Well, this just keeps going...
Read post #602. Judo's natural evolution was heading towards a stronger Newaza slant. Kano purposely curbed that evolution because he preferred standing throws. Olympic Judo has continued that push.
Er... that really didn't have anything to do with what I asked, you know... Besides everything, I was asking how a system, removed from Judo and it's development, is closer to Judo than Judo is... your ideas on what Judo should be, where it was going etc are really irrelevant, you realise. Judo is Judo... have you considered that the move towards ne waza was actually seen as moving too far from what Judo should be, which is why there was a move back towards nage waza? Besides which, one reason for Kosen Judo having a greater focus on ne waza over nage waza is that it's less risky for the high school kids... less impact and all that, less risk of injury from a bad fall and all that... so the idea that BJJ is so uber-deadly because it focuses on the ground I find rather amusing... as I said, a watered down sports version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sports version of the actual serious skills... ha! (For anyone unsure, that is said semi-seriously, but mainly tongue in cheek).
Its pretty hard to fight gravity.
Actually, to get into the whole physics thing, no, it isn't. It's ridiculously easy to fight gravity. Gravity is stupidly weak....
And Bjj will teach him to get back up in the quickest way possible.
While I did learn a good way to get back up from BJJ, it's not the only place to teach it, nor is it the quickest possible (but it is a good, safe method).
If they aren't teaching you ground fighting, they aren't teaching you how to get off the ground in the fastest way possible.
And that's garbage. The only thing you can say is that, if they aren't teaching ground fighting, they aren't teaching ground fighting. For the record, I don't really teach ground fighting either... tactically, I just don't agree with it at all. I do teach ground escapes, reversals of position, and defence, but that's about it. Very, very occasionally I'll go through some methods of holding someone down/pin/lock them up on the ground... but really nothing like what I learnt in BJJ.
The point is you can always get someone to the ground. Every movement someone does potentially takes them off balance, which is why people who train to never get taken down, still get taken down.
"Always" is a dangerous word to use...
As I've often said, the ground is the place where the worse things take place. If the fight remains standing, you're generally okay. You can always disengage and walk/run away if your standing.
Hmm, no, not sure that I'd agree that the ground is the place where the worse (worst?) things take place... not by a long shot. The other two sentences are simply dripping with ignorance...
If someone wants to really hurt you, they will try to take YOU to the ground and control you. The ground is where people's heads are caved in, people are choked to death, people are stomped, women are raped, etc. Which is why its a good thing to know what to do if/when that happens. That's also the point I was making to Kframe. Standing up is no big deal. The ground is where you really want to know how to fight.
The only one I would agree with is the "where women are raped" (although, not necessarily true either...), the rest, no. Your point to Kframe is based in a heavy bias and believing in propaganda, without really understanding the realities that you're discussing.
I realize it's tough fighting two or threes battles at once, but my post wasn't about BJJ being integrated into Ninjutsu (that's the other guy who is trying to hit you in the back of the head while I'm trying to take you to the ground!). That post of mine was in regards to you not mentioning Scott when you mentioned Ninjitsu stepping up early on in NHB, and then also in regards to your somewhat anti grappling stance (I know your not anti) in stating the only ground fighting you teach is to get back up. So I was just showing that yes two (somewhat) Ninjitsu guys fought early testing that art and mostly won via ground fighting.
You misunderstood. I was picking you up on your comments that, when presented with someone with a Ninjutsu (not "ninjitsu") background, he won via submission (in capitals, no less), implying that he was using BJJ. I pointed out that Japanese arts are grappling based (not groundfighting, grappling... there is a major difference between the two), so it's not surprising that he'd have that in his skill set, and it meant nothing in regards to the "superiority of BJJ".
yeah I'm picking up on that, was just curious to me that you left him out and added Jennum in when making your point.
Actually, I don't think I mentioned anyone by name... mainly as I don't really care about the UFC, early or current, as the early ones were little more than barely disguised advertisements for the Gracies and publicity stunts, and the current/modern form is an approach I have no interest in as it is completely removed from my needs with regards to martial arts, and I couldn't remember them. Once you mentioned them, they came back, but at the time, couldn't for the life of me bring them to the fore of my memory.
I suggest you learn to wrestle. I know that's not easy for a grown up, but defending a takedown and getting back up from a takedown is key. Wrestling or Judo tbh!
This I agree with.
