BJJ vs TKD...yep, let's kick the dead horse

[Cirdan]

So, let's discuss for the 100,000,000,000,000 time why BJJ is more effective than TKD, or how TKD is more effective than BJJ...

Sure..

BJJ rocks because 99,87% of all fights go to the grouund and TKD is the best because the leg is the strongest weapon and enables you to keep your opponent at a distance.

BJJ sucks because going to the ground with multiple knife wielding attackers is suicide and TKD is crap because high kicks and no guard only work against other TKDists.

Off to wash rotting horse flesh off my boots..

 

[Sylo]

Originally Posted by BrandonLucas
So, let's discuss for the 100,000,000,000,000 time why BJJ is more effective than TKD, or how TKD is more effective than BJJ...

TKD is only good if you have at least a 9th degree black belt.

In BJJ even a beginner can win.

(sarcasm off)

 

[BrandonLucas]

I seriously didn't intend on anyone getting this involved with this thread. I left from work yesterday and came back today, and this thing has grown 5 pages...

Really, it doesn't matter whether TKD is better than BJJ or if BJJ is better than TKD, or really if it's only as good as the practitioner. What does matter is that if you were to combine the 2 arts...to cross train in both...you would be a pretty well-rounded martial artist.

The argument can be said that BJJ isn't good for SD...the same argument can be said for TKD. I really don't think anyone can make those claims unless they've actually taken both of the arts and know from first-hand experience.

I have no BJJ experience, so I can't comment on its effectiveness in SD situations...and I really think that anyone else who has no experience in the art should clam up about it as well. And the same goes for TKD.

I really started this thread to stop derailing the other one where this discussion seemed to be forming...but I didn't seriously think people would get this far into it.

You can't go back and forth with someone on the internet and say "Well, if you were to try to take me down, I would sprawl and then knee you in the face.." and then the other person would say "Wel, if you tried to knee me in the face, then I would block the knee and take a single-leg takedown..."

It just starts to get stupid after a while. Before long, both people have fought for 17 pages and have reached a stale-mate because every single move has been reversed. As it was stated before, pointless.

Twinfist, I understand that you don't see the point of BJJ as an SD art...but I think it's more because you either haven't spent any time in the art or haven't fought anyone with experience in the art, or both. And really, the exact same reasoning that you're using for BJJ not being SD can be used for TKD. I think before you can really pass judgement on the art's effectiveness, you should give it a shot and find out what it's all about. Much like people who pass by a TKD dojang and think that we're all just "playing karate"...they won't know unless they get in there and find out what it's all about.

And even the argument about the history is blown way, way out of proportion. What difference does it make what BJJ's history is in regards to its effectiveness in SD situations? I don't really care who came up with it or when they decided to come up with it, or where it was derived from or any of that. If it works, it works.

I don't see the point in all this arguing over the effectiveness anyway...if we were all ninjas, we wouldn't even need to discuss it. In fact, I don't think ninjas discuss anything...

 

[terryl965]

All I can say is can we let this dead horse alone, my god it is dead!! Remember dead things need to rest too!!!

 

[Sylo]

I seriously didn't intend on anyone getting this involved with this thread. I left from work yesterday and came back today, and this thing has grown 5 pages...

Really, it doesn't matter whether TKD is better than BJJ or if BJJ is better than TKD, or really if it's only as good as the practitioner. What does matter is that if you were to combine the 2 arts...to cross train in both...you would be a pretty well-rounded martial artist.

The argument can be said that BJJ isn't good for SD...the same argument can be said for TKD. I really don't think anyone can make those claims unless they've actually taken both of the arts and know from first-hand experience.

I have no BJJ experience, so I can't comment on its effectiveness in SD situations...and I really think that anyone else who has no experience in the art should clam up about it as well. And the same goes for TKD.

I really started this thread to stop derailing the other one where this discussion seemed to be forming...but I didn't seriously think people would get this far into it.

You can't go back and forth with someone on the internet and say "Well, if you were to try to take me down, I would sprawl and then knee you in the face.." and then the other person would say "Wel, if you tried to knee me in the face, then I would block the knee and take a single-leg takedown..."

It just starts to get stupid after a while. Before long, both people have fought for 17 pages and have reached a stale-mate because every single move has been reversed. As it was stated before, pointless.

Twinfist, I understand that you don't see the point of BJJ as an SD art...but I think it's more because you either haven't spent any time in the art or haven't fought anyone with experience in the art, or both. And really, the exact same reasoning that you're using for BJJ not being SD can be used for TKD. I think before you can really pass judgement on the art's effectiveness, you should give it a shot and find out what it's all about. Much like people who pass by a TKD dojang and think that we're all just "playing karate"...they won't know unless they get in there and find out what it's all about.

