BJJ question

[Steve]

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")

I'm really confused, frankly. I agree with some of what you're saying. For example, I agree completely that BJJ is derived from judo, specifically Pre-WWII judo as it existed in the late 1800's and very early 1900s. Modern judo is also derived from pre-WWII judo, and if you're saying that the one is watered down, surely you'll also agree that the other is as well. Modern Judo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu are both cousins descended from Kano Jujutsu along slightly different paths. Where judo has focused on throws and ground work with an emphasis on throws, BJJ focuses on throws and groundwork with an emphasis on ground fighting.

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.

For someone who alleges not to be intentionally insulting, you're bringing it up a lot. I honestly wouldn't take anything you're saying as insulting, but I wonder at your intentions strictly because you're mentioning it over and over. Honestly, while I wouldn't be insulted by your specific statements, I believe you are trying to be insulting because you keep bringing it up. I heard a woman at work say to another woman, "Your new haircut looks great. It's very practical and easy to manage. I hope you don't find that insulting."

Later, the other woman was venting. Her haircut WAS practical and easy to manage, but it was clear to everyone that the first woman said those things with the intention to be insulting.

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.

You've said this a couple times now. Can you help me understand what you mean when you say the concept of "ju" or of "aiki?" I'm dumb. Make it as simple for me as you can, please.

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.

Somewhat. When I disengage, I mean to specifically return to a neutral position. From this position, what you do is entirely up to you based on the situation at hand.

But the method of BJJ is to dominate opponent by engaging.(In which like you said is by getting positional advantage)

And now it looks like you're straying a little. You asked specifically about what I mean by positional dominance and establishing control. In that context, we attempt to dominate by engaging. But I also said that from every position, disengaging is as important as engaging. Obviously, if I'm choosing to engage, I will not simultaneously choose to disengage. But WHEN I engage, my goals will be to control my opponent and work for positional advantage.

Would you say that this is different from judo? Do you train in judo?

To be more specific the techniques require you to be really committed to the opponent.

Unless the goal is to create space and seperate from the opponent. I wish you'd just say what's on your mind. Really. It's clear you have an agenda and you're a clever guy. What's on your mind? You seem to me to be talking around what you're really trying to say.

 

[Tanaka]

I'm really confused, frankly. I agree with some of what you're saying. For example, I agree completely that BJJ is derived from judo, specifically Pre-WWII judo as it existed in the late 1800's and very early 1900s. Modern judo is also derived from pre-WWII judo, and if you're saying that the one is watered down, surely you'll also agree that the other is as well. Modern Judo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu are both cousins descended from Kano Jujutsu along slightly different paths. Where judo has focused on throws and ground work with an emphasis on throws, BJJ focuses on throws and groundwork with an emphasis on ground fighting.For someone who alleges not to be intentionally insulting, you're bringing it up a lot. I honestly wouldn't take anything you're saying as insulting, but I wonder at your intentions strictly because you're mentioning it over and over. Honestly, while I wouldn't be insulted by your specific statements, I believe you are trying to be insulting because you keep bringing it up. I heard a woman at work say to another woman, "Your new haircut looks great. It's very practical and easy to manage. I hope you don't find that insulting."

Later, the other woman was venting. Her haircut WAS practical and easy to manage, but it was clear to everyone that the first woman said those things with the intention to be insulting. You've said this a couple times now. Can you help me understand what you mean when you say the concept of "ju" or of "aiki?" I'm dumb. Make it as simple for me as you can, please. Somewhat. When I disengage, I mean to specifically return to a neutral position. From this position, what you do is entirely up to you based on the situation at hand. And now it looks like you're straying a little. You asked specifically about what I mean by positional dominance and establishing control. In that context, we attempt to dominate by engaging. But I also said that from every position, disengaging is as important as engaging. Obviously, if I'm choosing to engage, I will not simultaneously choose to disengage. But WHEN I engage, my goals will be to control my opponent and work for positional advantage.

Would you say that this is different from judo? Do you train in judo? Unless the goal is to create space and seperate from the opponent. I wish you'd just say what's on your mind. Really. It's clear you have an agenda and you're a clever guy. What's on your mind? You seem to me to be talking around what you're really trying to say.

