Is it a consensus in the martial arts world that... BJJ is the best?

[Zombocalypse]

Title.

I find Judo and boxing to be much more fashionable for me but... I mean, if it's common knowledge that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the best, then I may as well sign up for it in the one close to my home. The dojo is literally walking distance for me.

If the consensus is shaky, however... Then I want to stick to Judo. Judo looks awesome.

Honestly my goal is really to be skilled enough to easily neutralize or hurt a same-sized person who's hostile against me, without weapons. I have no ambitions of being competitive. If Judo is more than enough for that, then Judo it is. But if Brazilian Jiu Jitsu will do it far better, then I may have to reconsider.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Also, dear folks, I want to make it clear that the reason I seem to be overthinking it is because I have enough time to. My main activity outside of college and outside of video games is Olympic lifting. I want to get used to lifting weights daily first before adding martial arts training. So I really have time to analyze which one to do. And I live in a good city. There are several options for me here.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Beginners please read: What Kind of Pie is Best? (Finding a Martial Art)

 

[frank raud]

It is a concensus amongst BJJ players that it is the best.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Title.

I find Judo and boxing to be much more fashionable for me but... I mean, if it's common knowledge that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the best, then I may as well sign up for it in the one close to my home. The dojo is literally walking distance for me.

If the consensus is shaky, however... Then I want to stick to Judo. Judo looks awesome.

Honestly my goal is really to be skilled enough to easily neutralize or hurt a same-sized person who's hostile against me, without weapons. I have no ambitions of being competitive. If Judo is more than enough for that, then Judo it is. But if Brazilian Jiu Jitsu will do it far better, then I may have to reconsider.

Yes it is the best.
It being the art one trains.
As no one wants to train in the second to worst best art.

 

[Chris Parker]

Is it a consensus? As Frank said, only among BJJ practitioners/players/fans... and fools who get their information from a you-tube top 10 list put together by WatchMojo...

Realistically, there is no single "best" martial art, just like there's no one "best" flavour ice-cream, or musical style, etc... the question is always more about what you're expecting out of it, and whether it matches that, then what the teacher themselves are like (a good teacher in a system you may not have considered trumps a mediocre or poor teacher in an art you've decided must be "the one").

At the end of the day, you do what makes you happy. End of story.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Title.

I find Judo and boxing to be much more fashionable for me but... I mean, if it's common knowledge that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the best, then I may as well sign up for it in the one close to my home. The dojo is literally walking distance for me.

If the consensus is shaky, however... Then I want to stick to Judo. Judo looks awesome.

Honestly my goal is really to be skilled enough to easily neutralize or hurt a same-sized person who's hostile against me, without weapons. I have no ambitions of being competitive. If Judo is more than enough for that, then Judo it is. But if Brazilian Jiu Jitsu will do it far better, then I may have to reconsider.

Go away troll

 

[ronki23]

As an ex-judoka, I find that BJJ is the easy option. The BJJ rolling often starts from the knees and they pull guard to avoid getting thrown. I haven't done BJJ but I've done no-gi. You're better off with judo as you'll learn throws

 

[drop bear]

The consensus is wrestling. But BJJ is a bit easier.

Why Do Wrestlers Dominate MMA?

According to famous MMA color commentator Joe Rogan, wrestlers dominate MMA because the wrestling style allows fighters to “dictate where the fight takes place”. Wrestlers tend to have an easier time putting their opponent into a disadvantageous position and are also equipped with the tools...

mmachannel.com

 

[Zombocalypse]

Go away troll

I'm not here to troll.

 

[Hanzou]

if we’re comparing Bjj to Judo, I would almost always recommend Bjj. It’s simply more adaptable and easier on the body, and also allows far more variation. If you’re finding Judo boring, Bjj would be a good option.

 

[Chris Parker]

The consensus is wrestling. But BJJ is a bit easier.

Why Do Wrestlers Dominate MMA?

According to famous MMA color commentator Joe Rogan, wrestlers dominate MMA because the wrestling style allows fighters to “dictate where the fight takes place”. Wrestlers tend to have an easier time putting their opponent into a disadvantageous position and are also equipped with the tools...

mmachannel.com

Sigh... no, it's not. And, no, it's not.

MMA competition is one, and to be very clear, one very limited context in which to explore the merits of a particular combative system... but hardly the only, or most thorough, way to explore their value. Frankly, I don't care one iota what people value for MMA... it's such a basic, low-level way of thinking of martial arts that it barely rates considering at all, as far as I'm concerned. Now, that needs to be looked at in it's own context as well... plenty of people think it's the only, best, most superior, most accurate way of assessing a system... and that's fine... provided you also recognise that that is only your values, and far from the only ones around.

 

[drop bear]

Sigh... no, it's not. And, no, it's not.

MMA competition is one, and to be very clear, one very limited context in which to explore the merits of a particular combative system... but hardly the only, or most thorough, way to explore their value. Frankly, I don't care one iota what people value for MMA... it's such a basic, low-level way of thinking of martial arts that it barely rates considering at all, as far as I'm concerned. Now, that needs to be looked at in it's own context as well... plenty of people think it's the only, best, most superior, most accurate way of assessing a system... and that's fine... provided you also recognise that that is only your values, and far from the only ones around.

There are a few ways to assess a fighting system so that you can make an informed judgement.

They need to fight. This is kind of non negotiable. I am not even sure how there is an argument against this.

You need to see them fight. This is more important. As fighting is such a massive subject that it can be easily manipulated if you don't really know what you are looking at.

And it needs to be consistent, honest and transparent. Fight enough people and you don't always win. Fight good people and you don't always win. These assessments are what creates a depth of understanding about fighting.

With MMA we already have this information basically presented to us in the most easily accessible and honest way that is possible at the moment.

