Gracie Breakdown on Catch Wrestling vs Bjj

[Brian R. VanCise]

Functional strength is some thing every martial practitioner should be striving for!

 

[drop bear]

Sometimes they wear black pants.

yeah but they are cargoes.

 

[drop bear]

I tapped to a ride last night. Pretty sure I have to wear a dress now.

 

[Chris Parker]

Right, back to this.

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.

See, Tony, this is why I like you, mate…

Now, let's have an argument...

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…

Cool, glad you made the trip safely.

Eh, minor details to argue about another time.

Yes and no… we'll stick with yes for now… as you say, another time, perhaps.

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

Sure… but that was only half of what I said there…

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?

Yeah, but you missed the point and context of what I was saying. I was pointing out that discussions of the origins, the earlier focus, and the historical aspects weren't what was being asked about… it was like discussing the US Army, and what it's like today, and you talking about the equipment for the Revolutionary army...

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.

To be frank, that's not the original question… it's where we ended up from the original question. The original question was more about "what's more effective, BJJ or Judo?", which eventually made it's way to the above question… via myself pointing out that "effective", by itself, didn't really mean anything… the OP needed to clarify what he meant by "effective" first… part of which was my prompting him to think about what the systems were designed/developed for… as, despite the wishes of many, there is no such thing as an art that is designed for everything. That directly lead to him asking what BJJ and Judo were best suited for… which is a present tense, general over-view, dominant focus question. Which is what I answered.

Thing is, the question was not "in what environments can I use BJJ/Judo?", it was "what is it designed/suited for?"… and, really, I can't stress this enough… I specifically pointed out in my answer that the competitive side was not what either of these systems were limited to. So your argument that I was ignoring, or not acknowledging such ideas is not supported by my very first answer in that thread after the question of "what environment?"…

I will say, though, that the idea of a martial art not having any independent existence apart from the persons training it, well… yeah, they absolutely do. The arts are independent of the student, really, and are brought to the individual, rather than the other way around.

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.

Your interpretation of my statement is, bluntly, incorrect. My exact words were:

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.

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

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.

Note here, bolded, that I talk about what the systems are best suited for… not only suited for, not that they're not suited for other applications and environments/contexts, but I'm pointing out what they're best suited for… at the same time, highlighting that it's not as mono dimensional as just asking what is most "effective".

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.

Okay.

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.

Okay.

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.

Okay.

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.

Cool.

Completely besides the point, though. None of that is anything close to what I was talking about, and is nothing to do with gaining the form of understanding I am applying… which, frankly, has little to do with mat-time, very little to do with application of technique (other than having the ability to recognise and interpret, which is not system-specific), and so on.

Right. The next bit.

well obviously you don't understand martial arts.

I'm not entirely sure if you're being facetious, if you think you're being cute (and think you're throwing my words back at me… here's the thing, when they have weight, it's a different story), and are deliberately trying to antagonise me… or if you genuinely think that I don't understand martial arts… if the last of those, then I hardly know where to start with just how ludicrously insane, stupendously ignorant, and completely off base you are… trust me, son, you don't have a goddamn clue either about my level of understanding, or about martial arts yourself. That's been shown over and over again through your posts, showing no understanding of anything to do with self defence, traditional martial arts, different contexts, kata training, or anything beyond a small amount of a grasp on some sporting, dominantly grappling/ground work, systems.

If you are being less genuine, whether an attempt to be cute, funny, or antagonistic, then you're either bordering on trolling, or you're actively engaging in it.

In other words, there is no way you could have written that with any credibility or good intent… despite Steve suggesting we should always look for it…

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.

Wow, you're really bad at this… of course there's a specific training methodology… or, more particularly, there's a specific categorisation of a range of methodologies… that's the entire damn point of having a specific classification. You might as well say that leaping spinning kicks and slingshots being the exclusive techniques of a school of BJJ, as there's no "specific training methodology", and they can have whatever they want… dude… just no. Completely ignorant statement on every level.

not a martial arts approach?

No, it's not a martial arts approach… in many ways, it's an opposite approach to martial arts… but, then again, you still don't get anything you've been told.

apart from the camo pants how does there approach differ?

Read my earlier post. It's all spelled out there. Your complete inability to comprehend is either terribly worrying, as it's showing all kinds of issues, or it's deliberately antagonistic… which, again, takes us back to the idea that you're trolling.

So… which one is it?