My intentions are not bad. The reason I am being this way and I keep repeating that, is because I have discussed this previously with other BJJ practitioners. In which it started to seem they were being offended by what I have said, when I seriously did not mean to offend.
And I am not sure what you mean by "modern" Judo. Because I know the traditional Kata is still maintained in Judo today. Also I know that the concept of Ju is still preached in Judo. I didn't notice it being preached in BJJ.(I may be wrong)
What I am saying here is... BJJ seem to think Ju means to use no strength at all. That is what "gentle art" means to them. The concept of Ju is not about strength. It is about yielding to your opponent.
Here is a quote I like
"I may venture to say, loosely, that in Judo there is a sort of counter for every twist, wrench, pull, push or bend. Only the Judo expert does not oppose such movements at all. No, he yields to them. But he does much more than yield to them. He aids them with a wicked sleight that causes the assailant to put out his own shoulder, to fracture his own arm, or in a desperate case, even to break his own neck or back." -Patrick Lafcadio Hearn

But part of that quote also contains the concept of Aiki. Ju is yielding to your opponent. If he pushes/pull; if he pulls/push. Aiki goes hand in hand with Ju. Ai meaning a joining. Ki meaning ones internal force. Aiki is essentially giving your opponent what he wants, just not in the way he wanted. You blend with his movement and use his energy to destroy him. Aiki and Ju is not just found in Jujutsu; it is also found in other types of Japanese MA like Kenjutsu and etc.
Now in BJJ what I see "to win and destroy opponent," you engage him to get him on the ground. Then use leverage and positional dominance to destroy him.
Which is also done in traditional schools too. So I am not saying it's a bad thing. I just don't see concept of Ju/Aiki being preached in BJJ.

 

[Steve]

My intentions are not bad. The reason I am being this way and I keep repeating that, is because I have discussed this previously with other BJJ practitioners. In which it started to seem they were being offended by what I have said, when I seriously did not mean to offend.

Fair enough. I think you're entitled to your opinion. I does sound to me like you're trying to bait an argument, but I'll take you at your word.

And I am not sure what you mean by "modern" Judo. Because I know the traditional Kata is still maintained in Judo today.

Are you saying that you believe that modern judo is unchanged from pre-WWII judo?

Also I know that the concept of Ju is still preached in Judo. I didn't notice it being preached in BJJ.(I may be wrong)

How much time have you spent training in Judo? What about BJJ?

What I am saying here is... BJJ seem to think Ju means to use no strength at all. That is what "gentle art" means to them. The concept of Ju is not about strength. It is about yielding to your opponent.
Here is a quote I like
"I may venture to say, loosely, that in Judo there is a sort of counter for every twist, wrench, pull, push or bend. Only the Judo expert does not oppose such movements at all. No, he yields to them. But he does much more than yield to them. He aids them with a wicked sleight that causes the assailant to put out his own shoulder, to fracture his own arm, or in a desperate case, even to break his own neck or back." -Patrick Lafcadio Hearn

But part of that quote also contains the concept of Aiki. Ju is yielding to your opponent. If he pushes/pull; if he pulls/push. Aiki goes hand in hand with Ju. Ai meaning a joining. Ki meaning ones internal force. Aiki is essentially giving your opponent what he wants, just not in the way he wanted. You blend with his movement and use his energy to destroy him. Aiki and Ju is not just found in Jujutsu; it is also found in other types of Japanese MA like Kenjutsu and etc.
Now in BJJ what I see "to win and destroy opponent," you engage him to get him on the ground. Then use leverage and positional dominance to destroy him.
Which is also done in traditional schools too. So I am not saying it's a bad thing. I just don't see concept of Ju/Aiki being preached in BJJ.

That's a great quote. So, just so I'm clear, because I'm still not sure what you mean by "ju" but it is clear to me that it means something very specific to you. You're saying that BJJ is about no strength, but winning and destroying an opponent (in quotes as though someone said this?)

You've implied a couple times that you've trained BJJ, but frankly, it sounds like you've either spent very little time in a BJJ school or you've found a school that is atypical.

The concepts you're speaking of are a huge part of the training we do, to such a degree that I'm baffled you claim to train BJJ. It sounds like you need to spend some actual time in a reputable BJJ school before forming your opinions. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. While there tends to be a lack of bowing and not a lot of emphasis placed on formality, the essence of what you're talking about is abundant in the schools I'm familiar with.

Again, I'm curious. how much judo training have you done? What about BJJ?

 

[Kwan Jang]

I trained Judo and JJJ as a child and earned my dan rankings in those arts decades ago. I now compete in submission grappling and Jiu-jitsu competitions, so I have decent experience on both sides of this debate. I've worked a fair amount with Mike Swain (Judo world champ, 4x Olympian and former USA Head Olympic Judo coach), as well as several other Olympians and world class Judoka, and Mike has told me "yeah, we have the katas, but virtually no one practices them". There is a HUGE difference between the VAST majority of schools teaching "modern" (after 1964 when Judo became an Olympic sport) Judo and the pre-olympic version. In fact, other than Fred Degenberg's school in Chicago, I would be hard pressed to name any other major schools teaching the original combative system of Judo/Kano-ryu Jujutsu. From what most of these guys have told me, it's pretty similar on the international Judo scene as well.

