Gracie Breakdown on Catch Wrestling vs Bjj

[Andrew Green]

This is a strange argument, Josh Barnett is a person, not a style, and everything seems to be about him. Apart from Barnett one of the most recognizable Catch fighters in MMA would probably Sakuraba who spent most of his career as the smaller guy. Megumi Fuji is one of Barnetts top students and she is tiny. Ask got known for his double wrist lock (aka Kimura) and Fuji for her toe hold. Neither of those rely on weight, but are staple techniques of catch.

Catch is just a different philosophy. It emphasizes top control and finishing a fight as quickly as possible in contrast to the "survival first" mentality of the Gracie brothers. Guard wasn't really their historically as going on your back meant losing.

Any style should be adaptable to the person doing it, and any person should be able to apply their own strengths to the style they do. If you are strong use your strength, if you are big use your size, if you are fast use your speed, if you are flexible use that, etc. Barnett's Chest compression finish might not be a lot easier for heavier guys, but even small guys can use it to ride and tire out the bottom guy faster, even if it doesn't always get a tap.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Andrew, good to see you here!!!

 

[drop bear]

There was no such posting, mate. I was questioning Steve's comments, and pointing out (clarifying) why, as well as pointing out why I was asking.

You do know what the "rubber/glue" thing is about, yeah...?



I have answered all of your questions, you avoid mine. I have clarified my statements, you respond with denial and a fingers-in-the-ears attitude. I have elaborated and emphasised the points I've made, you just keep going on about the same misunderstandings again and again, despite it being pointed out to you since the first page (and before, if we're to be honest).

Think about the discussion… and previous ones… and ask yourself, who is really the side not willing to engage in an actual discussion? Here's a clue… it's not my side.



And, once more, you miss what's being said to you. There isn't any "anti-strength" concept… there's a concept of technique over strength. Get the difference?



RIght… let's take these in order:

Competitive fighters train strength, but they also train cardio, endurance, and technique. And the least important is strength. But then again, they're competitive fighters… they're going up against someone else who is also a competitive fighter… and, when we're dealing elite levels, they're looking for every advantage they can get… they don't train strength over anything else, they train it in conjunction with the other aspects… and, one more time, the other aspects (endurance and technique) are far more important.

Soldiers train fitness over strength so they can carry out their duties… strength is part of it, but not the dominant aspect.

Police, the same… and I gotta say, training strength is far from a high priority for police, so it'll come down to the individual.

Bouncers, again, comes down to the individual… I've known enough bouncers that don't really train in such a way at all… and those that do don't do it for fighting… but we'll get to that.

Bikers, same. And ditto for prisoners. Once again, we'll get to the actual reason in a moment.

Martial artists… really? All martial artists? Are you sure about that? How much strength training is done in, let's say, Kyudo? How about in Aikido? And while some systems (karate, for example) have a range of training methods that include strength training in various forms, it's often particular (to, say, grip strength).

"Plenty of people who foresee a fight in their future". Right, here's where we get to it… why do you think strength training is actually done in these situations? Here's a hint… it's not because it makes you a better fighter.

It's because it makes you a less-vulnerable-looking target… it's a way of avoiding a fight by looking like you'd be trouble.

In other words, none of this is really showing anything at all about strength being the emphasis of any martial art…



Please. You've missed the reality of almost everything you've posted… care to go back and actually answer at least one question yet? Or are you going to continue to act like a six-year old who isn't interested in having a real discussion?

what questions?

ok so technique over strength akido kyudo?

how are they going as far as competitions like metamoris?

ok with fighters,bouncers,etc. It doesn't have to be every single one. I am suggesting a trend.

now you posted strength gives competitors an edge in a fight. But then you say it doesn't give the industry guys an edge in a fight. That makes no sense.

technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.

 

[Andrew Green]

Andrew, good to see you here!!!

