Gracie Breakdown on Catch Wrestling vs Bjj

[Kung Fu Wang]

It is much easier to get under and get leverage on taller guys. ... He on the other hand had a much harder time getting low on me to get the leverage

The taller guy doesn't have to get low on you. He can come from top and crash you down with his body weight.

- The short guys like to use "lower body control (such as waist surround, under look)".
- The taller guys like to use "upper body control (such as head lock, over hook)".

 

[ballen0351]

The taller guy doesn't have to get low on you. He can come from top and crash you down with his body weight.

He does if he wants to throw me

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It is much easier to get under and get leverage on taller guys. One of the guys in out dojo was 6'7" I loved working with him Im only 6ft and could easily get low on him. He on the other hand had a much harder time getting low on me to get the leverage

Yeah, some throws do work easier for shorter guys. That's not the same as saying it's easier to throw stronger, heavier guys.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

He does if he wants to throw me

You may call this "take down",

but is this a throw?

Is this a throw too? You don't have to get under your opponent to "throw" him.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks! For the record, my own training over the last 33 years probably breaks down something like:

5000+ hours BJJ
2000+ hours Muay Thai
1500+ hours Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu
600+ hours Yudansha Fighting Systems (a Danzan ryu spinoff)
400+ hours Judo
400+ hours Boxing
300+ hours SCA heavy weapons fighting
100+ hours Kali (various flavors)
10 - 100 hours each TKD, Bando, Tai Chi, Karate, Sambo, Wrestling
less than 10 hours each Silat, Wing Chun, JKD, Capoeira, Shaolin Do, HEMA

I figure the breakdown by hours is more informative than listing in terms of years.

I'm not counting the ridiculous number of hours spent reading books, watching videos, and talking with practitioners of different arts.

I can see where you're coming from, but to me, hours (mat-time) is only a part of it all… as a result, I count in years, not hours.

I'll put it this way… I currently train in an Iai system, Koryu Kenjutsu, Ninjutsu, and Kyudo. Each has a maximum of 4-7 hours a week (Ninjutsu, depending on the week), with a minimum of half an hour a week… with things like Kyudo being every second week for two hours… but that's just my mat-time. My study, training, exploration, research, reading, and so on go well and truly beyond that.

True, but ... I think there's a danger in becoming overly confident in theories about what the perspective and context of a given martial art should be about based on a beginners/outsiders viewpoint, especially if it leads you to dismiss the actual experiences and understanding of people who have spent a lot more time in the art.

While I agree with you there, I really don't think you can accuse me of dismissing the experience and understanding of practitioners. To be blunt, that's precisely what drop bear has been doing, here and in other threads.

You may call this "take down",

Well, I'd call it convoluted, flawed, and largely ineffectual. Really not fond of that one in the slightest. Of course, I don't see what that has to do with the comments on Judo methodology, as it has nothing to do with it…

but is this a throw?

Yes, it's called Kubi Nage in some areas.

Is this a throw too? You don't have to get under your opponent to "throw" him.

And again, yes, this is a throw… but I have no idea where you get the idea that you don't have to get under the opponent… getting under the opponent in order to throw him is exactly what the practitioner does.

 

[elder999]

Yeah, some throws do work easier for shorter guys. That's not the same as saying it's easier to throw stronger, heavier guys.

It's not only easier to get your center of gravity under a taller guy, but a stronger, heavier guy is generally easier to influence-turn their strength and size against them.....you know, what judo is supposed to do.

Weight classes didn't exist in judo competition until 1948, and were developed by the U.S. There were only four of them: 130 lb,150lb., 180lb. and unlimited, and there was usually a "Grand Championship" that would give the 130 lb. competitor an opportunity to win over the "unlimited" weight class- not too much after this, further rules and weight classes patterned after Olympic wrestling were instituted in order to make judo an "Olympic sport."

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's not only easier to get your center of gravity under a taller guy, but a stronger, heavier guy is generally easier to influence-turn their strength and size against them.....you know, what judo is supposed to do.

