Ninjutsu vs Bjj (NAGA rules)

[Steve]

I know you are joking here, but only 50%

The other 60%, I feel, was a serious statement. You're a jitz teacher right? So you get that if it works, if it wasn't jitz before it is now, cause people will start doing it.

Oh, the math? I feel you probably give 110%

First, I don't teach. I have run classes now and again in the past, but that's very different.

But to the main point, yes, it was tongue in cheek, but you're spot on. BJJ is very pragmatic, as a style. I remember several years ago, Josh Barnett was fighting in pride. My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu. I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?" Lol... The look i gotmwas priceless.

 

[JowGaWolf]

digging into the intent of the founder, as you see in Aikido

Now this is the danger point for me. You have permission to "shake some sense into me" if I start talking about what a founder intended as a reason to not change things up.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu. I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?" Lol... The look i gotmwas priceless.

Sounds like Hanzou all day. lol.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu. I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?" Lol... The look i gotmwas priceless.

This just remind me one day someone asked me, "Are you teaching Chinese Judo? Why did you cut the sleeves of your Judo Gi off?"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now this is the danger point for me. You have permission to "shake some sense into me" if I start talking about what a founder intended as a reason to not change things up.

A good place to draw a line, my friend. I'm all for wondering what might have been intended. But using what I think was the intention, to stop me from doing what I find works....

 

[drop bear]

First, I don't teach. I have run classes now and again in the past, but that's very different.

But to the main point, yes, it was tongue in cheek, but you're spot on. BJJ is very pragmatic, as a style. I remember several years ago, Josh Barnett was fighting in pride. My coach mentioned he had good jiu jitsu. I said, "isn't he a catch wrestler?" Lol... The look i gotmwas priceless.

Yeah people are applauding kabibs jits at the moment as well

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah people are applauding kabibs jits at the moment as well

My perspective is that Judo, BJJ, Sambo, and wrestling in its various forms are all just aspects of the same art. The apparent differences are just situational adaptations to different rulesets or superficial expressions of culture. The underlying principles are the same.

 

[Hanzou]

My perspective is that Judo, BJJ, Sambo, and wrestling in its various forms are all just aspects of the same art. The apparent differences are just situational adaptations to different rulesets or superficial expressions of culture. The underlying principles are the same.

Well if Rickson, Relson, and Rorian have their way, you'll soon be having Gjj as a separate entity to Bjj.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Well if Rickson, Relson, and Rorian have their way, you'll soon be having Gjj as a separate entity to Bjj.

Not sure why. It will just follow the same path as Bjj

 

[Hanzou]

I think they still evolve but not by adding. If this was true then boxing would have never evolved.

Boxing evolved because new people entered the sport and offered new tactics and methods. When certain people became dominant, other fighters adapted those methods into their training methodology. This made boxing a more effective and technical sport over time because there was an objective standard: Winning boxing matches. If a fighter's methodology failed, it along with the fighter was discarded. If the fighter's methodology was successful, others adopted the model yet also put their own spin on it based on their body type and individual talents.

That is a far cry from having someone creating a fighting system and their disciples dogmatically attempting to adhere to the established fighting method. What's worse is that there's no objective standard to place it against, which further adds to its decay.

The issue with traditional martial arts and it's evolution is that there are many teachers of it that actually don't try to seek deeper meaning of it. There are many TMA teachers who can't use the techniques that they train nor do they have any interest in doing so. To be honest, there is nothing wrong with this unless you are trying to use the system for fighting. I believe a system for fighting can only evolve by fighting. If you want the system to remain a good fighting system then it cannot evolve in absence of fighting.

The truth about many TMAs is that they are evolving. They just aren't evolving into fighting systems, they are evolving into entertainment performance and acrobatic systems. The only reason's they are evolving into these systems is because the majority of the people aren't using them for fighting.

You can always introduced new applications of something that already exists.

For example, Jow Ga teaches a punching technique that I actually use as a grappling technique. No one taught me this application of the punching technique. I learned it on my own during fighting. So my discovery could very well be an evolution of this punching technique. Or I may have discovered that this grappling application was always there from the beginning and it's just that teachers weren't using the techniques in sparring. As a result they weren't ever going to discover this by not sparring with the techniques.

Fighting techniques cannot evolve without actually fighting / sparring. I can't just do forms all day and hope to evolve, improve, or understanding an existing technique. I actually have to use those techniques. The more I use those techniques, the better the chance will be for it's evolution.

The more people played the flute the more the flute was able to evolve.

The more peopled boxed, the more boxing evolved.

Most of the people you are referring to about TMA probably can't even use their techniques so how are those techniques going to evolve for fighting if you can't use them? You have to use what you train, if it doesn't work, then figure out what you were doing wrong with the technique. Gain a better understanding of the technique and try the new theory. Eventually you'll get it right, but not after a bunch of failures.

I agree.

It's the same process as the invention of flight. Plane didn't fly this time, what did I do wrong? Rethink your understanding of the concept of flight. Try again. Got it wrong again? Rethink your understanding of flight. What are you getting right? what are you getting wrong? Try again. Eventually you'll gain the understanding your need to fly.