Honestly Gjj would be better than Judo if your goal is to wrestle. Judo is too gi-dependent. Most Bjj/Gjj schools cross train with wrestling constantly. There's also no gi, which is mechanically very similar to wrestling.
This is more mindless peddling of an agenda.
It's potato/pototo tbh. If you don't want to go to the ground wrestling is best, if you don't want to go to the ground but want to be able to throw your opponent there then Judo IMO. If you want to know how to fight on the ground then BJJ.
And I agree with this again.
All valid points!
Now take into consideration the percentage of actually "trained" fighters you are going to meet up with in the street vs. How trained your opponent is across from you in that cage.
Now take into consideration the willingness to continue the fight after you show the guy/guys in the street you know how to defend yourself and hurt them compared to your opponents in a cages willingness to continue to fight.
Yes the street is very unpredictable and dangerous, etc. But not for the most part. I've been in countless street fights, 1/1, group fights, outnumbered, bars, weapons, jumped, etc. And honestly it isn't as bad as you make out to be. Most people in the street like to act tough as long as things are going there way, and honestly most are to scared to actually jump in.
Either way, my point being don't discredit the dangers or seriousness of the cage.
Look, to be frank, this is a completely flawed argument. The idea that trained fighters, in a controlled, professional (or, at least, monitored and controlled) environment are more dangerous is patently incorrect in the first place.. it's going to be a much safer situation, as the other guy isn't trying to injure, maim, kill, or otherwise seriously mess you up... he's trying to win a match. If he can do that with a submission, he will... but he won't aim to break your arm with it. It might happen, but more likely if you don't follow the procedures and tap, rather than just because the other guy's dangerous. Similarly, if he can win with a knockout, he will... but he won't continue to stomp your head once your out. Will he be skilled? Sure! Does that make him dangerous? In his context, yep. But, in that context of a professional fight, he's not going to jeopardise his livelihood on over-aggressively injuring people.
From there, we get to the great fallacy of "the street". Too often I see it described as it is here... as if there is one type of "street", and one type of "street assault"... there are many, many forms. Broadly speaking, there is social and asocial violence... they have their own set of rules and traits... and it looks like you've primarily only really encountered the social form (which, frankly, is often the safer of the two broad groups, but shouldn't be mistaken as the only one).
Aha!:jaw-dropping: "fall back on"!?!?!?!?!? This must be some type of subconscious slip, but it only proves the grapplers art is the best art, because to "fall back" would by definition, imply to.......
1. To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.
2. To drop oneself to a lower or less erect position:
3.
a. To lose an upright or erect position suddenly.
b. To drop wounded or dead, especially in battle.
Thus you are now on the ground!!
And......
THE GROUND IS THE OCEAN. IM THE SHARK AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWIM!
I rest my case, lock this thread up and let's move on people, my work here is done!!!!!! :rules:
You rest your case? On a misreading of someone's comments, leading to a false association, and a cliche that doesn't even work? Leaving off the fact that you've provided a definition for the wrong thing, I'll just say this:
The ground is not the ocean.
You're not a shark.
Some people carry harpoons.
May be, but this doesn't make the skills you use in the cage any less effective and it also is a great way to prove if certain moves work or not, yes even in your "ultra dangerous" world.
I mean look at Loyoto Machida! Footwork, avoidance, pinpoint striking, great takedown D and a knowledge of ground fighting has been proven effective by him.
No, that's a false assessment. "Moves" that "work" in the cage (in an MMA match) only proves that they have the ability to work in an MMA match... nothing else. Machida has simply proven that what he does can work there. That's not taking anything away from him, it's not even saying that such things can't work outside of an MMA match, but to say that it proves something it's not even trying to is stretching things a bit far.
You missed my point. Even the most balanced people can and will get taken down. The IJF banning the Morote Gari is just one example.
On a side note, I wish Judo was more open to MMA influence. Bjj and MMA are already mining Judo for throws to change up the stand up game, and you're starting to see Bjj and Wrestling's transition speed being applied to Judo with no gi applications. Its creating a nasty combination that's going to change grappling, MMA, and martial arts in general once it takes hold.
Here's one example;
DLT fail to Harai Goshi.
Brings a tear to my eye.
That is plainly awful. Simply standing up from a sprawl like that? Really? Looks to me that that would only really be possible if the other guy let you up... and the throw is too muscled, poorly positioned, has a desperate lack of balance, and he's lucky not to land badly himself. But, more than anything else, this entire sequence looks like it's only real chance at working is if the guy you were trying it on didn't do anything to prevent it, as seen here.