Weight classes didn't exist in judo competition until 1948, and were developed by the U.S. There were only four of them: 130 lb,150lb., 180lb. and unlimited, and there was usually a "Grand Championship" that would give the 130 lb. competitor an opportunity to win over the "unlimited" weight class- not too much after this, further rules and weight classes patterned after Olympic wrestling were instituted in order to make judo an "Olympic sport."

Umm ... yeah. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the World Judo Championship did not have weight classes until after Anton Geesink won the gold in 1961. (Somehow he managed to overcome the handicap of being 270 pounds of solid muscle.) In 1965 the World Championships instituted weight classes so that poor Anton wouldn't have to face all those mean lightweights again. Looking through the winners of the Open Weight division in the World Championships since then, the winners seem to be mostly heavyweights. I'm not seeing any 130-pounders coming in and taking advantage of the fact that the big guys are easier to throw.

Obviously, having a sufficient advantage in technique can allow a judoka to overcome a stronger, heavier opponent. That's practically the idealized essence of judo. (BJJ too, for that matter.) Once the big guys develop their own technique to the same level as the small guys, the advantage shifts in their favor. The last 50+ years of empirical results at the top level of Judo show clearly that big guys are not at a disadvantage against smaller guys.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I can see where you're coming from, but to me, hours (mat-time) is only a part of it all… as a result, I count in years, not hours.

There's value to looking at it both ways, but between the two I think hours of mat time is more revealing. If you have one practitioner who has trained 4 hours per week for 10 years and another who has trained 20 hours per week for 5 years, it's the latter who is likely to have more skill and understanding of the art.

That said, measuring in years has the advantage that you can count them pretty accurately. My estimate of hours trained could be significantly off in either direction - it's not as if I've been filling out a time card all these years.

I'll put it this way… I currently train in an Iai system, Koryu Kenjutsu, Ninjutsu, and Kyudo. Each has a maximum of 4-7 hours a week (Ninjutsu, depending on the week), with a minimum of half an hour a week… with things like Kyudo being every second week for two hours… but that's just my mat-time. My study, training, exploration, research, reading, and so on go well and truly beyond that.

Reading, watching videos, talking with other martial artists, thinking about martial arts ... I certainly hope they all have value, given the thousands of hours I've spent on them. I do think they are secondary to actual mat time. (Unless you're talking about understanding history. That's one area where reading is much more important.)

While I agree with you there, I really don't think you can accuse me of dismissing the experience and understanding of practitioners. To be blunt, that's precisely what drop bear has been doing, here and in other threads.

Well ... when you lecture people in other arts about the purpose and context of their chosen art it can kind of give that impression whether you mean to or not. (Not saying that you are doing that in this particular thread or that drop bear isn't guilty in his own way.) You do that a lot less with me than with other BJJ practitioners on the forum, but I do kind of recall that last time you were arguing with me over the development of BJJ you asked for evidence to back up my position and then didn't acknowledge when I provided it.

 

[elder999]

Umm ... yeah. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the World Judo Championship did not have weight classes until after Anton Geesink won the gold in 1961. (Somehow he managed to overcome the handicap of being 270 pounds of solid muscle.) In 1965 the World Championships instituted weight classes so that poor Anton wouldn't have to face all those mean lightweights again. Looking through the winners of the Open Weight division in the World Championships since then, the winners seem to be mostly heavyweights. I'm not seeing any 130-pounders coming in and taking advantage of the fact that the big guys are easier to throw.

We're not in disagreement-though history argues that weight classes were coming, and not just as a consequence of Geesink's performance.

In cases where all other things are equal, of course strength and size are an advantage-though not one that can be exploited and turned to disadvantage.

In any case, what I originally disagreed with was:

I do judo. It is pretty commonly accepted it is harder to do on a bigger stronger person. Same with bjj. Maybe I do a strange version.

It certainly seems harder to do on bigger stronger guys.

And I'd argue that mr. drop bear probably is doing a strange version of judo:

the wrong one. :lfao:

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In cases where all other things are equal, of course strength and size are an advantage-though not one that can be exploited and turned to disadvantage.

