BJJ question

[Steve]

I don't train for self defense purposes, and have been avoiding this thread as a result. But since the thread's rearing its head again, I figured I'd add my opinion to the mix, and clear up some misconceptions that seem to be cropping up.

There are more problems than technique though. BJJ makes you engage, and try to beat the other guy. It does not teach you to disengage and get out asap.

This isn't true. While there is a lot of "engaging" in BJJ, there is an equal emphasis on disengaging. Take downs are drilled along with take down defenses along with strategies and techniques for returning to a neutral position (standing or otherwise).

I've said this many times before, but the best self defense is situational awareness, humility and being friendly. Training in BJJ, even if it's "just for sport," will teach you skills that you will be 100% confident in should a situation arise. You will have performed these techniques at full speed over and over.

You will also be strong and in shape. My conditioning has never been as good as others in the school, but I'm in better shape than most of the country, and in the best shape of my life. While I'm not ripped like a pro MMA fighter, I have a strong core and for a 40 year old guy who enjoys beer, I'm doing very well. In a situation where I have to fight or flee, I'll be able to do either.

BJJ is really fun. The best martial art for anyone is the one that they enjoy enough to look forward to every single day. If Wing Chun is your thing, knock yourself out. The point is, there are a lot of people who TALK about training way more than they actually train.

And finally, as others have said, MMA is its own sport that teaches very effective striking combined with the grappling of BJJ and wrestling, and the transitional skills to move smoothly from one to the other. I still believe that, in a pinch, if I had my pick of any martial art for self defense, I don't think you can get better than common sense, situational awareness and MMA training.

 

[FriedRice]

There are more problems than technique though. BJJ makes you engage, and try to beat the other guy. It does not teach you to disengage and get out asap.

Are you saying that you need to pay good money to a dojo to teach you to turn around and run? But seriously, have you ever tried to take down a BJJ in a tournament? If you didn't take them down on your 1st try, voila, he just disengaged on you. What do you think happens between 2 BJJ in a BJJ tournament match? They start standing while grabbing & pulling in trying for the takedown....engaging & disengaging. At anytime, either of them can disengage completely by running out the front door and straight home.

BJJ can be used and taught for self defense. But then it has to be trained for self defense. Training BJJ for years and years without training self defense responses does not prepare one for self defense, and it will only end well if the scenario is compatible with BJJ philosophy: 1 opponent, no weapons, time to engage and beat the other person.

Dude, I trained a decent amount of time with weapons in JJJ. During sparring, I can usually stab & slash my sensei with a rubber knife about 10 times before he can grab and disarm me. In a real fight, he'd be dead. It's fun to brag about being trained with & against weapons, but most people never really tried it out in real life. I train MA to fight in the ring and not worry too much about these various Steven Segal scenarios in the streets b/c I have a CCW and always carry a knife. Never had to use either. If I had to, I doubt that I'd pull out my chopsocky first, over my 9mm.

BJJ has been doing pretty well in the rough streets of Brazil. Rio, Sau Paulo, etc.. They probably stab with knives a lot more than here in the USA since our toughguys usually have guns.

You mention having a knife, but so could the other person. If you take him down and start grappling, and he pulls out a knife and sticks you in the kidney or slashes an artery in your thigh, you die.

Why the heck would I take him down if I had a knife in my hand????

Mike Tyson would need only 1 hit to end the conflict. If you are not Mike Tyson and need more than a couple of seconds, then all those things you didn't consider will become a very big problem indeed.

Not really, a clean shot to the chin can KO any dumdum in the streets who usually aren't trained and leaves their chin unprotected. But you missed the point about my using Tyson as an example... which is, he trained in boxing to compete purely for sport and doesn't care about all of this "self defense" talk...yet he and any other trained boxer can still take care of themselves in a self defense situation.

TMA otoh (i can only speak for jujutsu and ninpo) always puts weapons, limited time and the need for a quick escape in the picture. We can argue this argument both ways, and both have valid points.