EDIT: Just gotta add this one…

I tapped to a ride last night. Pretty sure I have to wear a dress now.

What on earth does that have to do with anything, other than you adding a rather misogynistic slur with the implication of "I did something I consider weak, that makes me a girl"… couple that with your veiled homophobic posts in earlier threads, along with the patterns in a range of your other posts, and I really start wondering what you think you're doing.

 

[drop bear]

Right, back to this.



See, Tony, this is why I like you, mate…

Now, let's have an argument...



Cool, glad you made the trip safely.



Yes and no… we'll stick with yes for now… as you say, another time, perhaps.



Sure… but that was only half of what I said there…



Yeah, but you missed the point and context of what I was saying. I was pointing out that discussions of the origins, the earlier focus, and the historical aspects weren't what was being asked about… it was like discussing the US Army, and what it's like today, and you talking about the equipment for the Revolutionary army...



To be frank, that's not the original question… it's where we ended up from the original question. The original question was more about "what's more effective, BJJ or Judo?", which eventually made it's way to the above question… via myself pointing out that "effective", by itself, didn't really mean anything… the OP needed to clarify what he meant by "effective" first… part of which was my prompting him to think about what the systems were designed/developed for… as, despite the wishes of many, there is no such thing as an art that is designed for everything. That directly lead to him asking what BJJ and Judo were best suited for… which is a present tense, general over-view, dominant focus question. Which is what I answered.

Thing is, the question was not "in what environments can I use BJJ/Judo?", it was "what is it designed/suited for?"… and, really, I can't stress this enough… I specifically pointed out in my answer that the competitive side was not what either of these systems were limited to. So your argument that I was ignoring, or not acknowledging such ideas is not supported by my very first answer in that thread after the question of "what environment?"…

I will say, though, that the idea of a martial art not having any independent existence apart from the persons training it, well… yeah, they absolutely do. The arts are independent of the student, really, and are brought to the individual, rather than the other way around.



Your interpretation of my statement is, bluntly, incorrect. My exact words were:






Note here, bolded, that I talk about what the systems are best suited for… not only suited for, not that they're not suited for other applications and environments/contexts, but I'm pointing out what they're best suited for… at the same time, highlighting that it's not as mono dimensional as just asking what is most "effective".



Okay.



Okay.



Okay.



Cool.

Completely besides the point, though. None of that is anything close to what I was talking about, and is nothing to do with gaining the form of understanding I am applying… which, frankly, has little to do with mat-time, very little to do with application of technique (other than having the ability to recognise and interpret, which is not system-specific), and so on.

Right. The next bit.



I'm not entirely sure if you're being facetious, if you think you're being cute (and think you're throwing my words back at me… here's the thing, when they have weight, it's a different story), and are deliberately trying to antagonise me… or if you genuinely think that I don't understand martial arts… if the last of those, then I hardly know where to start with just how ludicrously insane, stupendously ignorant, and completely off base you are… trust me, son, you don't have a goddamn clue either about my level of understanding, or about martial arts yourself. That's been shown over and over again through your posts, showing no understanding of anything to do with self defence, traditional martial arts, different contexts, kata training, or anything beyond a small amount of a grasp on some sporting, dominantly grappling/ground work, systems.

If you are being less genuine, whether an attempt to be cute, funny, or antagonistic, then you're either bordering on trolling, or you're actively engaging in it.

In other words, there is no way you could have written that with any credibility or good intent… despite Steve suggesting we should always look for it…



Wow, you're really bad at this… of course there's a specific training methodology… or, more particularly, there's a specific categorisation of a range of methodologies… that's the entire damn point of having a specific classification. You might as well say that leaping spinning kicks and slingshots being the exclusive techniques of a school of BJJ, as there's no "specific training methodology", and they can have whatever they want… dude… just no. Completely ignorant statement on every level.



No, it's not a martial arts approach… in many ways, it's an opposite approach to martial arts… but, then again, you still don't get anything you've been told.



Read my earlier post. It's all spelled out there. Your complete inability to comprehend is either terribly worrying, as it's showing all kinds of issues, or it's deliberately antagonistic… which, again, takes us back to the idea that you're trolling.

So… which one is it?