And even the argument about the history is blown way, way out of proportion. What difference does it make what BJJ's history is in regards to its effectiveness in SD situations? I don't really care who came up with it or when they decided to come up with it, or where it was derived from or any of that. If it works, it works.

I don't see the point in all this arguing over the effectiveness anyway...if we were all ninjas, we wouldn't even need to discuss it. In fact, I don't think ninjas discuss anything...

I think we should derail this thread and turn it into a Frank Dux discussion. Thats totally not a dead horse.

 

[SA_BJJ]

I seriously didn't intend on anyone getting this involved with this thread. I left from work yesterday and came back today, and this thing has grown 5 pages...

Really, it doesn't matter whether TKD is better than BJJ or if BJJ is better than TKD, or really if it's only as good as the practitioner. What does matter is that if you were to combine the 2 arts...to cross train in both...you would be a pretty well-rounded martial artist.

The argument can be said that BJJ isn't good for SD...the same argument can be said for TKD. I really don't think anyone can make those claims unless they've actually taken both of the arts and know from first-hand experience.

I have no BJJ experience, so I can't comment on its effectiveness in SD situations...and I really think that anyone else who has no experience in the art should clam up about it as well. And the same goes for TKD.

I really started this thread to stop derailing the other one where this discussion seemed to be forming...but I didn't seriously think people would get this far into it.

You can't go back and forth with someone on the internet and say "Well, if you were to try to take me down, I would sprawl and then knee you in the face.." and then the other person would say "Wel, if you tried to knee me in the face, then I would block the knee and take a single-leg takedown..."

It just starts to get stupid after a while. Before long, both people have fought for 17 pages and have reached a stale-mate because every single move has been reversed. As it was stated before, pointless.

Twinfist, I understand that you don't see the point of BJJ as an SD art...but I think it's more because you either haven't spent any time in the art or haven't fought anyone with experience in the art, or both. And really, the exact same reasoning that you're using for BJJ not being SD can be used for TKD. I think before you can really pass judgement on the art's effectiveness, you should give it a shot and find out what it's all about. Much like people who pass by a TKD dojang and think that we're all just "playing karate"...they won't know unless they get in there and find out what it's all about.

And even the argument about the history is blown way, way out of proportion. What difference does it make what BJJ's history is in regards to its effectiveness in SD situations? I don't really care who came up with it or when they decided to come up with it, or where it was derived from or any of that. If it works, it works.

I don't see the point in all this arguing over the effectiveness anyway...if we were all ninjas, we wouldn't even need to discuss it. In fact, I don't think ninjas discuss anything...

Ninjas only talk about the one thing that is more deadly than they are....Chuck Norris!

 

[terryl965]

Ninjas only talk about the one thing that is more deadly than they are....Chuck Norris!

You have brought the curse of Chuck upon us all, duck and cover boys.

 

[Sylo]

You have brought the curse of Chuck upon us all, duck and cover boys.

Chuck Norris actually won the kumite using the name "Frank Dux" as an alias. Noone else on earth could be that awesome.

 

[BrandonLucas]

You have brought the curse of Chuck upon us all, duck and cover boys.

Funny story about that saying...and this is a true story...

We all know that Chuck was in the military...we're not sure which branch, but my money says all of them...

Anyway, Chuck actually coined this term when he would haze the new privates as they would come in for boot camp.

He would actually have a live duck, wrapped in a blanket, and would mercilessly beat the men with the "weapon" if they looked him in the eye. All anyone could do was to curl up in fetal position under their bunks and hope against hope that Chuck couldn't reach them with the duck.

Thus, the term duck and cover was created, with 2 actual meanings.

Just thought I would share that tidbit of knowledge.

 

[SA_BJJ]

Funny story about that saying...and this is a true story...

We all know that Chuck was in the military...we're not sure which branch, but my money says all of them...

Anyway, Chuck actually coined this term when he would haze the new privates as they would come in for boot camp.

He would actually have a live duck, wrapped in a blanket, and would mercilessly beat the men with the "weapon" if they looked him in the eye. All anyone could do was to curl up in fetal position under their bunks and hope against hope that Chuck couldn't reach them with the duck.

Thus, the term duck and cover was created, with 2 actual meanings.

Just thought I would share that tidbit of knowledge.

Creative none the less.

 

[miguksaram]

Funny story about that saying...and this is a true story...

We all know that Chuck was in the military...we're not sure which branch, but my money says all of them...

Anyway, Chuck actually coined this term when he would haze the new privates as they would come in for boot camp.

He would actually have a live duck, wrapped in a blanket, and would mercilessly beat the men with the "weapon" if they looked him in the eye. All anyone could do was to curl up in fetal position under their bunks and hope against hope that Chuck couldn't reach them with the duck.

Thus, the term duck and cover was created, with 2 actual meanings.

Just thought I would share that tidbit of knowledge.