Throat strike, takedown, crushing knee to the face, standing armbar, dislocate at the elbow, break the wrist or both....all w/i 10-15 seconds. BJJ can do this too. It's not going to be the UFC in the streets all the time. In the UFC, it's between 2 equally matched, highly trained competitors, which is why you see a lot of *** grabbing for hours on end. In the streets vs. some untrained loudmouth, it can be nice and quick. A pure sports fighter, like a boxer can probably end it even quicker than a jujitsuka.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Are you saying that you need to pay good money to a dojo to teach you to turn around and run? But seriously, have you ever tried to take down a BJJ in a tournament? If you didn't take them down on your 1st try, voila, he just disengaged on you. What do you think happens between 2 BJJ in a BJJ tournament match? They start standing while grabbing & pulling in trying for the takedown....engaging & disengaging. At anytime, either of them can disengage completely by running out the front door and straight home.

People fall back to their training. Once you engage, does your training focus on beating the other guy, or on getting away?

Dude, I trained a decent amount of time with weapons in JJJ. During sparring, I can usually stab & slash my sensei with a rubber knife about 10 times before he can grab and disarm me. In a real fight, he'd be dead. It's fun to brag about being trained with & against weapons, but most people never really tried it out in real life. I train MA to fight in the ring and not worry too much about these various Steven Segal scenarios in the streets b/c I have a CCW and always carry a knife. Never had to use either. If I had to, I doubt that I'd pull out my chopsocky first, over my 9mm.

It's not about defending against a knife. I know as well as you that the theory is very different from actually doing it. I was talking about the idea that rolling around is generally a bad idea because in doing so you assume that the other guy does not have a weapon. If he does you don't even have the chance to react.

I don't want to raise the impression that I think that BJJ is unfit for self defense. It can be, but only if attention is given to it. And not all schools do that. I know plenty of places that train solely for competition and don't care about self defense. Now, someone has done a much better job than I did, writing an article about the differences between old style and modern, without going the way of 'one is better than the other'.
http://www.grapplearts.com/Submission-Grappling-vs-ju-jutsu.htm

I think the article is worth reading for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[Steve]

People fall back to their training. Once you engage, does your training focus on beating the other guy, or on getting away?

The training I do focuses on grappling, within which there are situations where it's desirable to return to a neutral position. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Maybe I'm just not being clear, or I'm misunderstanding. How can I convince you that we train for control, which includes being able to engage AND disengage. Am I just not credible enough for you?

I don't want to raise the impression that I think that BJJ is unfit for self defense. It can be, but only if attention is given to it. And not all schools do that. I know plenty of places that train solely for competition and don't care about self defense. Now, someone has done a much better job than I did, writing an article about the differences between old style and modern, without going the way of 'one is better than the other'.
http://www.grapplearts.com/Submission-Grappling-vs-ju-jutsu.htm

I think the article is worth reading for the purpose of this discussion.

Stefan Kesting is well known in the jiu jitsu community. He's a well rounded martial artist, too. The article is interesting and very much in line with what is frequently said on Martial Talk. I don't quite understand what conclusions you're drawing from it.

 

[FriedRice]

People fall back to their training. Once you engage, does your training focus on beating the other guy, or on getting away?

Again, I really don't need to pay a dojo good money to show me how to run away. I already know how to do that.

It's not about defending against a knife. I know as well as you that the theory is very different from actually doing it. I was talking about the idea that rolling around is generally a bad idea because in doing so you assume that the other guy does not have a weapon. If he does you don't even have the chance to react.

Why am I rolling around when I have a knife? Again, BJJ can eyestrike, takedown, standing wrist lock, crushing knee to the face, break wrist and/or dislocate elbow....move to the next or run away. No need to roll around. Isn't this what you do in JJJ?

I don't want to raise the impression that I think that BJJ is unfit for self defense. It can be, but only if attention is given to it. And not all schools do that. I know plenty of places that train solely for competition and don't care about self defense. Now, someone has done a much better job than I did, writing an article about the differences between old style and modern, without going the way of 'one is better than the other'.
http://www.grapplearts.com/Submission-Grappling-vs-ju-jutsu.htm

I think the article is worth reading for the purpose of this discussion.