In any case, what I originally disagreed with was ...

i think maybe we're just having a communication issue. I'm pretty certain that what drop bear meant by "harder to do on a bigger stronger person" is the exact same thing as you are saying with "In cases where all other things are equal, of course strength and size are an advantage ..."

BTW, I'm sure you're right that weight classes would have come anyway without Geesink's victory. I do suspect that maybe he helped speed up the process.

 

[Chris Parker]

There's value to looking at it both ways, but between the two I think hours of mat time is more revealing. If you have one practitioner who has trained 4 hours per week for 10 years and another who has trained 20 hours per week for 5 years, it's the latter who is likely to have more skill and understanding of the art.

Skill and understanding aren't the same thing… which is part of my point…

That said, measuring in years has the advantage that you can count them pretty accurately. My estimate of hours trained could be significantly off in either direction - it's not as if I've been filling out a time card all these years.

The real advantage is a sense of completion in this sense… as well as accuracy.

Reading, watching videos, talking with other martial artists, thinking about martial arts ... I certainly hope they all have value, given the thousands of hours I've spent on them. I do think they are secondary to actual mat time. (Unless you're talking about understanding history. That's one area where reading is much more important.)

Not just history, but yeah, that's more the level I'm talking about… again, skill and understanding are two different things. They can be related, but not necessarily.

Well ... when you lecture people in other arts about the purpose and context of their chosen art it can kind of give that impression whether you mean to or not. (Not saying that you are doing that in this particular thread or that drop bear isn't guilty in his own way.) You do that a lot less with me than with other BJJ practitioners on the forum, but I do kind of recall that last time you were arguing with me over the development of BJJ you asked for evidence to back up my position and then didn't acknowledge when I provided it.

Do you want blunt honesty here, Tony? I didn't acknowledge anything because you'd started on the wrong idea, ignored the clarifications, and continued to argue something I wasn't arguing against. I made a comment on the current state and development of BJJ, you went to the early history… I pointed out that I was discussing modern observation rather than earlier generations, you continued to talk about early developments not being in sport (for the record, the challenge matches you cited could be seen in that regard, and the origins of Vale Tudo were from the 20's, so&#8230, so I asked for current forms that weren't sporting in their development (which would have given quite a different result, honestly), and you once more went back to the early days, citing the ranged kick as an example of something not necessary in BJJ competition… but would be in Vale Tudo competition, as well as the challenge matches you gave as an example.

But the main reason was that you were arguing something I wasn't arguing against.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Do you want blunt honesty here, Tony? I didn't acknowledge anything because you'd started on the wrong idea, ignored the clarifications, and continued to argue something I wasn't arguing against. I made a comment on the current state and development of BJJ, you went to the early history… I pointed out that I was discussing modern observation rather than earlier generations, you continued to talk about early developments not being in sport (for the record, the challenge matches you cited could be seen in that regard, and the origins of Vale Tudo were from the 20's, so…), so I asked for current forms that weren't sporting in their development (which would have given quite a different result, honestly), and you once more went back to the early days, citing the ranged kick as an example of something not necessary in BJJ competition… but would be in Vale Tudo competition, as well as the challenge matches you gave as an example.

But the main reason was that you were arguing something I wasn't arguing against.

Hey, good way to help illustrate my point. Thanks!

As a reminder, the original point we were discussing was your statement that BJJ was best suited for BJJ competitions. I made the point that much of BJJ is not intended for, suitable for (or even allowed) in BJJ competition. This is BJJ as it is practiced right now, not just in early history. The pisão, the approach to controlling range, the punch defense - these aren't some historical artifact in a museum. They are some of the first things I teach my beginning students. They are "current forms" and they weren't developed for BJJ competition.

Now if you had asked for recent innovations in BJJ, I would cheerfully acknowledge that they almost all come from the sporting arena. That's not what you asked.

In fact, if you had just said up front that the latest developments in BJJ had come from the world of sport BJJ competition, we would have no argument. Once again, that's not what you said. Maybe it's what you meant, but it's not what you said.

BTW - I agree that it's possible to regard the challenge matches and street fights that shaped BJJ as being essentially sportive in nature if you have a broad enough definition of sport. They are not what is known as BJJ competition.