EDIT: Just gotta add this one…



What on earth does that have to do with anything, other than you adding a rather misogynistic slur with the implication of "I did something I consider weak, that makes me a girl"… couple that with your veiled homophobic posts in earlier threads, along with the patterns in a range of your other posts, and I really start wondering what you think you're doing.

lol. Not trolling i am making an observation based on your posts.

now ignoring the angry bits.

ok you are being too specific in your classification. Rbsd especially can be anything it wants to be. If we were to. Say jujitsu rather than bjj there incorporates a huge range of methodology. Same with rbsd. There is no cohesive mindset. Nobody but the people who have decided to call their systems rbsd. Really are deciding what that actually means.

now. I am interested how they are the opposite of martial arts?


Which leaves the last bit. It is a grappling thing that relates to the op

you wouldn't understand.

 

[Chris Parker]

Missed this one…

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.

No.

In fact, I really don't know where to start with this tripe. You're making accusations of arts that couldn't "cut it" in your tough man contests, and then refuse to actually say what systems you're talking about?!?!

Either back up what you're saying, or retract it. I've been dealing with RBSD for two decades, and can think of exactly no system or approach that comes anywhere near your description… absolutely nothing at all.

lol. Not trolling i am making an observation based on your posts.

You do know that that just sounds more like the same trolling (deliberately antagonising) posting, thinking you're throwing my words back at me, yeah? And, once again, when the words have weight, they have meaning… you're missing a lot to even begin to come at me like that.

now ignoring the angry bits.

No, read the angry bits. You need to understand them. Of course, if you are trolling, then they're going to be the more relevant parts for you…

ok you are being too specific in your classification. Rbsd especially can be anything it wants to be. If we were to. Say jujitsu rather than bjj there incorporates a huge range of methodology. Same with rbsd. There is no cohesive mindset. Nobody but the people who have decided to call their systems rbsd. Really are deciding what that actually means.

Wow… no. RBSD is a specific categorisation. Jujutsu is a specific categorisation. Karate is a specific categorisation. Yes, there's a wide array of approaches within that categorisation, but when it comes down to it, if it's not RBSD (not suiting the categorisation), it's not RBSD.

You do get how categorisations work, yeah?

now. I am interested how they are the opposite of martial arts?

Read the description I already posted. You've been directed to it twice now.

But, to give you some idea, RBSD systems aren't actually particularly concerned with "the fight" aspect… they're concerned with the pre-fight… the post-fight… the initial assault… soft skills… de-escalation… avoidance and awareness… understanding of pre-fight indicators and triggers… but not really the "fight" itself (that is dealt with, but not to any major depth, for good reason).

Martial arts, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively with "the fight"… they look at a wide range of engaging skills, whether grappling, striking, weapons, or any combination… there is little attention paid to pre or post-fight aspects… including pre-fight triggers and indicators… avoiding fighting isn't really part of it… nor is de-escalating away from one… same with soft skills.

Opposite to each other.

Which leaves the last bit. It is a grappling thing that relates to the op

you wouldn't understand.

I understood what you said, but the connection to the OP was tenuous at best, and there was no real coherent connection made… no contextual reason for you to bring it up at this point in the conversation… and the tag was, again, misogynistic.

 

[drop bear]

Missed this one…



No.

In fact, I really don't know where to start with this tripe. You're making accusations of arts that couldn't "cut it" in your tough man contests, and then refuse to actually say what systems you're talking about?!?!

Either back up what you're saying, or retract it. I've been dealing with RBSD for two decades, and can think of exactly no system or approach that comes anywhere near your description… absolutely nothing at all.



You do know that that just sounds more like the same trolling (deliberately antagonising) posting, thinking you're throwing my words back at me, yeah? And, once again, when the words have weight, they have meaning… you're missing a lot to even begin to come at me like that.



No, read the angry bits. You need to understand them. Of course, if you are trolling, then they're going to be the more relevant parts for you…



Wow… no. RBSD is a specific categorisation. Jujutsu is a specific categorisation. Karate is a specific categorisation. Yes, there's a wide array of approaches within that categorisation, but when it comes down to it, if it's not RBSD (not suiting the categorisation), it's not RBSD.

You do get how categorisations work, yeah?



Read the description I already posted. You've been directed to it twice now.

But, to give you some idea, RBSD systems aren't actually particularly concerned with "the fight" aspect… they're concerned with the pre-fight… the post-fight… the initial assault… soft skills… de-escalation… avoidance and awareness… understanding of pre-fight indicators and triggers… but not really the "fight" itself (that is dealt with, but not to any major depth, for good reason).