Self defense to me is some spiffy title you use to further scare women who are already scared about being raped. I'd rather train to be a fighter, spar hard, spar regularly and fight regularly. Then when the time comes, I'll rely on my experience, skills, reflex, power, agility, etc... I don't think I really need to pay anyone money to teach me how to kick someone in the nuts or poke them in the eye.

Think Royce Gracie doesn't know how to kick someone in the nuts nor poke them in the eye while both are standing?

 

[Tanaka]

Again, I really don't need to pay a dojo good money to show me how to run away. I already know how to do that.



Why am I rolling around when I have a knife? Again, BJJ can eyestrike, takedown, standing wrist lock, crushing knee to the face, break wrist and/or dislocate elbow....move to the next or run away. No need to roll around. Isn't this what you do in JJJ?



Self defense to me is some spiffy title you use to further scare women who are already scared about being raped. I'd rather train to be a fighter, spar hard, spar regularly and fight regularly. Then when the time comes, I'll rely on my experience, skills, reflex, power, agility, etc... I don't think I really need to pay anyone money to teach me how to kick someone in the nuts or poke them in the eye.

Think Royce Gracie doesn't know how to kick someone in the nuts nor poke them in the eye while both are standing?

I think what Bruno was trying to get across here was. BJJ trains you to engage to win the fight. Because they are used to being in a tournament where you have to engage or you get disqualified. Hes not talking about neutralizing a take down. Hes talking about waiting for your opponent to make the attack and then use his attack against him. Which is originally how Jujutsu is/was... if you understand concepts of Ju and Aiki (which is apparent in most traditional systems)
Those concepts are lacking in BJJ because it has watered down from Judo. The principles were lost due to misunderstanding what "Ju" or "gentle art" really means.
The thing about training for sport and outside a ring. Is philosophy and mental training. There is a philosophy behind each technique in traditional schools. Why it is done the way it is done and etc. And it differs amongst each "Ryu" but the outcome usually meets the same conclusion.
Don't get me wrong... I like BJJ and constantly watch BJJ matches and videos. I have even competed in competitions with BJJ practitioners. I have also participated in couple BJJ classes. And Fried Rice... There are certain ways to "run away"
When Bruno says that he is putting it simple. For instance using a technique in a manner that allows for a quick escape. Rather than using a technique that will have you there for a while(but may cause more damage)

P.S I wrote this really fast because I am on my way out the door. I will purify it when I come home tomorrow if there are any misunderstandings in what I have said.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Thanks Tanaka. That is what I was trying to say, pretty close.

This is not paying a dojo good money 'to learn to run away'. When I say diengage, I mean breaking contact and making distance. Guess what. We have to train for that, to do it in a controlled manner while not giving the opponent an opening. I don't mean the running away part, I mean the break contact part.

The reply of FriedRice makes me doubt that he has read the article I linked to which does a good job of explaining the differences, and why some things are don the way they are in both BJJ and classical JJ. There are fundamental differences in the way they are trained. The chokehold differences for example are a good example.

The argument that FriedRice is trying to make -I think- is that if something happens, he'll be able to rationally think the entire thing through so that he takes all the classical JJ considerations into account when having to make decisions about what technique to use and when to break contact and to remain aware of everything that is going on around him instead of focusing on the opponent.

 

[Steve]

Are my posts invisible? I'm beginning to wonder. It sounds like you guys have some questions about how BJJ is trained. I'd be happy to help you understand, because it's clear to me that you have some misconceptions.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Are my posts invisible? I'm beginning to wonder. It sounds like you guys have some questions about how BJJ is trained. I'd be happy to help you understand, because it's clear to me that you have some misconceptions.