From now on you are never to mix Niquil with Petron shots after you get home from work or before you go on the computer. My Chuck have mercy on your soul.

 

[crushing]

From now on you are never to mix Niquil with Petron shots after you get home from work or before you go on the computer. My Chuck have mercy on your soul.

Your Chuck? Ownership? My goodness, good luck with that slip up, it's been nice knowin' ya and R.I.P.

 

[miguksaram]

Your Chuck? Ownership? My goodness, good luck with that slip up, it's been nice knowin' ya and R.I.P.

BAH!!! Darn 'A' finger not working...should have said MAY Chuck....

 

[SA_BJJ]

your chuck? Ownership? My goodness, good luck with that slip up, it's been nice knowin' ya and r.i.p.

bwahhhhhhhh!

 

[Twin Fist]

not quite

as to the history, it is very simple. I do not like it when someone spouts errant nonsense, that I KNOW to be false as facts.

Those of us that TEACH have an obligation to reject ALL that is false.

And much like police, if you are a teacher, you are always a teacher. And so you must ALWAYS reject that which is false.

like :
"JJ dominated judo when they met in open competition"

it is a historical FACT that it didnt happen that way. And even if the person making the erroneous statement may not care what the truth is, someone else reading the forum might see the crapola, believe it, and pass it on as a fact. As a teacher, i cannot alow that to happen if i can correct it.

The FACT is that BJJ is a SPORT art, that came from another SPORT art, JUDO. it was developed for use in sport matches, with rules. Not FIGHTS that dont have rules

BJJ may well have some self defense application, thats fine (i dont THINK so, or rather I will say that whatever SD value it has is accidental, not intentional. but thats my opinion, and I will only claim that it is an OPINION, not a fact) so does fencing. So does Judo for that matter. And Olympic style TKD

But all are sports, in every sense of the word.

Now TKD is different, because there are just as many, if not MORE schools that teach TKD as the brutal self defense art it was originally.

TKD started as a SD system, that some people turned into a sport
BJJ started as a sport, and it may have some accidental SD value, but that isnt it's reason for being.

Thats the difference, not "better", just different.

Those of us that TEACH have an obligation to reject ALL that is false.

I am a teacher. When I see something that i KNOW is false, i will correct it. To not do so would be a betrayal of my oath as a TEACHER

Twinfist, I understand that you don't see the point of BJJ as an SD art...but I think it's more because you either haven't spent any time in the art or haven't fought anyone with experience in the art, or both. And really, the exact same reasoning that you're using for BJJ not being SD can be used for TKD. I think before you can really pass judgement on the art's effectiveness, you should give it a shot and find out what it's all about. Much like people who pass by a TKD dojang and think that we're all just "playing karate"...they won't know unless they get in there and find out what it's all about.

 

[BrandonLucas]

not quite

as to the history, it is very simple. I do not like it when someone spouts errant nonsense, that I KNOW to be false as facts.

Those of us that TEACH have an obligation to reject ALL that is false.

And much like police, if you are a teacher, you are always a teacher. And so you must ALWAYS reject that which is false.

like :
"JJ dominated judo when they met in open competition"

it is a historical FACT that it didnt happen that way. And even if the person making the erroneous statement may not care what the truth is, someone else reading the forum might see the crapola, believe it, and pass it on as a fact. As a teacher, i cannot alow that to happen if i can correct it.

The FACT is that BJJ is a SPORT art, that came from another SPORT art, JUDO. it was developed for use in sport matches, with rules. Not FIGHTS that dont have rules

BJJ may well have some self defense application, thats fine (i dont THINK so, or rather I will say that whatever SD value it has is accidental, not intentional. but thats my opinion, and I will only claim that it is an OPINION, not a fact) so does fencing. So does Judo for that matter. And Olympic style TKD

But all are sports, in every sense of the word.

Now TKD is different, because there are just as many, if not MORE schools that teach TKD as the brutal self defense art it was originally.

TKD started as a SD system, that some people turned into a sport
BJJ started as a sport, and it may have some accidental SD value, but that isnt it's reason for being.

Thats the difference, not "better", just different.

Those of us that TEACH have an obligation to reject ALL that is false.

I am a teacher. When I see something that i KNOW is false, i will correct it. To not do so would be a betrayal of my oath as a TEACHER

Please provide proof where Judo and BJJ were originated as sport arts.

I accept that as your opinion, and I'm not arguing what you think...I can't control what you think, and I'm not arguing that I'm right and you're wrong.

But, if you are saying that BJJ and Judo are purely sport arts, created for the sole purpose of sport with only accidental SD qualities, then please provide factual proof of what you're saying.

I know that TKD wasn't created for sport...it was originally created for SD, pure and simple...but along the way, it has been adapted into a sport by some, which I suspect is the case here, but I don't have the facts to back that up.