While an interesting analogy, keep in mind that planes work via a standardized model. No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example, and all modern planes are using similar engines and turbines. Fighting works in a similar fashion. When broken down, all fighting looks like a MMA match at varying skill levels. I have yet to see someone break into a Crane Stance and start doing crane kung fu while someone is socking them in the face. Instead of making a plane with a flawed design, why not go with the working design and save time trying to reach your destination?

My training takes a similar path. Some guy in the past was known to use these techniques for fighting. use the technique in sparring. The technique didn't work this time. What did I do wrong? Rethink my understanding of the concept of the technique. Try again. Got it wrong again? Rethink my understanding of the technique. What am I getting right? What am I getting wrong? Try again. Eventually I'll gain the understanding I'll need to use the technique.

Once I understand the technique, then I can start improving on the technique and evolving the technique. Similar to how the jab and footwork evolved for boxing.

Here's the question though: If we're not seeing modern fighters using this style, can we actually believe that the founder was actually some amazing fighter? It's like those stories of Ueshiba throwing people with his pinky, or Mas Oyama killing bulls with a reverse punch; Once held to a bit more scrutiny, it all becomes a big Asian fairy tale.

 

[Hanzou]

Not sure why. It will just follow the same path as Bjj

No, Rickson and the boys want a return to old school GJJ. They feel that the sport aspect taking over and is diluting the original style that was more about street fighting and Vale Tudo.

I agree with some of their arguments (the lack of standup coming from some Bjj schools is simply inexcusable), and I'm happy that my base in Bjj is within the GJJ sphere (Relson Gracie), but I can't help but think the REAL reason they're seeking to do this is because they're losing competitions to more sport-oriented schools.

Edit:
RICKSON GRACIE on How Jiu Jitsu is Losing its identity

 

[JowGaWolf]

Boxing evolved because new people entered the sport and offered new tactics and methods.

This is what I've been saying all along. They improve what was already there. They didn't jump out of the system to adopt a Hung Ga punch because the boxing jab was no good. They improved on what was already there.

That is a far cry from having someone creating a fighting system and their disciples dogmatically attempting to adhere to the established fighting method. What's worse is that there's no objective standard to place it against, which further adds to its decay.

I read this 5 times and I have no clue as to what you are talking about and how that applies to creating a fighting system nor my example of boxing.

The fact that overall boxers only punch is exactly the text book example of adhering to an established fighting method and yet there is clear proof of it evolving.

 

[JowGaWolf]

No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example,

Flapping flying machine that flys

 

[Hanzou]

Flapping flying machine that flys

That isn't an airplane.

 

[Hanzou]

This is what I've been saying all along. They improve what was already there. They didn't jump out of the system to adopt a Hung Ga punch because the boxing jab was no good. They improved on what was already there.

Yes, and they also changed what was there and removed things that didn't work or became outdated.

I read this 5 times and I have no clue as to what you are talking about and how that applies to creating a fighting system nor my example of boxing.

I was talking about TMAs.

The fact that overall boxers only punch is exactly the text book example of adhering to an established fighting method and yet there is clear proof of it evolving.

The reason it evolved was because it had an objective standard: Winning boxing matches.

 

[JowGaWolf]

No one is building a workable plane with wings that flap like a bird for example

I guess they are still at it. Their predecessors never flew.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That isn't an airplane.

You are right. It's an Ornithopter airplanes don't flap, never have. They are 2 different flying machines. One cannot be the other.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The reason it evolved was because it had an objective standard: Winning boxing matches.

Wrong. The reason it evolved is because people were using the techniques and as a result learned how to make improvements on the existing techniques. Winning is just a by product of the improved techniques. Even if you took away the concept of winning those improvements would still happen. If an improvement on an existing technique allows you to be more effective at hitting the opponent more the earlier version of that same technique, then you are going to use that technique regardless of the concept of winning. Because the concept of boxing is to punch your opponent.

 

[Hanzou]

Wrong. The reason it evolved is because people were using the techniques and as a result learned how to make improvements on the existing techniques. Winning is just a by product of the improved techniques. Even if you took away the concept of winning those improvements would still happen. If an improvement on an existing technique allows you to be more effective at hitting the opponent more the earlier version of that same technique, then you are going to use that technique regardless of the concept of winning. Because the concept of boxing is to punch your opponent.

Wrong. Take the uppercut for example. The uppercut was introduced by Duth Sam in the early 1800s and he wrecked havoc in boxing until a new way was discovered to block it. Why create new devastating techniques? Why create new methods to stop these new devastating techniques? Because you want to win. There would be no reason to create an uppercut or the method to block the uppercut if that goal wasn't in place. Further, if boxing were structured like a TMA, such a new, devastating technique would have been rejected or ignored.

 

[Hanzou]

You are right. It's an Ornithopter airplanes don't flap, never have. They are 2 different flying machines. One cannot be the other.

Yeah, and we were talking about planes. You know, flying machines that can carry loads of passengers and cargo over long distances.