Your posts are not invisible. Please enlighten me. In the interest of discussing something tangible, could we take that article as the discussion topic please? It has 3 specific (short) sections:
differences in strategy,
differences in techniques,
differences in training methods

The article is -imo- a fairly accurate analysis, or at least in my experience.
Where in those 3 sections does your experience diverge or am I making wrong asumptions?

 

[FriedRice]

I think what Bruno was trying to get across here was. BJJ trains you to engage to win the fight. Because they are used to being in a tournament where you have to engage or you get disqualified.

Like I said, there's plenty of disengaging while standing up during a tournament and you can turn and run out the door if you want to. Don't need to pay money to learn this.

Hes not talking about neutralizing a take down. Hes talking about waiting for your opponent to make the attack and then use his attack against him. Which is originally how Jujutsu is/was... if you understand concepts of Ju and Aiki (which is apparent in most traditional systems)

Yea, you're going to do some wrist lock, push, throw or w/e when someone grabs you, then escape...which happens all the time and they just leaves their arm their for you to make your move too. In Muay Thai, if someone did that, we just clinch and knees and/or elbow...then hop back, 2 quarter turns, run away. We just don't have fancy terms like "disengage".

Those concepts are lacking in BJJ because it has watered down from Judo. The principles were lost due to misunderstanding what "Ju" or "gentle art" really means.

More like, the principles weren't cared too much about by the Brazilians....and behold, they're not care that much by the current trend in MMA neither.

The thing about training for sport and outside a ring. Is philosophy and mental training. There is a philosophy behind each technique in traditional schools.

Been there, done that. When I was doing JJJ... lot's of fake eye gouging, pretending to throat strike, etc. No real sparring for this and we didn't go out to bars afterwards to look for fights to test out our eye gouging skills. When we did spar though, it usually hits the ground and it looks just like BJJ sparring...no eye gouging, or w/e there neither. From all of that JJJ training, I never eye gouged anyone for real, nor throat strikes. But since I left and went to MMA, I have been hitting pads, bags, etc. for many years now. And more importantly, hitting & kicking partners & opponents in sparring and tournaments. All out, busted up faces, etc...my head hurts. I bet if I had too (ie. in prison or something), I'm pretty sure that I can target someone's throat or nutsack despite not training to do so....I mean, I would hope all that sparring and fighting would at least help me with my aim or something.

In a bar situation, it's just like in the ring, I don't let anyone put their hands on me. When someone sticks out their hands towards me....oh look, a jab. Didn't need any special mentality training to differentiate what this means nor how I should address it.

And Fried Rice... There are certain ways to "run away"
When Bruno says that he is putting it simple. For instance using a technique in a manner that allows for a quick escape. Rather than using a technique that will have you there for a while(but may cause more damage)

Yea, you just have fancy words for "running away". In Muay Thai and boxing, we just call it footwork.

 

[Steve]

Your posts are not invisible. Please enlighten me. In the interest of discussing something tangible, could we take that article as the discussion topic please? It has 3 specific (short) sections:
differences in strategy,
differences in techniques,
differences in training methods

The article is -imo- a fairly accurate analysis, or at least in my experience.
Where in those 3 sections does your experience diverge or am I making wrong asumptions?

I think the article is great. And I'll remind you to read my initial post where I think I have outlined pretty realistically my opinions on BJJ for self defense.

Couple of general points would be that it's discussion the sport of Submission Grappling, not Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Submission Grappling is a sport that is closely related to BJJ, but is specifically practiced nogi. So, the very fact that you're referring to an article on the sport of submission grappling and talking about BJJ speaks to at least some level of misunderstanding.

For example, under strategy, the section relates specifically to competition: "submit your opponent or defeat him on points." In BJJ, the over arching strategy is to dominate positionally and establish control. Position before submission, as the saying goes.

From every advantageous position, you are able to a)disengage, b)advance your position or c)submit your opponent. From every disadvantageous position you learn to a)disengage or b)improve your position.

It's really that simple. Disengaging is crucial. It resets the encounter. If you're on top of me, I have tools at my disposal that will either reverse positions or allow me to return to my feet.