Let's put it this way. You're fond of popping in to deliver lectures on the meaning and purpose of kata training. Suppose I were declare that the purpose of kata training was to learn how to stomp and scream and flip and impress the judges in tournament competition. Suppose I were to dismiss counter-arguments by you and all the traditional Karate and CMA practitioners on the board by stating that those old kata without the screaming and flipping and working to impress the judges were just ancient history and nothing to do with what kata is now.

(Or I could tell elder999 that judo is just whatever is included in the latest Olympic rules. )

I can't imagine that approach would make me tremendously appreciated.

 

[elder999]

(Or I could tell elder999 that judo is just whatever is included in the latest Olympic rules. )

.

That tears it.:rpo: I'm on my way to Kentucky right now! :lfao:

Seriously-in 14 out of 15 dojo, you'd probably be right.

That one out of fifteen, though? Places where they teach pre-WWII judo (usually along with competitive, btw)? Something to be treasured.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

That tears it.:rpo: I'm on my way to Kentucky right now! :lfao:

Seriously-in 14 out of 15 dojo, you'd probably be right.

That one out of fifteen, though? Places where they teach pre-WWII judo (usually along with competitive, btw)? Something to be treasured.

Yeah, in 4 out of 5 BJJ gyms, Chris would be right as well. (Unfortunately, IMO.)

I would dearly love a chance to visit one of those dojos that teaches the pre-war judo. If you are ever in Kentucky, come on by. We'd love to have you teach a class.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey, good way to help illustrate my point. Thanks!

Hmm… not sure of the point you think I'm helping you with…

As a reminder, the original point we were discussing was your statement that BJJ was best suited for BJJ competitions. I made the point that much of BJJ is not intended for, suitable for (or even allowed) in BJJ competition. This is BJJ as it is practiced right now, not just in early history. The pisão, the approach to controlling range, the punch defense - these aren't some historical artifact in a museum. They are some of the first things I teach my beginning students. They are "current forms" and they weren't developed for BJJ competition.

I know what the original conversation was, Tony, I re-read the entire thread before responding. But, if you're going to insist, let's look at it. Here are all the relevant posts, in order, in full (with regards to the context), with exposition from myself:

*Starts here*

Sorry about misunderstanding of my question, I meant say what are the appropriate environments to uses Judo & BJJ?

Thanks

​Note the use of present tense… "what are"…

Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.

Continued in my answer… "the appropriate environment is…" Note also that I don't rule out other usages.

So You wouldn't say that BJJ and Judo would be well suited for some kind of street fighting environment ?

Still on present tense.

No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.

Look, the real issue here is that you're asking a question that can't be answered... none of them are "best", or "most effective" in comparison to any other. How well trained in the system are you? How well do you understand how it needs to be adapted? How naturally skilled are you? What's your training been like? All of that is far, far more important than "which system"... as "which system" really means nothing.

And still.

Given that BJJ sport competition wasn't even invented until the art had been around for 40 years or so and many practitioners still don't train for it, I'd say this statement is at best a partial truth.

For a much more in-depth examination of what BJJ is "about" or "designed for", take a look at my post on page 4 of the "Modern vs Antiquated Self-defense" thread.

And here's where you entered… talking about earlier history and development, which I hadn't even addressed, mentioned, or broached at that point. I was purely addressing the current development and state of BJJ (and Judo), as that was the context in which AJH40 was asking, with regards to his potential training.

Hey Tony,

Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field. The sophistication of sweeps, counter-sweeps, submissions, escapes, and so on simply doesn't happen in anything that is geared towards pure combative pragmatism. It developed as a sport, it developed through the sporting approach, and is very much custom designed for competition... which isn't anywhere near a bad thing or a criticism, nor is it saying that that's all their good for... but it is what it is, a current observation, rather than a partial truth.

Note that here, I agree with your comments on the earlier history and early development, but highlight that I'm not talking about that, rather it's current development and expression. I back that up with examples of just how that sporting development has manifested in much of BJJ's curriculum and format… which you then agree with (in a modern expression).