Both the modern sport of Olympic Judo and BJJ have evolved along different paths from the original version that Kano created. The sport/art of Judo has the emphasis on throws while the sport/art of BJJ has the stronger emphasis on ground work and submissions. One high level Judoka once told me that the main remaining source for early Judo would be the Koreans' Yudo. He also added a comment about that being something to make Prof. Kano roll over in his grave, though I never asked if he meant that as anti-Korean or just a comment on how mainstream Judo had deviated from the course Kano had intended.

Another comment that Mike Swain made that has stuck with me would relate to what Tanaka is referring to as Ju and Aiki. Mike mentioned in a training session how when in competition with some Judoka from the Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union, when you tried to grab them, it was like trying to grab a ghost. You never realized the extent of their strength until the moment you were off balance...then you realized the effectiveness of their strength programs.

However, when I compete in Jiu-jitsu and submission grappling on a world class level, the principle is the same and I am experiencing the same thing. In fact, the oft quoted story from Helio Gracie is that because of his lack of physical strength as a youth, he had to adapt his techniques even more than what was normally done in Judo to rely on mechanical advantage and leverage to compensate and get the job done. Though they may not use the terms Ju and Aiki, I would say there is AT LEAST as much emphasis on this in BJJ as there is in Judo or most branches of JJJ.

 

[Tanaka]

Fair enough. I think you're entitled to your opinion. I does sound to me like you're trying to bait an argument, but I'll take you at your word.
Are you saying that you believe that modern judo is unchanged from pre-WWII judo?How much time have you spent training in Judo? What about BJJ? That's a great quote. So, just so I'm clear, because I'm still not sure what you mean by "ju" but it is clear to me that it means something very specific to you. You're saying that BJJ is about no strength, but winning and destroying an opponent (in quotes as though someone said this?)

You've implied a couple times that you've trained BJJ, but frankly, it sounds like you've either spent very little time in a BJJ school or you've found a school that is atypical.

The concepts you're speaking of are a huge part of the training we do, to such a degree that I'm baffled you claim to train BJJ. It sounds like you need to spend some actual time in a reputable BJJ school before forming your opinions. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. While there tends to be a lack of bowing and not a lot of emphasis placed on formality, the essence of what you're talking about is abundant in the schools I'm familiar with.

Again, I'm curious. how much judo training have you done? What about BJJ?

I am not formally apart of or formally been apart of a BJJ/Judo school(I am formally apart of a Jujutsu school). I have trained with them, fought against them, and taken couple classes(To experiment and see the differences). I am also friends with many of them. That is why I said I am open to being proven wrong, as I do not mind. The approach I have seen BJJ practitioners take while in class completely contradicted what I would see as Ju philosophy or Aiki. I even asked one of my BJJ friends(blue belt rank). He said they don't really get preached too about it, but he said he was drilled about that philosophy in Hapkido. Which is understandable since Hapkido is Korean influenced Jujutsu watered down from Aikido.

I didn't understand what you saying about modern Judo, because I thought you were saying the Kodokan curriculum has changed. But if you are saying that modern Judoka train differently than pre-WWII; than yes I agree. Actually American Judoka tend to train differently than Japanese Judoka and European Judoka.

 

[Steve]

I am not formally apart of or formally been apart of a BJJ/Judo school(I am formally apart of a Jujutsu school). I have trained with them, fought against them, and taken couple classes(To experiment and see the differences). I am also friends with many of them. That is why I said I am open to being proven wrong, as I do not mind. The approach I have seen BJJ practitioners take while in class completely contradicted what I would see as Ju philosophy or Aiki. I even asked one of my BJJ friends(blue belt rank). He said they don't really get preached too about it, but he said he was drilled about that philosophy in Hapkido. Which is understandable since Hapkido is Korean influenced Jujutsu watered down from Aikido.

I didn't understand what you saying about modern Judo, because I thought you were saying the Kodokan curriculum has changed. But if you are saying that modern Judoka train differently than pre-WWII; than yes I agree. Actually American Judoka tend to train differently than Japanese Judoka and European Judoka.

I think you're friend is right in that many BJJ schools avoid preaching philosophy. In fact, much of what's taught in BJJ is taught practically. Concepts are demonstrated, drilled and applied. While we don't sit around discussing philosophy, whenever a lower belt rolls with an upper belt, they are being taught these concepts.