Look, it's really this simple for me. If you're saying that BJJ is often trained without an emphasis on self defense, I'd agree. If you're saying it's unfit for self defense, whether it's because we train for sport or because we don't train now to disengage, I disagree completely.

If you have any specific questions, I'm happy to try and answer them as best I can.

As an aside, if you're pointing to the article as an indication that JJJ is better for self defense, I wonder why. Do you think that winning "on the battlefield, usually in the presence of weapons and multiple attackers and often encumbered by armor," lends itself any better to self defense? I'd argue that it's no more or less practical than BJJ. Just different.

 

[Steve]

I think what Bruno was trying to get across here was. BJJ trains you to engage to win the fight. Because they are used to being in a tournament where you have to engage or you get disqualified. Hes not talking about neutralizing a take down. Hes talking about waiting for your opponent to make the attack and then use his attack against him. Which is originally how Jujutsu is/was... if you understand concepts of Ju and Aiki (which is apparent in most traditional systems)
Those concepts are lacking in BJJ because it has watered down from Judo. The principles were lost due to misunderstanding what "Ju" or "gentle art" really means.
The thing about training for sport and outside a ring. Is philosophy and mental training. There is a philosophy behind each technique in traditional schools. Why it is done the way it is done and etc. And it differs amongst each "Ryu" but the outcome usually meets the same conclusion.
Don't get me wrong... I like BJJ and constantly watch BJJ matches and videos. I have even competed in competitions with BJJ practitioners. I have also participated in couple BJJ classes. And Fried Rice... There are certain ways to "run away"
When Bruno says that he is putting it simple. For instance using a technique in a manner that allows for a quick escape. Rather than using a technique that will have you there for a while(but may cause more damage)

P.S I wrote this really fast because I am on my way out the door. I will purify it when I come home tomorrow if there are any misunderstandings in what I have said.

Watered down judo? Oh brother.

 

[Tanaka]

Watered down judo? Oh brother.

It's not supposed to be an insult. But it has watered down from Judo and lost the concept of "Ju" and "aiki"

Also you spoke about "strategy of positioning and establishing control..."
can you go into more detail about this or give some type of example?

 

[Bruno@MT]

I think the article is great. And I'll remind you to read my initial post where I think I have outlined pretty realistically my opinions on BJJ for self defense.

Couple of general points would be that it's discussion the sport of Submission Grappling, not Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Submission Grappling is a sport that is closely related to BJJ, but is specifically practiced nogi. So, the very fact that you're referring to an article on the sport of submission grappling and talking about BJJ speaks to at least some level of misunderstanding.

For example, under strategy, the section relates specifically to competition: "submit your opponent or defeat him on points." In BJJ, the over arching strategy is to dominate positionally and establish control. Position before submission, as the saying goes.

From every advantageous position, you are able to a)disengage, b)advance your position or c)submit your opponent. From every disadvantageous position you learn to a)disengage or b)improve your position.

It's really that simple. Disengaging is crucial. It resets the encounter. If you're on top of me, I have tools at my disposal that will either reverse positions or allow me to return to my feet.

Ok thanks I didn't know that.

Look, it's really this simple for me. If you're saying that BJJ is often trained without an emphasis on self defense, I'd agree. If you're saying it's unfit for self defense, whether it's because we train for sport or because we don't train now to disengage, I disagree completely.

That was the point I was trying to make, several times (I think I said that in an earlier post). BJJ as a system has everything that is needed for self defense. It is just often not trained for self defense.

If you have any specific questions, I'm happy to try and answer them as best I can.

As an aside, if you're pointing to the article as an indication that JJJ is better for self defense, I wonder why. Do you think that winning "on the battlefield, usually in the presence of weapons and multiple attackers and often encumbered by armor," lends itself any better to self defense? I'd argue that it's no more or less practical than BJJ. Just different.