To deal with your side note, though, get over yourself. Judo is Judo, not MMA, not BJJ. Wanting Judo to not be Judo because you think you've found something "better" is arrogant, misguided, and plainly disrespectful of what Judo is.
I respect Kano's vision, but clearly grappling and newaza was taking hold in competitive Judo. Kano decided to curb that, and reinforce the throwing techniques. If he hadn't done that, modern Judo would probably more closely resemble Gjj/Bjj.
How the hell can you say you respect Kano's vision, then follow it by saying you wish Judo wasn't following it?
Spinedoc, you've greatly misunderstood my posts if you believe that I want everyone to train in Bjj.
What I'd like to see is more Judo dojos shake off the IJF B.S. and adapt more to the changing landscape of modern grappling.
As for other arts like Karate, Ninjutsu, and Kung Fu, the practitioners of those styles can do whatever the heck they want.
You might not like this, but there is no need for any art to change to be like any other. Each art has it's own context... just because an art is unarmed doesn't mean it's automatically for the same context as other unarmed arts... nor does it mean that it's supposed to be about self defence at all (despite the marketing rhetoric).
Yeah, that's what I mean. It should be done 2-3 times a week at least, and inside the dojo. Not outside every few months when you guys want to prove a point. Its should be a consistent part of your learning, like it is in Bjj.
That's just my opinion though.
The gi-based throws sure are pretty;
However, its amazing how many throws must be eliminated w/o the gi. That's part of the reason Bjj resorted to more wrestling takedowns and throws in its evolution.
Hmm, my version of Tai Otoshi is a bit nastier than that... maybe not so pretty, though! As for the rest, who the hell are you to say how any other art should practice anything? Seriously, I want an answer to that. Who on earth are you to think you have better answers when you don't even know what the aim/emphasis of another art is? Do you think I should train ground fighting without a go 2-3 times a week? Cause, if the answer is yes, you have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.
Is anyone trying to say you should grapple a guy with a knife?
HELL, YES! There are several key elements to knife defense, one is to stay out of range (good luck), another is to fight with a superior weapon (sword vs knife, etc.), but a third, and absolutely STANDARD for unarmed defense against a knife, is to capture and control the weapon bearing limb. Another word for "capture and control" is "grapple." Yes, it might, or might not, involve striking, either as setup, distraction, finish, or something in between, but "capture and control" is one of the paramount components.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Kirk has replied with precisely what I would say... other than to clarify (again!) that grappling does not, and has not ever, mean "ground fighting". Other than that, what Kirk said! Whenever we study knife defence, we almost exclusively focus on controlling the weapon arm. I often point out to my guys that, once a weapons involved, there are three possible scenarios... they have control of the weapon; you have control of the weapon; no-one has control of the weapon. The first one is to be avoided as much as possible, the third one still has some danger (depending on who can get to it first), the second one is the only safe approach... and it's not possible without grappling (capture and control).
Whoa. Hold on. There is a difference between saying that intentionally fighting on the ground is a bad idea in self defence, and saying that it is a joke. I start to take things personally when you call my style a joke. Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble? I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers. Agreed. But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble. The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.
To be fair, it wasn't the multiple opponent's video that was labeled a "joke", it was the knife defence one... and, reading through the comments on the clip (I didn't have sound on), they seemed to agree. There were comments such as "You know, someone's going to think you're serious here", "very funny!", and so on... while the group attack one was plainly a joke clip, the knife defence one seems to have been intended as one as well. If not, well... perhaps it should have been. As far as "any style against multiple attackers", you know, I'd be putting my money on my own system, if it came to it... trouble? Sure. It's not a high-return situation. But not the in the way you're seeming to imply here.
For a bunch of guys complaining that the thread has drifted to become focused on BJJ, you guys seem to be going out of your way to focus on BJJ. How it became BJJ vs Judo, I don't know. But, the fact is, both are "sports" and both are "traditional martial arts." In my opinion, this should more properly be a conversation about the pros/cons of styles like BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Kyokushin Karate and TKD as opposed to styles with zero sport elements, such as Taijutsu, jujutsu, Goju Ryu or any number of styles.
Hell, let's talk pros and cons of san shou vs wing chun.