Got a little nostalgic I guess, decided to see if any of the older forums where still active

 

[elder999]

Andrew, good to see you here!!!

I'll second that! Welcome back!!

 

[Chris Parker]

For god's sake…

what questions?

We'll start with the one that's been repeated multiple times throughout this thread, starting on page one…

What do you think RBSD is?

ok so technique over strength akido kyudo?

What? Is there a sentence in there? Or a question? Or, you know… grammar? Structure? Syntax? Proper English? Context?

I have no idea what you're referring to or trying to say here.

how are they going as far as competitions like metamoris?

Who the hell cares? Do you think that that is any indication of anything at all, other than how they'd go in a competition?

And dude, let's see how the other competitors go with arrows in them, if you want to put Kyudo into the ring… of course, you do realise how ridiculous this is, yeah?

ok with fighters,bouncers,etc. It doesn't have to be every single one. I am suggesting a trend.

Your suggestion is noted, and passed over in the light of other evidence.

now you posted strength gives competitors an edge in a fight. But then you say it doesn't give the industry guys an edge in a fight. That makes no sense.

You really don't get it, do you? In a competition, you're going against a similar skill set, trained to a similar level, against someone similarly matched, at a known time, and a known place (allowing for preparation). In that situation (all other things being roughly equal), little advantages in one area or another (which might include strength, although that is the most limiting "advantage" you can have) can make a real quantifiable difference… your industry guys don't have anything like the same situation… they don't know the skills, or skill level of potential aggressors, they don't know the time, they don't know even if there will be any skill, and so on… they aren't going up against someone "matched" (which is a major reason security works in teams, not solo), so technique is the defining factor, not strength.

This is what I (and others) have tried many, many times to explain to you… different contexts have different requirements and needs.

technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.

Good lord, technique over strength is not an "anti-strength platform", it's an argument for technique over strength. Not minimising strength (which would be anti-strength), but emphasising technique.

And, for the last goddamn time, that is not an RBSD argument! Get it yet?

 

[elder999]

technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.

 

[elder999]

technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.

 

[Hanzou]

That brings a tear to my eye....

 

[Tony Dismukes]

what questions?

ok so technique over strength akido kyudo?

how are they going as far as competitions like metamoris?

ok with fighters,bouncers,etc. It doesn't have to be every single one. I am suggesting a trend.

now you posted strength gives competitors an edge in a fight. But then you say it doesn't give the industry guys an edge in a fight. That makes no sense.

technique over strength is an anti strength platform. The rbsd argument.

I'm thinking that what we have here is a failure to communicate. You seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making. It's as if someone said: 3 + 1 = 4 and you responded by saying: 3 x 1 isn't 4! 2 + 2 = 4!

To be clear: absolutely no one in this thread is claiming that strength is not an advantage in a fight, whether in the ring or on the street.

No one is saying that it's not a good idea to train to build up your strength.

No one is saying that size and technique are mutually exclusive or that they can't support each other.

These are also not the arguments that Rener and Ryron were making and they are not part of any RBSD system that I've ever come across.

(I have occasionally seen someone making the argument elsewhere that advanced skill in their chosen art makes size and strength completely irrelevant. I would agree with you that this is a mistaken belief. However I haven't noticed anyone making that argument here.)

The actual argument being made goes like this:

Being strong (both in absolute terms and relative to your opponent) is a good thing. It definitely gives you an advantage in a fight. However, unless your name is Bob Sapp or Brock Lesnar, it is very likely that your opponent in a fight may be stronger than you. This is especially true in a self-defense situation where your assailant may select you as a victim partially based on his perception that he is bigger and stronger than you. Unless you want to just give up and take a beating in those situations, then it is a good idea to develop your technique (and other attributes) to the point where they have a chance of overcoming superior size and strength.

You can consider your options in a fight as divided into the following buckets:
a) techniques/tactics that you could make work against a larger/stronger opponent
b) techniques/tactics that you could make work against an opponent who is roughly equal in size and strength
c) techniques/tactics that will only work if you are bigger and stronger than your opponent.