From a technical point of view, I won't argue one is better than the other.
However, one point where the classical approach has the advantage is that it is always (or usually) trained with the implied assumption that the other person could produce a knife, for example. As you can understand, the fact that a knife can come into play means that there are things you shouldn't do or avoid, which would not be that much of an issue in an unarmed context.

That was just one example. There are others, like going for the classical choke instead of the modern kind, because it means you can release and get out if something happens around you. Those considerations are trained always, even without explicitly training for self defense, in competition oriented systems this is less the case.

That doesn't devalue the system or make it unfit for self defense. It is just not often trained that way.

Mind you, I readily admit that the classical approach has disadvantages as well. There is not 1 way to valhalla, as they say

 

[Steve]

It's not supposed to be an insult.

LOL. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Modern Judo is watered down judo, for Pete's sake. But you're entitled to your opinion. I've heard the joke, "BJJ = Basically Just Judo". It's okay.

Also you spoke about "strategy of positioning and establishing control..."
can you go into more detail about this or give some type of example?

Positional dominance and establishing control... basically, the idea is to control space and work for position according to a simple positional heirarchy. Mount (bottom) -> Back mount -> Knee on belly (bottom) -> side mount/100kilos/side control (bottom)-> half guard (bottom) -> guard (bottom) -> guard (top) -> half guard (top) -> side control (top) -> Knee on Belly (top) -> mount (top).

If you're in any of the disadvantageous positions up to guard, you're looking to either disengage or return to guard (both considered neutral positions), or reverse the position.

If you're in any of the advantageous positions, you're looking to either disengage, improve your position further or submit.

It's a pretty simple. And again, at every position, disengaging is integral.

 

[Steve]

That was the point I was trying to make, several times (I think I said that in an earlier post). BJJ as a system has everything that is needed for self defense. It is just often not trained for self defense.

I got that. It's not when you said that BJJ is trained for competition, it's specifically your assertion that we don't train to disengage. I'd argue that in BJJ, with our emphasis on ground fighting, we're more competent as a group to disengage than almost any other group.

From a technical point of view, I won't argue one is better than the other.
However, one point where the classical approach has the advantage is that it is always (or usually) trained with the implied assumption that the other person could produce a knife, for example. As you can understand, the fact that a knife can come into play means that there are things you shouldn't do or avoid, which would not be that much of an issue in an unarmed context.

It could also be argued that the emphasis on attacking joints and large muscle groups is more reliable in a crisis situation than relying on an attack to a nerve cluster. This was also mentioned in Kesting's article. Ultimately, neither art is specific to self defense in the same way that a style such as Krav Maga is.

Mind you, I readily admit that the classical approach has disadvantages as well. There is not 1 way to valhalla, as they say

I agree. As I said before, I'm not trying to paint BJJ as the end all and be all. I'm simply pointing out that you seem to have some misconceptions about how it's typically trained. I've been at it for a while and am happy to answer as I can.

 

[FriedRice]

It's not supposed to be an insult. But it has watered down from Judo and lost the concept of "Ju" and "aiki"

Also you spoke about "strategy of positioning and establishing control..."
can you go into more detail about this or give some type of example?

You have a very superficial understanding of BJJ then. The Gracies didn't water anything down, they merely concentrated on the ground work of JJJ and greatly improved this aspect of JJJ. Maeda, a champion Judoka, taught them Jujutsu. If he only taught them Judo, why didn't they call it Brazilian Judo? Judo involves a lot fancy throws...why don't we see such in BJJ if Maeda taught them Judo. In general, the throws by a BJJ-ka sucks compared a Judoka of the equivalent experience, time wise.

Maeda was a well rounded fighter who fought toughman, bare knuckle fights all around the world. It wouldn't be surprising that he employed many different styles to win his fights... and also passed this on to the Gracies.

BJJ is quite intricate and still evolving rapidly due to it's enormous popularity. The ground work from Judo and JJJ is nothing compared to BJJ.