Martial arts, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively with "the fight"… they look at a wide range of engaging skills, whether grappling, striking, weapons, or any combination… there is little attention paid to pre or post-fight aspects… including pre-fight triggers and indicators… avoiding fighting isn't really part of it… nor is de-escalating away from one… same with soft skills.

Opposite to each other.



I understood what you said, but the connection to the OP was tenuous at best, and there was no real coherent connection made… no contextual reason for you to bring it up at this point in the conversation… and the tag was, again, misogynistic.

so the angry bits. You are really suggesting it is ok to dish it out but trolling when you have to take it. I think that is mostly bluster. Which of course is also not trolling untill i say it.

right?

so these rbsd systems that can bee seen on youtube constantly handing out the kick ***. Are not representing the reality of their training. That the bulk of their training is pre fight?

how much training in rbsd is spent pre fight?

because for me when i did hocks system for 4 years it was ver little. When i did industry training it was a greater percentage. But the industry training is not very realistic.

in my opinion of applying it.

now bear in mind i have spent 20 years de-escalating real angry people who want to hurt me and know a thing or two about how to do it.

 

[Chris Parker]

so the angry bits. You are really suggesting it is ok to dish it out but trolling when you have to take it. I think that is mostly bluster. Which of course is also not trolling untill i say it.

right?

No.

It's trolling when you are posting specifically to provoke, start a fight, harass, insult, or similar. Your posting style very much matches that… and with your recent claim that all conversation is sparring, and you're looking to "smash" people in it, that really is trolling… as well as a hell of an ego problem.

so these rbsd systems that can bee seen on youtube constantly handing out the kick ***. Are not representing the reality of their training. That the bulk of their training is pre fight?

You're going to have to be far more specific there… which RBSD systems? Which aspects of their training are you seeing on you-tube clips? Do you really think that that's the reality of their training, or even the majority of it?

how much training in rbsd is spent pre fight?

Depends on the system itself… in some, it's the major part, for others, it's the initial engagement… for others it's handling that, and moving onto the "fight" portion itself… but even in those, the physical aspect tends to be minimalist (gross motor, able to be adapted to pretty much any physical pre-established systems etc).

because for me when i did hocks system for 4 years it was ver little.

Hock tends to focus more on the physical side of things, but that's not all he covers…. but yeah, he tends towards more of a "Bas Reuten" approach… and, bluntly, his approach is far more "martial arts" than "RBSD".

When i did industry training it was a greater percentage. But the industry training is not very realistic.

in my opinion of applying it.

I'd say that Industry training is more geared towards a different idea, context, and application… it might not have matched your expectations, but that's not a failing of the training itself. That said, the minimalist amount of training is probably one of the bigger issues there…

now bear in mind i have spent 20 years de-escalating real angry people who want to hurt me and know a thing or two about how to do it.

Sure… and bear in mind that my background has included this kind of thing for longer.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Captain Chris Pizzo World Leader In Self Defense Udemy

"Regardless of size speed or experience"

"After several years abroad, and training under everyone from the violent Arabian assassins in Egypt to the last remaining Samurai in Japan,"

I seem to remember one or two people on this forum complaining about traditional martial arts masters claiming to have been taught by a mysterious man in a cave or something like that.

 

[drop bear]

No.

It's trolling when you are posting specifically to provoke, start a fight, harass, insult, or similar. Your posting style very much matches that… and with your recent claim that all conversation is sparring, and you're looking to "smash" people in it, that really is trolling… as well as a hell of an ego problem.



You're going to have to be far more specific there… which RBSD systems? Which aspects of their training are you seeing on you-tube clips? Do you really think that that's the reality of their training, or even the majority of it?



Depends on the system itself… in some, it's the major part, for others, it's the initial engagement… for others it's handling that, and moving onto the "fight" portion itself… but even in those, the physical aspect tends to be minimalist (gross motor, able to be adapted to pretty much any physical pre-established systems etc).



Hock tends to focus more on the physical side of things, but that's not all he covers…. but yeah, he tends towards more of a "Bas Reuten" approach… and, bluntly, his approach is far more "martial arts" than "RBSD".