Obviously, if you are the bigger/stronger combatant in a fight, you have all the techniques and tactics from all three categories available to you. This is an advantage.

However, if you train primarily in the tactics and techniques from category c or even categories b and c, then you are in trouble when you run into an opponent who is bigger and stronger than you.

This is the foundation of Rener's and Ryron's argument. They are claiming that BJJ focuses exclusively on techniques and tactics from category a, while catch wrestling includes more techniques from categories b & c. (I don't have enough experience with catch to know whether this is a fair evaluation of that art.)

Note - saying a technique falls into category a does not mean that size and strength are irrelevant. All other factors being equal, it is easier to choke or armlock someone who is a scrawny 120 pounds than someone who is 250 pounds of solid muscle. However, it is still possible for me to choke or armlock someone who is 250 pounds of muscle. It's not possible for me to escape the side mount of a 250 pound guy by just bench pressing him and throwing him off, whereas that would be a possibility for the big guy escaping a little guy. This is the difference between categories a and c.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm back! 3.5 days of driving (boo!), 2.5 days of visiting relatives (yay!), no days of training since last Sunday (boo!). Let's see if I'm rested and recovered enough to make a coherent argument...

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

Eh, minor details to argue about another time.

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.

Yep, I think we're mostly in agreement on the history.

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.

You do realize that when I mentioned "training in the here and now" I was directly quoting your own words regarding what you said we were discussing?

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.

Let's look at the original exact question: "what are the appropriate environments to use Judo/BJJ?". If someone asks me "what is the appropriate environment to use martial art x?", then I understand the question as follows: "If someone were to train in art x and develop the skills, techniques, attributes, and knowledge which might reasonably be expected to come from that training, then what would be the appropriate environment for that person to use those skills, techniques, attributes and/or knowledge?"

I'm not sure I can think of another sensible way to interpret the question. It's not as if the martial art has any independent existence apart from the persons who are training in it. If you have a different interpretation of the question in mind, then please share it.

This also ties into my interpretation of your statement that BJJ is not well suited or designed for a street fighting environment, but rather for BJJ competition: (Present tense, as you noted) "If someone were to train in BJJ today, then the techniques and tactics they would learn would not be well suited or designed for a street fighting environment. They would rather be well suited and designed for BJJ competition."

If you meant something different, then please elucidate.


Now on to your questions.

Q - What portion of my 5,000+ hours of mat time were spent studying the history of the art?
A - Very little. Mat time is not usually the time for history lessons.

Q - 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?
A - At a very, very rough guess, I'd say 30% street, 30% sport, and 40% fundamentals which apply to either environment. I'm currently in the process of exploring the sport side of things more than I have in the past, so the balance may end up swinging more towards sport for the next couple of years. After that it may swing back the other way.

Q - How has my mat time helped me understand what the various tactics and techniques are suited for?
A - Lots and lots of experience using those tactics and techniques and having them succeed or fail under different circumstances. Lots of experience figuring out what factors are necessary for success with these techniques and tactics.Lots of experience observing how those techniques and tactics interact with the outside environment and the state of my own body and mind.

Some trivial examples:

A certain sweep works well for me when we are doing sport grappling with the gi. If I try that same sweep while we are including strikes, then I get punched in the face. This is clearly not a suitable technique for the street.

Certain top control positions involve my keeping my head very low and tight to my opponent. When I use these, it is easy to lose sight of the surrounding environment. Once again, these would be risky in any environment where there was the possibility of multiple opponents.

 

[drop bear]

I'm thinking that what we have here is a failure to communicate. You seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making. It's as if someone said: 3 + 1 = 4 and you responded by saying: 3 x 1 isn't 4! 2 + 2 = 4!

To be clear: absolutely no one in this thread is claiming that strength is not an advantage in a fight, whether in the ring or on the street.