I can respect what you're saying about being a teacher, and you may very well be right about both of them being created for sport...I truly don't know...so, if what you're saying is correct, please provide facts to back it up.

 

[dancingalone]

Please provide proof where Judo and BJJ were originated as sport arts.

Brandon, I do a bit of judo myself, and I have all the respect in the world for it, but I don't think there's much doubt that judo was designed to be what we would call a sport today. Kano and his close students instilled competition rules and an element of character improvement to its practice. He deliberately took out some of the more brutal techniques found in jujutsu as well as most atemi.

Not sure why you want to argue this point with Twinfist. I do believe he's a bit extreme in his belief about the application of BJJ to self-defense, but he's right enough about the origins of judo.

For the record, I think both judo and BJJ could be used effectively in the street for self-defense. It's all about being aware of your surroundings and adaptation, and this would be true if you practiced a koryo martial art also.

 

[miguksaram]

I do believe he's a bit extreme in his belief about the application of BJJ to self-defense, but he's right enough about the origins of judo.

For the record, I think both judo and BJJ could be used effectively in the street for self-defense. It's all about being aware of your surroundings and adaptation, and this would be true if you practiced a koryo martial art also.

One thing to keep in mind is that the implementation of "rules" in Judo came after Kano decided that he wanted to spread the art. His first intention was to add ratori and utilize resisting opponents which he felt JJ lacked.

The problem I have with TF's view point is the irony of it. He claims that TKD in its "purest" form came from a deadly combative art, but in fact by the time Shotokan was presented to the TKD pioneers it too had been watered down in order to teach it in the educational system of Japan.

 

[BrandonLucas]

Brandon, I do a bit of judo myself, and I have all the respect in the world for it, but I don't think there's much doubt that judo was designed to be what we would call a sport today. Kano and his close students instilled competition rules and an element of character improvement to its practice. He deliberately took out some of the more brutal techniques found in jujutsu as well as most atemi.

Not sure why you want to argue this point with Twinfist. I do believe he's a bit extreme in his belief about the application of BJJ to self-defense, but he's right enough about the origins of judo.

For the record, I think both judo and BJJ could be used effectively in the street for self-defense. It's all about being aware of your surroundings and adaptation, and this would be true if you practiced a koryo martial art also.

I don't practice Judo myself, and am unfamilier with its origins. As I previously stated, I'm not really trying to argue this point at all...I'm just asking for facts....which you have provided, and I appreciate that.

I guess maybe the question I should be asking is exactly how is BJJ not reasonable for SD? I don't care if everyone and their grandmother that has competed in the UFC uses it, and since UFC is a sport now, what they do isn't necessarily SD...I want to know why BJJ isn't good to use in an SD situation. And really, I don't think someone who has no training in the art can answer that question.

If someone who has trained in BJJ comes to this thread and says, "Yes, I know that BJJ doesn't have reasonable SD qualities, and I only train in it for fitness and sport," then I'll be more apt to believe that. Either that, or someone who has had to deal with a BJJ practitioner in an SD situation, whether simulated or real.

It's the same way that I can say that sport TKD doesn't help anyone in SD situations...I've "scrapped" (friendly fighting, not life threatening) with 2 or 3 sport TKD guys...and when they were forced to keep their hands up, their entire arsenal went away. As a matter of fact, at least one of those "matches" with them went to the ground...I was able to control what happend as I have some experience in highschool wrestling.

But I can also tell you that I've "scrapped" with a BJJ guy before...and while he didn't completely dominate me, he knew how to control the fight by taking it to the ground. I sprawled and did the standard take down defense, but the guy knew what he was doing, and was faster than me, so he was able to take me down...but the thing is, once we got to the ground, we didn't just stay there like you see in the UFC....he quickly tried for a sidechoke and then an armbar...I got out of both fairly quickly, and the fight went back up to our feet.

It was pretty much a progression of taking me down, trying subs, and when he couldn't apply any subs, he just settled on wearing me out....and sure, you can sit there and argue all day long that if I had buddies, then he would have been "in trouble"...but I didn't have buddies with me, and I'm quite sure if I had, he would have handled the fight differently.

All I'm saying is don't count something out until you've experienced it.

 

[Twin Fist]

Not quite

If you do the research, you will find that Funikoshi himself HATED the sport direction that his Shotokan was moving toward in the university system.

Choi didnt learn Shotokan from the University system however.

Plus, when TKD was founded, the techniques included were the ones most suited for self defense.

The system Rhee brought to the united states in 1958-1959 was self defense start to finish.

The problem I have with TF's view point is the irony of it. He claims that TKD in its "purest" form came from a deadly combative art, but in fact by the time Shotokan was presented to the TKD pioneers it too had been watered down in order to teach it in the educational system of Japan.