I'd say that Industry training is more geared towards a different idea, context, and application… it might not have matched your expectations, but that's not a failing of the training itself. That said, the minimalist amount of training is probably one of the bigger issues there…



Sure… and bear in mind that my background has included this kind of thing for longer.

so you are not deliberately provoking people with your posts. You are suggesting it is incidental. Scary as that idea my be i think you could be right.

which of course would mean the misquote about me looking to smash people was just an accident.

ok you tube. You are suggesting that the physical application of technique is not the main focus of rbsd. Lets specifically look at krav just because it is one of the most famous. I have done a couple of days of krav. I spent most of it learning to hurt people. Youtube videos of krav is mostly hurting people. Unless kicking people in the groin is de-escalation. They are not doing much of it.

now you may have a different system in mind. And can present that.

industry training fails to do what it is supposed to do. From a person who has to actually use it. In other words it is my head on the block so my opinion counts.

Minimalist training is one issue. The 10 days or so to become an instructor is another. The insane idea you can stop punches with arm locks might be another.

ok so you have deescalated how many fights exactly?

 

[drop bear]

"After several years abroad, and training under everyone from the violent Arabian assassins in Egypt to the last remaining Samurai in Japan,"

I seem to remember one or two people on this forum complaining about traditional martial arts masters claiming to have been taught by a mysterious man in a cave or something like that.

yeah it becomes a tricky thing here as we would either have to engage in fraud busting or fight the guy to see if he is legit.

both are frowned upon here.

 

[Chris Parker]

so you are not deliberately provoking people with your posts. You are suggesting it is incidental. Scary as that idea my be i think you could be right.

You're missing the nuance again. "To provoke", with regards to trolling, is to deliberately post something that is aimed at garnering an outburst, or to frustrate/upset someone. Telling someone the truth is not the same thing… no matter how little someone might want to hear it.

which of course would mean the misquote about me looking to smash people was just an accident.

What misquote? You stated that your take on conversation here is that it's like sparring, and in that context, you're looking to "smash" people (in conversation), as well as watching for them to try to "smash" you it might be said… so how is that a misquote? Do you want me to give you the actual quote you typed?

ok you tube. You are suggesting that the physical application of technique is not the main focus of rbsd. Lets specifically look at krav just because it is one of the most famous. I have done a couple of days of krav. I spent most of it learning to hurt people. Youtube videos of krav is mostly hurting people. Unless kicking people in the groin is de-escalation. They are not doing much of it.

Krav Maga is not an RBSD… it's a modern, military derived combatives system… for the record, Hock's system is really a modern civilian combatives system as well… and, here's the thing, combatives systems are not RBSD systems.

One more time, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about when you mention RBSD. At all.

now you may have a different system in mind. And can present that.

Look to Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri and so forth.

industry training fails to do what it is supposed to do. From a person who has to actually use it. In other words it is my head on the block so my opinion counts.

Fair enough… I'd still say that you're looking at a very mono-dimensional approach, but that's another issue.

Minimalist training is one issue. The 10 days or so to become an instructor is another. The insane idea you can stop punches with arm locks might be another.

Hmm… "insane"? I can think of a few ways that aren't so insane… but it depends on a few things…

ok so you have deescalated how many fights exactly?

You know, I don't really keep count… there's a few that stand out, for a few reasons, but I don't keep count. So no idea.

yeah it becomes a tricky thing here as we would either have to engage in fraud busting or fight the guy to see if he is legit.

both are frowned upon here.

No, the way to tell if he's legit is not by "fighting" him… that frankly proves absolutely nothing with regards to legitimacy. Of course, the fact that he's a delusional lunatic is a bit more relevant…

As far as fraud busting… well, there can be certain exceptions… such as when someone claims to have studied under people that don't exist… it becomes less fraud busting, and more just pointing out the obvious.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah, but you missed the point and context of what I was saying. I was pointing out that discussions of the origins, the earlier focus, and the historical aspects weren't what was being asked about… it was like discussing the US Army, and what it's like today, and you talking about the equipment for the Revolutionary army...

Right. Now imagine that there were units within the U.S. Army that still used muskets and trained/fought using the tactics and strategies from the Revolutionary era and didn't use modern equipment. That's a decent analogy to BJJ - there are still schools and practitioners that practice the same techniques and tactics that Helio and Rickson did back in their street fighting days.

To be frank, that's not the original question… it's where we ended up from the original question. The original question was more about "what's more effective, BJJ or Judo?", which eventually made it's way to the above question… via myself pointing out that "effective", by itself, didn't really mean anything… the OP needed to clarify what he meant by "effective" first… part of which was my prompting him to think about what the systems were designed/developed for… as, despite the wishes of many, there is no such thing as an art that is designed for everything. That directly lead to him asking what BJJ and Judo were best suited for… which is a present tense, general over-view, dominant focus question. Which is what I answered.