What you are describing is one aspect of how BJJ has developed and how it is practiced by a significant percentage of practitioners. It is not the original nor the only way it has developed and is practiced. That's why I said it's a partial truth - it is an accurate observation of how many people train in the art, but it is certainly not universal. With all due respect - I think I have rather a lot more experience in the art than you do and thus a lot more data points to draw upon. I have no doubt that you are correctly describing what you have seen.

Here, you again try to take it back to the early history of BJJ… which is still not what I'm addressing.

Hey Tony,

While not arguing that you have more experience in this field than I do, and also not arguing about the origins or focus of some schools of BJJ, I'd argue about the development not coming from the sporting side of things. Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application? The reason I ask is that I can't think of any form that shows the hallmarks of not developing in that fashion... and, to be absolutely clear here, I don't see anything negative about developing through sports at all... as I said, it is what gives BJJ it's sophistication and depth of knowledge on the ground. It's a great thing.

Here, I point out that I'm not arguing with you (on the history or origins), but talking about the modern, current expression by discussing the (current) development and expressions as having come from sporting and competitive aspects.

It might be easier to continue this discussion over in the "Modern vs Antiquated" thread, where I've already laid out some background on BJJ's development, but I'll go ahead and give an example here.

The original crucible for the development of BJJ was street fighting and challenge matches with practitioners of other arts.* To this end, the Gracies developed the classic strategy of controlling the distance against strikers by using the pisão (a hybrid between a stomp kick and a side kick) to keep opponents outside of striking range until finding an opportunity to close directly to the clinch range, avoiding any opportunity for the opponent to land a punch. This approach would be pointless against another BJJ practitioner, even if BJJ competition allowed strikes. This was an original development for BJJ - I've never seen it anywhere in judo.

Another example, BJJ contains very effective methods for defending against strikes on the ground. These weren't developed primarily for use against other BJJ practitioners. They were developed for situations where the BJJ practitioner took down a bigger, stronger opponent who was able to reverse him and end up on top. By negating the opponent's ability to strike, the BJJ practitioner could tire out and frustrate his adversary, leading to the opportunity for a submission.

*(As we know, street-fighting and challenge matches are not self-defense. I'll agree that BJJ has relatively little in the way of original development in self-defense methodology, except for those ground techniques which are useful both for fighting and self-defense. The stand-up self-defense curriculum is not unique to BJJ.)

Finally, you finish with examples that again highlight the history you're bringing up, which I never argued against, and wasn't anything to do with what I was saying.

Here endeth the repeated history.

Now if you had asked for recent innovations in BJJ, I would cheerfully acknowledge that they almost all come from the sporting arena. That's not what you asked.

So, after all that, you're saying that what I was saying was right. Good to know.

And yes, that is exactly what I asked ("I can't think of any form [contemporary, current] that shows hallmarks of not developing in that fashion [through competitive application]")

In fact, if you had just said up front that the latest developments in BJJ had come from the world of sport BJJ competition, we would have no argument. Once again, that's not what you said. Maybe it's what you meant, but it's not what you said.

I did. You missed it by reading into my posts comments about something I wasn't addressing… and missing each time I agreed with you and pointed out that that was not what I was talking about.

BTW - I agree that it's possible to regard the challenge matches and street fights that shaped BJJ as being essentially sportive in nature if you have a broad enough definition of sport. They are not what is known as BJJ competition.

Modern forms and expressions are largely driven by BJJ competition, with MMA also having a strong influence on a number of approaches… but yeah, back in the day, Vale Tudo, challenge matches etc were a similar crucible.

Let's put it this way. You're fond of popping in to deliver lectures on the meaning and purpose of kata training. Suppose I were declare that the purpose of kata training was to learn how to stomp and scream and flip and impress the judges in tournament competition. Suppose I were to dismiss counter-arguments by you and all the traditional Karate and CMA practitioners on the board by stating that those old kata without the screaming and flipping and working to impress the judges were just ancient history and nothing to do with what kata is now.

(Or I could tell elder999 that judo is just whatever is included in the latest Olympic rules. )

I can't imagine that approach would make me tremendously appreciated.