Style versus style isn't the way to go. Training methods versus training methods, on the other hand, could be a better idea.
Frankly, I don't think most people here think it's a joke. What I was getting at is that the rhetoric tends to creep toward the extreme, until people are caught writing things that don't accurately represent their opinion. I'd be much more interested in a discussion about the merits of sport and competition.
I think san shou is great to watch, and the guys who compete seem to have a well rounded striking game. Do any of the CMA guys here have any problems with it? Do you think it teaches bad habits? Good habits?
What about shuai jiao? Good? Bad? Is there a way to develop the skills without competition? Does anyone think that cross training with Judo would be beneficial? What about with arts that are NOT sport oriented?
Again, stylistic conversations will miss the actual point, I feel, which would be much more in line with your concept of "a discussion about the merits of sport and competition".
Well, let's do it then! I think some of the main things are obvious, ie: the conditioning, the training methods, etc. When a sport fighter learns something, they use what Matt T. calls the "I Method". I think that some non sporting arts, tend to not be as 'alive', for lack of better words, with the way certain things are trained. I may be wrong in saying that, but I'm just going on what I've see in my area.
The biggest problem I have with Matt and his "alive" mantra (and his "I Method", when it comes to that) is that it's really nothing new... in fact, I'd class it as new language (marketing speak) for a base-level, overly simplified, and unsophisticated approach to what's been done for centuries. His rhetoric against traditional systems comes largely from not recognizing their actual training methodology (by and large, a lot of it fits with his ideas, just in a more sophisticated and, bluntly, efficient manner).
You mentioned x-training Judo. I'm all for training any ground based art. Of course, nothing says that one has to devote years and years learning the ins and outs, which is fine of course, but at the very least, learn some basics. It just may save your life. And nothing says that methods from each (sport and TMA) can't be geared for each other.
Hmm, that wouldn't be my reason for training Judo... it'd be more to do with the comfort of being that close to an opponent more than anything else. Of course, there's a lot more I like about Judo, but that'd be the bigger benefit I'd see from cross-training in it.
Can skills be developed w/o training? I'd say yes. Sparring in/out of class with training partners, and just testing yourself in general. For example...lets say that I wanted to pressure test one of the stick disarms from Arnis. Start off slow and gradually build up more and more speed and resistance, until your training partner is swinging with the intent that he's really trying to whack you in the head, the arm, the leg, etc. That's a great way to see what works and what doesn't. Funny how when the speed is kicked up a bit, certain things go out the window..lol. Of course, safety should also be present. A padded stick, eye protection, etc. can all be used.
I'd say skills (specific, deliberate skill-sets and methods) can be developed/trained far more effectively and efficiently without competition, or sparring by and large.
Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound. While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable. I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it. There's room for kata and drills.
I agree with pretty much this entire statement, Steve... but, uh... why would you think that kata aren't "alive"? Same with drills, for that matter?
This really depends upon one's goals in training. Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense. I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context. In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you. I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply. I don't get into fights. As I said earlier, I am boring. I don't drink to excess. I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang. I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.
If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.
I don't know that I'd call it questionable... I'd equate it to training a pilot to do an emergency crash, or doing first aid and CPR training, really. Are you going to need to use it every week? I'd seriously hope not! But it doesn't mean it's questionable having it as a training method.
For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application. Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.
Except... that's only for sporting context, Steve. I'm not arguing about the benefits you're mentioning (keeping focused etc), but mistaking one context for another doesn't really help things.
As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this. There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport. My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS." Yeah? Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly. Are you? If you've never done it, how do you know?
Well, I have "done it for real"... but that's not the point. We've covered this before, mate, and you simply wouldn't listen to anything you were told. But, to try to cover it quickly, scenario training and drilling, proper understanding of reality and actual violence, a good frame of reference and ability to differentiate good from questionable, being able to understand the context you're training for (and sticking to that), and so on.
Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass. He does the same armbar technique I do. Am I a badass? I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass. And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close. Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique. The technique is sound. It is effective. The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?
You don't think that the technique makes the badass, though, right?
And how can one answer that question? By executing technique in context. Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde? I don't know. Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict? I don't know. I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.
Yeah... you're really focusing on the wrong thing entirely. It's not the techniques, it's the methodology, and everything that surrounds it.
Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways? Yes. I know that I can. Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy? Yes. I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.
You keep mentioning context, but at the same time are denying the actual context you're trying to address. Hmm.