I had no problem with your original answer to his original question. I thought it was pretty good. If I take the time to quote everything you say that I agree with, then we'll be here all week.

Thing is, the question was not "in what environments can I use BJJ/Judo?", it was "what is it designed/suited for?"… and, really, I can't stress this enough… I specifically pointed out in my answer that the competitive side was not what either of these systems were limited to. So your argument that I was ignoring, or not acknowledging such ideas is not supported by my very first answer in that thread after the question of "what environment?"…

I appreciate your acknowledgment that BJJ/Judo can be used in environments other than the one they were primarily designed for. My disagreement is with the issue of what they are designed for.

I could say (and you would probably agree) that a collegiate wrestler would have a decent chance of using his art effectively in a street fight, even though that is absolutely not what the sport was designed for.

On the other hand, suppose a student signs up to study BJJ and ends up with an old school teacher who focuses on the original curriculum (distance control, punch defense, elbows, the Pisão, head lock defenses, etc, etc) that Helio and his family used in the streets for years - how is the art that student is learning not primarily designed for street fighting? How is it designed for BJJ competition, when a large percentage of the techniques are illegal or useless in tournaments?

I will say, though, that the idea of a martial art not having any independent existence apart from the persons training it, well… yeah, they absolutely do. The arts are independent of the student, really, and are brought to the individual, rather than the other way around.

I suspected that you might object to this. I wonder if this isn't a fundamental difference in philosophy that might explain some of our disagreements.

From my standpoint, martial arts training is just a tool that human beings use for various purposes. "Styles" and "arts" are just convenient ways of compartmentalizing and categorizing the huge variety of approaches people can take to using that tool. If a mutant staph infection were to suddenly wipe out every BJJ practitioner in the world, then BJJ would no longer exist. It would make no sense to debate the specific qualities of some platonic essence of BJJ floating in the ether with no human beings practicing it.

On the other hand, I've seen comments from you in other threads which seem to indicate that you do seem to have a more Platonic take on martial arts - that a given martial art has one correct purpose and set of principles and exists independently of its practitioners. If you see things that way, then it would explain why you don't seem to accept that BJJ as practiced by some people is an art designed for street fighting and as practiced by other people is an art designed as a pure grappling sport and as practiced by other people may have a different purpose altogether.

Completely besides the point, though. None of that is anything close to what I was talking about, and is nothing to do with gaining the form of understanding I am applying… which, frankly, has little to do with mat-time, very little to do with application of technique (other than having the ability to recognise and interpret, which is not system-specific), and so on.

Fair enough. There are a lot of kinds of understanding regarding martial arts, and you haven't specified exactly which type you are talking about. Some possible examples ...

Understanding the history of an art (both the "official" mythology and the actual events)
Understanding the physical principles that make an art work (distancing, leverage, body alignment, etc) on an intuitive level.
Understanding those same principles on an intellectual, analytical level.
Understanding the tactics and strategies that make an art work on an intellectual level.
Understanding those same tactics and strategies on an instinctive level
Understanding the technical specifics of an art.
Understanding the stated philosophy behind an art as stated by the founder.
Understanding the much messier and more complicated reality of how those philosophies run into actual application.
Understanding how a specific art is actually practiced in different times and places by different individuals
Understanding the different contexts of violence as an overview.
Understanding a specific context of violence from an intellectual standpoint.
Understanding a specific context of violence from personal experience.
Understanding how a certain type of martial arts training may lead to certain results in a specific context of violence, either from a theoretical basis or from personal experience
Understanding how certain types of training can develop certain attributes and certain mindsets
Understanding how to effectively learn certain skills, knowledge, and attributes related to different arts
Understanding how to effectively teach certain skills, knowledge and attributes related to different arts
... and many more.

Which form of understanding were you speaking of applying?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You are suggesting that the physical application of technique is not the main focus of rbsd. Lets specifically look at krav just because it is one of the most famous.

Krav Maga is not an RBSD… it's a modern, military derived combatives system… for the record, Hock's system is really a modern civilian combatives system as well… and, here's the thing, combatives systems are not RBSD systems.

Yeah, I haven't heard of Krav Maga being called RBSD. Are there Krav teachers out there using that term for what they do?

Look to Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri and so forth.

I was thinking about Peyton Quinn, Rory Miller, and Marc MacYoung offhand, but I'm not really too up on the RBSD world.