Then you have completely missed what I was saying there, as that is simply not a similar construct.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Not taking any sides here but I wanted to point out:

Actually on the current front the Gracie Academy and Rorion and his son's have actually added several things into their self defense curriculum through the years. Gracie Combatives actually has at least one thing in it that you would not find in older BJJ or in other lines of BJJ. (it was codified specifically for Gracie Combatives) They have also addressed certain things for law enforcement and military that again has added to their curriculum and taken into account things that were not taken into account previously. This is an area that they specifically have moved into in a big way. Not to mention their BullProof program is new as well. Some of it is good, some bad but hey that is just my opinion!

So there are some areas in BJJ that specifically are not or were currently not developed through sporting competition. Though I will readily agree that the vast majority of training and technique advancement is from competition training. So much so that if you are not researching and training with different people all the time you will miss new developments quickly! Though of course the best way to counter anything you have not seen before is to have good fluid BJJ fundamentals.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Okay Chris, let's start with what we agree on. that should hopefully get us closer to seeing the disconnect.

We both agree that
a) the elements of BJJ which were developed for street fights and challenge matches were mostly added to the art in the early decades of its existence (early-mid 20th century) and
b) the elements of BJJ which have been added to the art in the last 2-3 decades are mostly derived from sport grappling competition (with some input from the MMA arena as well).

I think we're on the same page there, right?

Now. let's look at the bits you quoted from the previous thread.

Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.
...
No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.
...
Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field.
...
Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application?

You don't say "the elements of BJJ which have been added in the last 3 decades or so are best suited for BJJ competition." You don't say "the recent additions to BJJ were not designed for street fighting." You don't say "the crucible which formed the latest innovations in BJJ was sport competition." You didn't ask "give me an example of BJJ that was invented in the last 20 years that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application."

You say BJJ is such and so. In other words, you are conflating what BJJ is with what elements have been added to it in the last generation or so. When you insist that my mentions of how the art was created and developed are irrelevant to discussion of what BJJ is now, then you are consigning what I consider the heart of the art to an exhibit in a history museum. I don't agree with this. Just because new facets have been added to the art does not mean the old facets have gone away.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay Chris, let's start with what we agree on. that should hopefully get us closer to seeing the disconnect.

We both agree that
a) the elements of BJJ which were developed for street fights and challenge matches were mostly added to the art in the early decades of its existence (early-mid 20th century) and
b) the elements of BJJ which have been added to the art in the last 2-3 decades are mostly derived from sport grappling competition (with some input from the MMA arena as well).

I think we're on the same page there, right?

No, not quite. For one thing, I'd argue the idea of elements being "added"… instead, I'd say they were developed. Secondly, while the early decades may have had less of a competitive aspect (certainly not what we currently have as BJJ/Grappling competition), the idea of testing against skilled opponents (either in the same area, or different) was common from the very beginning. Of course, this can be seen as a largely semantic argument between us in terms of choices of terminology, which it might be… or it might be indicative of a rather different way of looking at what makes a martial art what it is.

Now. let's look at the bits you quoted from the previous thread.

….

You don't say "the elements of BJJ which have been added in the last 3 decades or so are best suited for BJJ competition." You don't say "the recent additions to BJJ were not designed for street fighting." You don't say "the crucible which formed the latest innovations in BJJ was sport competition." You didn't ask "give me an example of BJJ that was invented in the last 20 years that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application."

Of course I didn't say that, Tony, I was addressing someone who had no experience with these systems, and little knowledge of them… as a result, I didn't want to overly complicate things. But even if I wanted to give a complete historical perspective, it would have been out of place, and not address the question and context of the poster asking about training in the here and now.

You say BJJ is such and so. In other words, you are conflating what BJJ is with what elements have been added to it in the last generation or so. When you insist that my mentions of how the art was created and developed are irrelevant to discussion of what BJJ is now, then you are consigning what I consider the heart of the art to an exhibit in a history museum. I don't agree with this. Just because new facets have been added to the art does not mean the old facets have gone away.

No, Tony, I was doing nothing of the kind.