I could bang on about bjj in the street or military combatives and police moving towards a MMA dynamic. I could show videos of mma fighters successfully defending themselves or tell stories of daring do.

But these assessments are quite simply less reliable than being able to watch people fight and come up with some common themes.

 

[drop bear]

As far as limited context goes. You can move the context.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As far as limited context goes. You can move the context.

I’ve done sparring in a car before, but it wasn’t a convertible. The roof significantly changes the dynamic from what you see in that video.

 

[drop bear]

I’ve done sparring in a car before, but it wasn’t a convertible. The roof significantly changes the dynamic from what you see in that video.

Honestly I was waiting for someone to trip and break their leg with that one.

 

[Chris Parker]

There are a few ways to assess a fighting system so that you can make an informed judgement.

And this is what I'm talking about... you're already starting from a very limited and flawed premise, although not necessarily a rare one, just an uninformed one, namely that martial arts are "fighting systems"...

Firstly, no, not all martial arts are what I would refer to as "fighting systems", secondly, most that are are rather superficial and limited in their approach, as they will typically be highly geared towards a very particular context and application, thirdly, the idea of a martial system being a "fighting system" immediately begs the question "in what context?". Fighting, by itself, covers such a wide gamut that applying it to "martial arts" as being what they're actually concerned with would leave every single system on the planet deeply lacking, most especially those that concern themselves with "fighting" as a primary facet to begin with.

They need to fight. This is kind of non negotiable. I am not even sure how there is an argument against this.

And that's because your personal worldview of martial arts is single-faceted, myopic, and, frankly, basic. Does Taiji need to prove itself in an octagon to have value as a martial art? How about fencing? Does Judo lose it's status if one practitioner gets jumped by five guys with baseball bats? That's fighting, isn't it?

Does everything in a martial art have to be about fighting? Does any of it? How are you defining "need to fight"? Again, that's such a wide-covering concept that, bluntly, you don't even know what you mean by it. You have an idea, and an image, and expect things to match your preconceived notions, but even that is fairly vague and ill-defined. Do you mean in a cage? In a competition? Is it to the death? If the answer is no to any of these, why not? If the answer is yes, and a system simply cannot be presented in that format with any kind of reality, does that change the status? Why? Or why not?

You need to see them fight. This is more important. As fighting is such a massive subject that it can be easily manipulated if you don't really know what you are looking at.

Please. If it's the only litmus test, and the only way to see the value in a martial system, then it shouldn't be so easily manipulated... if it's easy to manipulate, then it's not a valid test or assessment system... so what's the point?

And it needs to be consistent, honest and transparent. Fight enough people and you don't always win. Fight good people and you don't always win. These assessments are what creates a depth of understanding about fighting.

So... if one person gains consistency, but another doesn't, is it the system, or the person? Or something else? If one person wipes the floor with whoever he meets, but someone else doing the same system keeps getting beat, what's the reason? And how are these fights being conducted and organised? Is that consistent? Regardless of the system being tested or assessed? Is that a reasonable way to go about this?

With MMA we already have this information basically presented to us in the most easily accessible and honest way that is possible at the moment.

No, you have one set of parameters that automatically discount about 90%+ of systems and approaches, not to mention that all it really is is a way of reinforcing its own structure. Bluntly, it's irrelevant for the majority of systems, and the contexts that they are designed to work within.

I could bang on about bjj in the street or military combatives and police moving towards a MMA dynamic.

You could... of course, I could counter them with the reality of why BJJ was selected for a number of military training programs (it has almost nothing to do with "effectiveness"), stories of usage in the "street" that end very poorly for the person who tries it (and, the opposite, of course), the issues with police moving towards MMA-style approaches, from ethical, legal, and PR standpoints...

I could show videos of mma fighters successfully defending themselves or tell stories of daring do.

And I can bring up stories of similar people being killed trying.

But these assessments are quite simply less reliable than being able to watch people fight and come up with some common themes.

Only if the themes are equally applicable... and, frankly, they're not.

As far as limited context goes. You can move the context.

That's a change to environment, not context.

 

[drop bear]

And this is what I'm talking about... you're already starting from a very limited and flawed premise, although not necessarily a rare one, just an uninformed one, namely that martial arts are "fighting systems"...

Firstly, no, not all martial arts are what I would refer to as "fighting systems", secondly, most that are are rather superficial and limited in their approach, as they will typically be highly geared towards a very particular context and application, thirdly, the idea of a martial system being a "fighting system" immediately begs the question "in what context?". Fighting, by itself, covers such a wide gamut that applying it to "martial arts" as being what they're actually concerned with would leave every single system on the planet deeply lacking, most especially those that concern themselves with "fighting" as a primary facet to begin

Do you understand fight meta? And concept training? Because you shouldn't really have to have the context if you have good foundations.

You should have the tools to solve problems. Not have a bunch of problems already solved. So it is not a limited way of approaching the problem or a limited understanding.

And the guy who made the thread wants advice on a fighting system. He wa at to be able to neutralise a same size opponent.

 

[drop bear]

Please. If it's the only litmus test, and the only way to see the value in a martial system, then it shouldn't be so easily manipulated... if it's easy to manipulate, then it's not a valid test or assessment system... so what's the point?

Testing still has to be by a standard. It is why psychic's tend to fail scientific tests but can perform convincing demonstrations. And it is important to know which is which.

 

[drop bear]

No, you have one set of parameters that automatically discount about 90%+ of systems and approaches, not to mention that all it really is is a way of reinforcing its own structure. Bluntly, it's irrelevant for the majority of systems, and the contexts that they are designed to work within

Ok then show me the evidence the other 90% of systems and approaches have.

Make a case for whatever this mystery method is.