizon!*


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> just to make sure I understand, are you saying that you can't draw a conclusion or have an opinion about something unless you have first hand experience?   If so, I completely disagree.


You can certainly have an opinion or draw some conclusions on a topic based just on second-hand sources. It's just a good idea to keep those conclusions tentative and express those opinions with humility, since you may be missing important perspective which you might have gained through more first hand experience. I'd say this is particularly true in the martial arts since, as you pointed out earlier, there is a difference between academic knowledge and physical experience of an art.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *That is the crux right there Steve.*  Everyone will have an idea, some exposure and a small bit of experience if they get all their information from a forum.  That is it.  It is not the same as going and training with someone or in a system to have a feel for what they do.  Forums are incredibly useful to help broaden your horizon but like anything in life you probably need some first hand experience before you right some thing off as ineffective or useless.  You can of course rely on other people's opinions and their impression based of their experience.  However, that is *"their experience"* not yours and certainly not everyone else's!



It's worth mentioning that I *do* have experience training with Ninjutsu. I took a few introductory lessons, and I've trained with a few black belts (albeit that's not saying much since they pass black belts out like candy).

All of this started because I disagreed with the notion that Ninjutsu would be a good art to cross train for a Bjj practitioner. I never said that Ninjutsu was "bad", I was simply saying that Ninjutsu itself tends to not be compatible with the goals of your typical Bjj practitioner. That video of Hatsumi fumbling through ground fighting should be proof enough of what I'm talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *No, just that an opinion could be misinformed and not at all accurate*.  Then again it could be!
> 
> By the way lots of people have opinions and some times they are not worth anything.  Some times thought they are very accurate!
> 
> This all started on this particular thread because I said broaden your horizons and train! * I stand by that*, do not be one dimensional and train in one system and think that it is the best.   Instead, experience training with lots of people and in lots of systems.  *Experience varied training methods and find what works for you!
> *
> Now, as you know I have limited time here Steve and well frankly, it feels like you are badgering me.*  My opinion is clearly stated so I think you can figure out that I stand for cross training and broadening your horizon!*


I agree heartily with the sentiment, Brian. Some of my best learning has come from attending other schools, going to seminars, etc. Heck, some of my most important learning about my primary art happened during seminars and training in other arts/styles. Sometimes an instructor simply tells me something I should have heard from my primary instructor years ago. Usually, I realize he had been saying it for years, and I just hadn't understood him. It sounds absolutist, but I'd be hard pressed not to say that a lack of cross-training is a lack of complete training. My experience shouts that cross-training is almost necessary for complete learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It's worth mentioning that I *do* have experience training with Ninjutsu. I took a few introductory lessons, and I've trained with a few black belts (albeit that's not saying much since they pass black belts out like candy).
> 
> All of this started because I disagreed with the notion that Ninjutsu would be a good art to cross train for a Bjj practitioner. I never said that Ninjutsu was "bad", I was simply saying that Ninjutsu itself tends to not be compatible with the goals of your typical Bjj practitioner. That video of Hatsumi fumbling through ground fighting should be proof enough of what I'm talking about.


I can't speak to anything else in this post, Hanzou, since I have zero experience in or with Ninjutsu, but I don't see the flawed groundwork as an indicator that Ninjutsu is incompatible with the learning goals of a BJJ practitioner. It make it likely that Ninjutsu is more useful if paired with BJJ (or some other ground-fighting-intensive art), but since a good cross-training option for BJJ would be standing work (in fact, that's what most of the BJJ folks I know cross-train for), we'd have to see what the Ninjutsu standing work looks like to make that judgement.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I can't speak to anything else in this post, Hanzou, since I have zero experience in or with Ninjutsu, but I don't see the flawed groundwork as an indicator that Ninjutsu is incompatible with the learning goals of a BJJ practitioner. It make it likely that Ninjutsu is more useful if paired with BJJ (or some other ground-fighting-intensive art), but since a good cross-training option for BJJ would be standing work (in fact, that's what most of the BJJ folks I know cross-train for), we'd have to see what the Ninjutsu standing work looks like to make that judgement.