But you know what? Let's take this back to where you started this revival of an old conversation… you were saying that mat hours were more accurate a measure of your depth of understanding. Tell me… what portion of your 5,000 hours of mat-time in BJJ dealt with the early history and development, as well as the modern expression, and where that has developed from, as well as how? How are you getting that from rolling and training drills and flows?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

No, not quite. For one thing, I'd argue the idea of elements being "added"… instead, I'd say they were developed.

How about: developed/invented/refined/copied/stolen and then added?

Secondly, while the early decades may have had less of a competitive aspect (certainly not what we currently have as BJJ/Grappling competition), the idea of testing against skilled opponents (either in the same area, or different) was common from the very beginning.

Absolutely, which is why I acknowledged that even street fights and challenge matches could be viewed as "sportive" if you take a broad enough view of the term. The only thing I would add is that they also had plenty of testing against guys who were big and strong, but not necessarily skilled martial artists as well.

Of course I didn't say that, Tony, I was addressing someone who had no experience with these systems, and little knowledge of them… as a result, I didn't want to overly complicate things. But even if I wanted to give a complete historical perspective, it would have been out of place, and not address the question and context of the poster asking about training in the here and now.

Here we get to the crux of our disagreement - "training in the here and now." The poster was asking what sort of training they might experience in a BJJ school if they walked in and signed up and what it would be suited for. The correct (short) answer is that depending on the school they might get
a) training in tactics and techniques suitable for street fights and challenge matches or
b) training in tactics and techniques suitable for BJJ grappling competition or
c) some mish-mash of both in different orders or proportions (sport first, then street or street first, then sport or both mixed up randomly).
The correct long answer would be a bit more involved.

But you know what? Let's take this back to where you started this revival of an old conversation… you were saying that mat hours were more accurate a measure of your depth of understanding. Tell me… what portion of your 5,000 hours of mat-time in BJJ dealt with the early history and development, as well as the modern expression, and where that has developed from, as well as how? How are you getting that from rolling and training drills and flows?

Not sure what you're asking. Could you clarify? Are you asking...
What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?
What portion of my mat time was spent on the older ("street") techniques & tactics vs what portion was spent on the newer ("sport") techniques and tactics?
How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?
Something else entirely?

I'm happy to answer whatever I can, I just want to make sure I'm answering whatever it is your actually asking.

 

[Chris Parker]

How about: developed/invented/refined/copied/stolen and then added?

I would agree with developed, and I'd agree with refined. I don't agree with "added", "copied", or "stolen".

Absolutely, which is why I acknowledged that even street fights and challenge matches could be viewed as "sportive" if you take a broad enough view of the term. The only thing I would add is that they also had plenty of testing against guys who were big and strong, but not necessarily skilled martial artists as well.

Here's the thing, Tony… I have never, not once, disagreed with your expression of the history (I might have some different interpretations of a few aspects, but that's about it). And you haven't disagreed with anything I've said… you've just tried applying it to something that I wasn't addressing, even when that was pointed out.

Here we get to the crux of our disagreement - "training in the here and now." The poster was asking what sort of training they might experience in a BJJ school if they walked in and signed up and what it would be suited for. The correct (short) answer is that depending on the school they might get
a) training in tactics and techniques suitable for street fights and challenge matches or
b) training in tactics and techniques suitable for BJJ grappling competition or
c) some mish-mash of both in different orders or proportions (sport first, then street or street first, then sport or both mixed up randomly).
The correct long answer would be a bit more involved.

No, that's not what he was asking. The exact question posed was "what are the appropriate environments to use Judo/BJJ?" There was no instance in the entire thread where he asked what sort of training he might expect… he was looking purely at application.

So, in short, no, that is not the "correct" answer at all… as it's an answer to a completely different question that you decided was being asked, despite there being no evidence for that.

Not sure what you're asking. Could you clarify? Are you asking...
What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?

In part, yes.

What portion of my mat time was spent on the older ("street") techniques & tactics vs what portion was spent on the newer ("sport") techniques and tactics?

In part, yes.

How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?

In part, yes.

Something else entirely?

I'm happy to answer whatever I can, I just want to make sure I'm answering whatever it is your actually asking.

We'll start with those aspects, and might expand from there.