 

[Tanaka]

You have a very superficial understanding of BJJ then. The Gracies didn't water anything down, they merely concentrated on the ground work of JJJ and greatly improved this aspect of JJJ. Maeda, a champion Judoka, taught them Jujutsu. If he only taught them Judo, why didn't they call it Brazilian Judo? Judo involves a lot fancy throws...why don't we see such in BJJ if Maeda taught them Judo. In general, the throws by a BJJ-ka sucks compared a Judoka of the equivalent experience, time wise.

Maeda was a well rounded fighter who fought toughman, bare knuckle fights all around the world. It wouldn't be surprising that he employed many different styles to win his fights... and also passed this on to the Gracies.

BJJ is quite intricate and still evolving rapidly due to it's enormous popularity. The ground work from Judo and JJJ is nothing compared to BJJ.

Carlos Gracie wasn't taught any form of "Traditional Japanese Jujutsu"

The only Jujutsu he was taught was "Judo" which at the time was commonly referred to as "Kano Jujutsu" or "Jujutsu." The groundwork you see in BJJ looks nothing like any Japanese Jujutsu Ryuha. All of that is learned from Judo "newaza." You think becaues BJJ don't use throws of Judo that it's not from Judo? Doesn't matter if it lacks the Tachiwaza of Judo... it is built upon the newaza curriculum of Kodokan Judo. I say it is watered down because the concept of Ju and Aiki are lost in BJJ.(Which is why I don't see why it's called Jujutsu or "Jiujitsu")
But as long as they don't make up history or lie I have no issue with them calling it jujutsu, because it's unarmed combat learned from Judo. Mitsuyo Maeda has only Judo and Sumo training(that I know of?)

Which system(Ryuha) does Mitsuyo Maeda come from?
Who was Mitsuyo Maeda traditional Japanese teacher?
Does Mitsuyo Maeda have a menkyo?

All I see is him being high ranked and well respected Judoka. Arts like Aikido, Krav Maga, and Judo actually look more like Japanese Jujutsu than BJJ. I am sure it looks like I am insulting BJJ, but I am not. I actually like some of the techniques from BJJ which I incorporate if it doesn't conflict with my schools philosophy of combat too much.

LOL. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Modern Judo is watered down judo, for Pete's sake. But you're entitled to your opinion. I've heard the joke, "BJJ = Basically Just Judo". It's okay

Modern Judo still has concept of Ju within it.
But like I said I am not trying to belittle BJJ, just post my knowledge of the topic. I am open to criticism, and do not mind being proven wrong.

Also what you said about positioning is what I was referring to. Sure you can "disengage from your position"
The same way muay thai practitioner can disengage from his clinch.
But the method of BJJ is to dominate opponent by engaging.(In which like you said is by getting positional advantage)
To be more specific the techniques require you to be really committed to the opponent.

While in traditional school there are techniques specifically for situations for getting rid of someone quick. "Touch(receive attack) and throw, then move on"
As viewed in this video at 0:35 [yt]tQXtTxJ7_nA[/yt]

Now of course BJJ can be used as self defense, just as traditional school can be done in competition. BJJ will just be more effective in that area... just like I say traditional school of Jujutsu would be more effective outside of competition. I remember being in a BJJ class where we were doing self defense drill. I recall that we blocked the punch and wrapped the arm, then we moved into what was referred to as "T" position to perform a hip throw.
It would work but it wasn't my cup of tea since it requires me to be all wrapped up with them and use my legs and hips to initiate the throw. I hope you don't take this offensively stevebjj and friedrice.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Ultimately, neither art is specific to self defense in the same way that a style such as Krav Maga is.

Very true.
If I cared only about self defense, I'd actually learn self defense. Krav Maga'd be my choice in that case. As it is, I love classical jujutsu and that is the reason I keep doing it. Just like you and BJJ.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

BJJ is not Judo though it is derived from it. The Gracie's have worked very hard as their students have on their ground game so much so that it is it's own unique martial system. I can remember Judo practitioners coming to The Warrior Way in Novi to learn BJJ ground grappling and we in turn enjoyed learning throws from them!

So to say BJJ = Judo is just not right!