A Ninjutsu practitioner moving to Bjj is a different matter entirely. I would actually recommend Bjj to a Ninjutsu practitioner. It would be quite beneficial to them on multiple levels. The problem with the reverse is that a Bjj exponent is coming from a background where everything is tested and re-tested, and discarded if viewed as ineffective.  Imagine a high ranking Bjj exponent cross-training in Ninjutsu and seeing that ground fighting demonstration from Hatsumi. Do you think they could take their training seriously after seeing that utter nonsense? Further, stuff like that throws the entire curriculum into question, because if Hatsumi is willing to compromise in that what else is he (and his students) willing to compromise on?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

That extrapolation makes sense, but I have seen really poor groundwork in schools where their standing work was reasonably good. The problem there was that the instructor was working out the groundwork on his own (it hadn't been included in his training), while he'd received good training in standing work. If we extrapolate that the rest of the training will be as bad as the groundwork, then I'm not sure it's good cross-training for anyone. I was responding to your statement that it wasn't good for BJJ cross-training, and there's nothing that makes it particularly bad for a BJJ practitioner, moreso than for anyone else. If the standing work is weak, it's not good for anyone (including the BJJ practitioners) and if it's decent, then it might be particularly good for a BJJ practitioner who wants to explore standing work.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That extrapolation makes sense, but I have seen really poor groundwork in schools where their standing work was reasonably good. The problem there was that the instructor was working out the groundwork on his own (it hadn't been included in his training), while he'd received good training in standing work. If we extrapolate that the rest of the training will be as bad as the groundwork, then I'm not sure it's good cross-training for anyone. I was responding to your statement that it wasn't good for BJJ cross-training, and there's nothing that makes it particularly bad for a BJJ practitioner, moreso than for anyone else. If the standing work is weak, it's not good for anyone (including the BJJ practitioners) and if it's decent, then it might be particularly good for a BJJ practitioner who wants to explore standing work.



Honestly if you're looking for stand up to compliment your Bjj, Muay Thai, MMA standup, and/or standard Boxing are better options.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Honestly if you're looking for stand up to compliment your Bjj, Muay Thai, MMA standup, and/or standard Boxing are better options.


Muay Thai and boxing are pretty much just strikes. "MMA standup" will vary depending upon who is coaching it. It really depends what the person is looking for in their cross-training. If they only want to add striking, then yes, those are good choices (so would be some of the TMA that focus on striking). If they want to add standing grappling (which most of the BJJ schools I've seen don't do much of - it's why they excel on the ground), they'll have to look broader for an answer. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't also get some striking from MT or boxing.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Muay Thai and boxing are pretty much just strikes. "MMA standup" will vary depending upon who is coaching it. It really depends what the person is looking for in their cross-training. If they only want to add striking, then yes, those are good choices (so would be some of the TMA that focus on striking). If they want to add standing grappling (which most of the BJJ schools I've seen don't do much of - it's why they excel on the ground), they'll have to look broader for an answer. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't also get some striking from MT or boxing.



Actually, traditional Bjj has a very wide range of standing takedowns and throws. The non-wrestling takedowns and throws mainly come from the clinch. All you need from that point is a good striking style (bonus if it has good clinching techniques) to balance things out since your grappling is taken care of by Bjj.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Actually, traditional Bjj has a very wide range of standing takedowns and throws. The non-wrestling takedowns and throws mainly come from the clinch. All you need from that point is a good striking style (bonus if it has good clinching techniques) to balance things out since your grappling is taken care of by Bjj.


Hmm...looks like more omissions by some schools I've visited, or I just happen to show up on days when they aren't doing standing work. (Or are these the secret techniques  they're hiding from us non-BJJ'ers?)

I can't remember if you have Judo background - is the BJJ standing work likely similar to what I remember from my Judo days? (My students still don't like it when I decide to "go Judo" with a technique - I throw harder then.)


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Hmm...looks like more omissions by some schools I've visited, or I just happen to show up on days when they aren't doing standing work. (Or are these the secret techniques  they're hiding from us non-BJJ'ers?)
> 
> I can't remember if you have Judo background - is the BJJ standing work likely similar to what I remember from my Judo days? (My students still don't like it when I decide to "go Judo" with a technique - I throw harder then.)



Check out the Gracies during their early years of fighting, especially Royce in the first UFCs and Rickson in Pride, those are prime examples of old school Bjj takedowns. They never seemed to have much issue taking people down or throwing them to the ground. There's also a few old Gracie fundamental vids on Youtube where they specifically cover throws and takedowns.

Personally I don't think it looks much like Judo at all.


----------