No one is saying that it's not a good idea to train to build up your strength.

No one is saying that size and technique are mutually exclusive or that they can't support each other.

These are also not the arguments that Rener and Ryron were making and they are not part of any RBSD system that I've ever come across.

(I have occasionally seen someone making the argument elsewhere that advanced skill in their chosen art makes size and strength completely irrelevant. I would agree with you that this is a mistaken belief. However I haven't noticed anyone making that argument here.)

The actual argument being made goes like this:

Being strong (both in absolute terms and relative to your opponent) is a good thing. It definitely gives you an advantage in a fight. However, unless your name is Bob Sapp or Brock Lesnar, it is very likely that your opponent in a fight may be stronger than you. This is especially true in a self-defense situation where your assailant may select you as a victim partially based on his perception that he is bigger and stronger than you. Unless you want to just give up and take a beating in those situations, then it is a good idea to develop your technique (and other attributes) to the point where they have a chance of overcoming superior size and strength.

You can consider your options in a fight as divided into the following buckets:
a) techniques/tactics that you could make work against a larger/stronger opponent
b) techniques/tactics that you could make work against an opponent who is roughly equal in size and strength
c) techniques/tactics that will only work if you are bigger and stronger than your opponent.

Obviously, if you are the bigger/stronger combatant in a fight, you have all the techniques and tactics from all three categories available to you. This is an advantage.

However, if you train primarily in the tactics and techniques from category c or even categories b and c, then you are in trouble when you run into an opponent who is bigger and stronger than you.

This is the foundation of Rener's and Ryron's argument. They are claiming that BJJ focuses exclusively on techniques and tactics from category a, while catch wrestling includes more techniques from categories b & c. (I don't have enough experience with catch to know whether this is a fair evaluation of that art.)

Note - saying a technique falls into category a does not mean that size and strength are irrelevant. All other factors being equal, it is easier to choke or armlock someone who is a scrawny 120 pounds than someone who is 250 pounds of solid muscle. However, it is still possible for me to choke or armlock someone who is 250 pounds of muscle. It's not possible for me to escape the side mount of a 250 pound guy by just bench pressing him and throwing him off, whereas that would be a possibility for the big guy escaping a little guy. This is the difference between categories a and c.

the technique vs strength argument is the issue as they don't oppose each other.

the point i am making is technique is strength. As you said if you are stronger your technique will be more effective. Better technique equates to more strength.

people who compete train both generally.

now because of that there is a misconception that any competitive art takes strength to be good at. Like that yahoo answers argument in that kickboxing is only suitable for strong people.

now observationally it works out. You go to a class get manhandled by a strong guy and you come out with this idea that the art is based on strength.

quite simply if you wrestle for example you will have to play the will game. Where the more determined fighter beats the less so.

now this is an argument as to why some arts are geared towards strong people and some arts aare not.

rbsd in general will claim they are designed towards weaker practitioners being more successful.

the rbsd argument

 

[drop bear]

By the way. I moved up to north Queensland a few years ago. They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm. Wrestling cows and killing pigs with knives for fun.

moving into that environment i have learnt how important the strength/technique game is played.

 

[drop bear]

For god's sake…



We'll start with the one that's been repeated multiple times throughout this thread, starting on page one…

What do you think RBSD is?



What? Is there a sentence in there? Or a question? Or, you know… grammar? Structure? Syntax? Proper English? Context?

I have no idea what you're referring to or trying to say here.



Who the hell cares? Do you think that that is any indication of anything at all, other than how they'd go in a competition?

And dude, let's see how the other competitors go with arrows in them, if you want to put Kyudo into the ring… of course, you do realise how ridiculous this is, yeah?



Your suggestion is noted, and passed over in the light of other evidence.