But, you know, this is a pointless discussion. The reason I asked whether you train in BJJ or judo is that it sounded (sounds) like you have some ideas about both that are whacky, and anyone who's spent time in either studio would know it. From time to time, I'll make comments or ask questions about another art, but I try to be very careful to qualify these statements so that people know I'm sharing second hand informatino from a position of ignorance. You're doing the opposite. You avoided sharing your lack of experience until asked specifically a third time and are making definitive statements about arts you're just not qualified to make.

Bottom line for me is that it sounds like you should either step back and stick to commenting with authority on jujutsu, which you clearly know a lot about. Or, spend some time training in a BJJ (OR Judo) school so that you can speak intelligently about the subtleties of either art. If you want to PM me with your general location, I'm sure I can help you find a reputable school.

 

[Bruno@MT]

He also added a comment about that being something to make Prof. Kano roll over in his grave, though I never asked if he meant that as anti-Korean or just a comment on how mainstream Judo had deviated from the course Kano had intended.

You're probably right. If we could just connect him to an alternator, his spinning would take care of the energy problems of a modest sized nation.

 

[FriedRice]

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.




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.

Where did Judo come from?

 

[Aiki Lee]

Steve, I have a few questions about BJJ.

When someone like myself brings up BJJ (or American Jujutsu for that matter) I find that I am usually reffering to ground fighting. It seems many others think of this as well.

How much time is placed on avoiding going to the ground, and doing standing throws or locks? Would you say there is an even distribution of ground fighting to standing up? Is the approach different than judo in that context?

 

[Steve]

Steve, I have a few questions about BJJ.

When someone like myself brings up BJJ (or American Jujutsu for that matter) I find that I am usually reffering to ground fighting. It seems many others think of this as well.

How much time is placed on avoiding going to the ground, and doing standing throws or locks? Would you say there is an even distribution of ground fighting to standing up? Is the approach different than judo in that context?

It's not unfair to say that BJJ is predominantly about ground fighting... 60/40 ratio or even 70/30 at my school. Weekly we have 3 no-gi classes, 2 dedicated take down classes (one gi and one no-gi), 6 gi classes and then a "competition class" where sparring starts standing. Any of the gi classes might involve take downs or sparring from standing, but it's not a given.

We have several guys who have experience in judo, and a couple who are black belts. I don't train in judo, to be clear. But from speaking to these guys, the ratio sounds much the same as in Judo but reversed. While Judo schools teach newaza, the emphasis is on standing grappling.

However, and this is the point I made before, EVERY class involves practice engaging and disengaging. Take downs and take down defense aren't taught in every class, but resetting to neutral when you can is done all the time. It's a viable option from every position. Whether you call it disengaging, initiating a scramble or simply resetting to neutral, all of these are forms of untangling yourself from your opponent and creating separation.

 

[jthomas1600]

Steve, I have a few questions about BJJ.

When someone like myself brings up BJJ (or American Jujutsu for that matter) I find that I am usually reffering to ground fighting. It seems many others think of this as well.

How much time is placed on avoiding going to the ground, and doing standing throws or locks? Would you say there is an even distribution of ground fighting to standing up? Is the approach different than judo in that context?

I've done a little BJJ and I would agree it differs largely from school to school. Where I'm training now the focus is almost exclusively on training for tournaments. Points are awarded for take downs, but largely the matches are won and lost on the ground. So probably 75+% of our training starts with both players on their knees. The school I trained at prior to this was also a traditional BJJ school but focused on more nogi (participated in a no gi league in Portland), had a few students participating in MMA, and spent some time on self defense. So that school spent a good deal of time working take downs, judo style throws, and basic boxing/kickboxing. I'd say it was 50/50.

 

[Aiki Lee]

So is the primary diference between judo and BJJ the amount of time spent on groundfighting? Are there technical differences or differences in training philosophy?

 

[SensibleManiac]

The differences revolve around the rules of each sport.

Judo matches are primarily won because of throws and BJJ matches are primarily won on the ground. Each sport has it's focus on where the matches are primarily won.
In Judo you can win a match based on throws, in BJJ although yes you can also win a match based on a throw it is much more likely to take place on the ground and is therefore much more elaborate on the ground.

Again you can also win a Judo match on the ground and a BJJ match because of a throw but the emphasis of techniques revolves around the rules.

 

[Tanaka]

I think you're friend is right in that many BJJ schools avoid preaching philosophy. In fact, much of what's taught in BJJ is taught practically. Concepts are demonstrated, drilled and applied. While we don't sit around discussing philosophy, whenever a lower belt rolls with an upper belt, they are being taught these concepts.