You really don't get it, do you? In a competition, you're going against a similar skill set, trained to a similar level, against someone similarly matched, at a known time, and a known place (allowing for preparation). In that situation (all other things being roughly equal), little advantages in one area or another (which might include strength, although that is the most limiting "advantage" you can have) can make a real quantifiable difference… your industry guys don't have anything like the same situation… they don't know the skills, or skill level of potential aggressors, they don't know the time, they don't know even if there will be any skill, and so on… they aren't going up against someone "matched" (which is a major reason security works in teams, not solo), so technique is the defining factor, not strength.

This is what I (and others) have tried many, many times to explain to you… different contexts have different requirements and needs.



Good lord, technique over strength is not an "anti-strength platform", it's an argument for technique over strength. Not minimising strength (which would be anti-strength), but emphasising technique.

And, for the last goddamn time, that is not an RBSD argument! Get it yet?

ok rbsd is pretty much any of the hybrids that are non traditional and non sport.

freestyle would fit into this as well.

 

[Chris Parker]

Tony, thanks for the reply… I'll come back to that in the next day or two… just have time to deal with this part first.

ok rbsd is pretty much any of the hybrids that are non traditional and non sport.

freestyle would fit into this as well.

No.

RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence) is a specific training ideology and methodology that is designed to work with any system. It focuses on an understanding of how violence actually happens, the effects of adrenaline and so forth, and is primarily concerned with surviving the initial aspects (the pre-fight and the initial assault) in a self defence situation. It is not a martial art, it is not a martial art approach, most RBSD approaches have no, or very minimalist "techniques" to them at all… it's expected that you (as the student) would apply what you learned in a martial art once the fight is "on".

RBSD doesn't deal in duels, nor does it deal with fighting, really. It deals with not being taken out by the initial assault, so that you can apply your martial techniques.

Nothing you have posted is close to what RBSD is.

 

[Hanzou]

RSBDs also consists of quite a few arts that couldn't cut it in MMA and NHB fronts, so they retreated to a "self defense" focus in order to hide their combat inefficiencies.

I won't name any names though.

 

[Steve]

By the way. I moved up to north Queensland a few years ago. They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm. Wrestling cows and killing pigs with knives for fun.

moving into that environment i have learnt how important the strength/technique game is played.

A little off topic, but "They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm." That is funny and true. A local MMA fighter is a farm boy, and per pound I swear he is the strongest person I have ever trained with. He's about 170 lbs, but everything about him is powerful.

 

[drop bear]

Tony, thanks for the reply… I'll come back to that in the next day or two… just have time to deal with this part first.



No.

RBSD (Reality Based Self Defence) is a specific training ideology and methodology that is designed to work with any system. It focuses on an understanding of how violence actually happens, the effects of adrenaline and so forth, and is primarily concerned with surviving the initial aspects (the pre-fight and the initial assault) in a self defence situation. It is not a martial art, it is not a martial art approach, most RBSD approaches have no, or very minimalist "techniques" to them at all… it's expected that you (as the student) would apply what you learned in a martial art once the fight is "on".

RBSD doesn't deal in duels, nor does it deal with fighting, really. It deals with not being taken out by the initial assault, so that you can apply your martial techniques.

Nothing you have posted is close to what RBSD is.

well obviously you don't understand martial arts.

it cant be a specific training methodology there is more than one version of rbsd. There is no governing body. They can have any methodology they want.

not a martial arts approach?

apart from the camo pants how does there approach differ?

 

[Steve]

Sometimes they wear black pants.

 

[ballen0351]

A little off topic, but "They have this martial art here called growing up on a farm." That is funny and true. A local MMA fighter is a farm boy, and per pound I swear he is the strongest person I have ever trained with. He's about 170 lbs, but everything about him is powerful.

You cant beat functional strength. One of the Strongest guys I ever struggled to arrest was a mason. He was in his 60s was only 150 pounds max. He was so strong it was crazy his grip from holding and moving bricks around was insane. He grabbed my wrist it felt like he was going to crush my bones.