But, you know, this is a pointless discussion. The reason I asked whether you train in BJJ or judo is that it sounded (sounds) like you have some ideas about both that are whacky, and anyone who's spent time in either studio would know it. From time to time, I'll make comments or ask questions about another art, but I try to be very careful to qualify these statements so that people know I'm sharing second hand informatino from a position of ignorance. You're doing the opposite. You avoided sharing your lack of experience until asked specifically a third time and are making definitive statements about arts you're just not qualified to make.

Bottom line for me is that it sounds like you should either step back and stick to commenting with authority on jujutsu, which you clearly know a lot about. Or, spend some time training in a BJJ (OR Judo) school so that you can speak intelligently about the subtleties of either art. If you want to PM me with your general location, I'm sure I can help you find a reputable school.

That is why I repeat that I am open to being proven wrong about BJJ. My conclusions are based on what I have experienced so far.

 

[Tanaka]

Where did Judo come from?

Judo came from Kano Jigoro's knowledge of Tenjinshinyoryu, Kitoryu, and Fusenryu. Kano Jigoro did not directly pass down any of the Ryu he learned. But instead built his own system based on his knowledge of what he has learned from these ryu.

 

[Steve]

So is the primary diference between judo and BJJ the amount of time spent on groundfighting? Are there technical differences or differences in training philosophy?

SensibleManiac outlined pretty well. The only thing I'd add is that Judo has a more structured canon of technique, while BJJ is more receptive to folding in technical innovation. As a result, you'll see techniques taught in a BJJ class you'd likely never see in Judo.

What's really interesting to me, however, is that many of the "new" techniques being "discovered" in BJJ are really techniques that have long been known and practiced in Judo, but are no longer emphasized because the ruleset in Judo has become so restrictive. There are forms of single and double leg takedowns in Judo, but they're now against the rules.

I know I said only one thing to add, but something else comes to mind. In Judo, the emphasis on standing grappling and takedowns is a result of certain throws resulting in a "win." The competition in Judo often ends with the takedown. In BJJ, it doesn't matter how awesome the throw was, fighting continues until time has called or someone submits.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I see. Thank you both for your imput. It seems to me as an outsider then that BJJ is almost going back to what judo used to be before so many restrictions were placed in the matches? I' sure I'm oversimplifying, but I am wondering if a judoka and BJJ person were to swtich classes for a day would they fit right in or would they get lost do to differences between the two that I am not able to discern through observation?

 

[SensibleManiac]

HK, I wouldn't say that, as Judo has always heavily revolved around throws whereas BJJ is now very focused on sport competition which revolves around ground skills be it for competition in BJJ or MMA.

Unless the people switching the classes would already have some experience with the other sport, I wouldn't say they'd be lost either way but they might have some difficulties with habits or rules that they take for granted because they are so used to their sport.

Once over 15 years ago I had stopped wrestling for many years and was into BJJ for about 3 I met up with a guy who I used to wrestle with, he asked me if I wanted to come down and train with his group. I said sure, we then started talking about different ideas and techniques.
At one point he had asked me about a technical scenario and I responded, "Ah, I would just jump guard..." Forgeting that I was talking about wrestling not BJJ in terms of rules, he looked at me funny and said, "you wouldn't want to do that, you would get pinned easily."
And I was like, "Oh yeah..." lol, I felt pretty stupid.
The point is that when we focus heavily on a specific framework in our training we can take for granted different rules as they apply to the specific sport. It's important to always keep this in mind as much as possible.
This applies to the sports of Judo and BJJ as well, and especially in Self defense scenarios where the rules of engagement are different from any sport. Just a little food for thought.

 

[Glenn67]

BJJ can be an effective self defense system when you find a BJJ school that actually teaches the curriculum of BJJ self defense skills. Most of the schools now a days are solely focused on competition. Rorion Gracie and his academies as well as Royce Gracie still have a large focus in this area as taught by their father Helio Gracie. There are other academies teaching it as well but you need to look around. BJJ when done right is very effective. Couple it up with realistic expectations, firearms training, FMA blade training and a little boxing, muay thai over time and your friend could be well rounded as a martial practitioner. However, more importantly than anything else is for him to grow up and not "hang out" in places where he might likely be in a fight! That is really important for life longevity! As all the training in the world will not help him beat someone who is just naturally a better "bad ***" if he hangs out in places where fights are happening regularly! Just some words of wisdom!

The very first place I trained Muay Thai was the only place that really taught self defense in a real fight.One BBJ school was good but the rest stopped short of true ability to fight.Not letting you spar and **** like that.The guy at the first school said his was one of a kind and he was right.

 

[Cynik75]

10 years... not the record, but still congrats