For what it's worth, MMA schools are booming, BJJ is not.
:asian:
Sport And TMA....Again
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
:asian:
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Sorry Toots. I thought a little brevity might be appreciated. I have already said twice, BJJ is no big deal in Australia .. Fact.
I spoke of two dojos that closed in the past 6 months, one in the dojo where I train and one just around the corner from where I live. Both because they had too few students and where I train they even left without paying their rent. I wasn't going to post it again so I was just agreeing with you. And I agree with you also .... this thread is hopeless!
Lets say I am a world class classical pianist (which I an not). I see there is a challenge to find the best piano player in the world so I decide to sign up. When they send me the information I find that the organiser has made it a condition of competition that you can't use the black keys. Now this guy actually developed a style of piano playing where you only use the white keys, so he has a bit of an advantage. Why would I want to continue with the competition? I can play my piano properly anywhere I like as it is and I don't have to worry about changing my whole method of playing.
:asian:
Did you seriously call me toots?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
It may well do. I don't know. I do know that some TKD people end up with black belts in about three years and one of my mates who is one of Australia's top martial artists took 10 years to achieve his BJJ black. Go figure! It takes a long time, more than five years, to get your Aikido black belt and at that stage you are still a way to go. I would have thought that might put it on a par with BJJ in terms of competency. The difference is BJJ obviously has some skills that you can utilise sooner.
As to your comment about the Aikido schools being garbage, I don't know. I do know that I have come across a number of Aikidoka who wouldn't know their *** from their elbow, but I have seen the same from other MAs as well. Then if I was asked who is the most proficient martial artist I have met ... he is Aikidoka.
:asian:
Hanzou, do you have any older guys in your school. I have one guy in my class who joined two years ago at age 65. He is still training. What would competition do for him? You need to accept that a lot of people are not suited to competition. My last tournament I was 58 and fighting guys up to 40 years younger. Big deal. In hindsight competition wasted years of my training life.
:asian:
I did and I'm sorry if it causes offence in the US. Here it is just friendly banter.
In case this was missed.
Hanzou
Grandmaster
Well again, in Bjj a purple is considered high enough to teach a class. A Bjj purple is equivalent of black in a lot of styles.
I do feel that TKD is easier to learn than Bjj. Fighting on the ground is definitely a different style of fighting than most people are used to.
Well, in that case I was talking more about old-school Aikidoka getting ticked off at how modern Aikido students are being taught. But yeah, I agree that if you can pull off what Seagal was doing in that Randori video, I would consider that to be a pretty impressive martial artist.
Hanzou
Grandmaster
Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.
No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve.
:asian:
Hanzou
Grandmaster
Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.
Mate, you are like a cracked record. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. For God's sake give us a break. We have our opinion too and it just happens to be different to yours. We know your opinion, you don't have to keep beating the drum!
:asian:
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Okay, I'm going to break this into two conversations here... first, Hanzou and TFP...
Self defence training is about high-return, high likelihood situations and tactics/methods. A single account of an action having an effective result once doesn't qualify as an advisable approach to the situation. It's the same as high kicks to the head... sure, they can work, but they're just not advisable in self defence training.
Yes, that's more like it... but did you understand what you were watching?
Oh, and I don't think we've met properly yet... you really, really don't need to show me contrasting methods. Frankly, the Aikido one was far more impressive, especially from a self defence perspective (although neither art really was showing self defence there). Remember, I have a background that includes some informal and formal Aikido instruction, as well as time in BJJ, and a hell of a lot more besides.
And I'd disagree with them. The issue is that the question is far too vague to really be answered that categorically... I mean, it depends on how the art is taught and trained, more than the art itself. But the real point is that I was talking about a relative skill level, separate from the rank (which is always arbitrary, and relevant only to the art it's applied to) that was roughly equal. So, uh... no.
No kidding.
Here's a clue: The US Military incorporated some BJJ into their training methods which are severely limited and curtailed by the very equipment the soldiers would be carrying. The reasons that BJJ was brought in was nothing to do with any of their soldiers using it in any actual, real, genuine combat. Have you figured out the actual reasons?
There is no ground fighting in Ninjutsu. None. Bob and his guys were always doing their own thing (there's also no high-kicks in Ninjutsu, but Bob's guys used them a lot... why? Because Bob taught an eclectic mix of a number of things, including Ninjutsu, and his first art, a form of TKD, as well as constantly exploring and studying all other areas of combat they could), I'm not saying that there wasn't any in RBWI, I'm saying that the traditional systems that make up the Ninjutsu schools syllabus doesn't actually contain any ne waza. The closest they have is some kime waza and osai komi (pinning techniques) and suwari waza (seated/kneeling techniques). I'm also saying that people like Steve and Scot being able to apply locks and chokes on the ground isn't a huge alteration from our actual training and application of them standing (which is how they are presented in our art).
Grappling is not ground fighting. There is no ground fighting in the systems taught in Ninjutsu. Do a number of instructors create ground fighting approaches out of the methods we have? Yep. Have some also studied things like BJJ, and explored that in their approach to their Ninjutsu? Yep, I've said that as well.
Here's a challenge for you, though. You seem to be trying to tell me what my art has in it, can you cite some examples of ground fighting in Ninjutsu? I'm going to need kata names, ryu-ha, sections... you don't have to demonstrate what makes it "ninjutsu" ground fighting, just find some actual examples.
Actually, yes. That's a very crude one, of course, but yes, that, and much, much more. Simply by agreeing to meet in a place and fight implies rules... hell, there's rules even when there isn't such an agreement. True "no rules" fighting doesn't actually happen... if you can't see (or follow) the difference between an absence of rules and an absence of restrictions (which is really what the UFC were in the beginning), you're not going to do well for the rest of my comments...
How was it geared towards grapplers? In a number of ways, actually... first was the rules. The lack of time limits or rounds played into a longer strategy. Next was the lack of referee interference (the fighters wouldn't be broken up for lack of action, as later happened in order to make the fights more "exciting"), also allowing the art of attrition that was brought up earlier. The only banned actions were ones that would only be applied against a grappling opponent, of course (not that fish-hooking would result in immediate defeat of the grappler, but it is interesting that that was not allowed, whereas striking the throat or groin was fine...). Beyond the rules, was the environment. A number of fighters afterwards (particularly those from striking-based arts) mentioned that the floor was a lot softer than they were used to... which invites going to the ground, as you're not about to break your knees in a bad fall, but, more importantly, robbed the strikers of their usual speed and power. The surrounding cage allowed grappling competitors more handholds and grips, providing leverage which wasn't really any help to the strikers (seriously, they needed a cage?). Then, of course, was the selection of the competitors. Very grappler friendly, and, more specifically, ground fighting friendly. Really, why would there have been any surprise that Royce won?
It's interesting to note that the surface has become a lot more solid (still padded, and a little slow, but faster than it used to be), there's been an instigation of time limits and rounds, attrition isn't encouraged anymore, there are more restrictions on what can be done, and so on...
As far as "please explain how grappling is not ground work?", seriously? Maybe read a dictionary? Grappling means "to seize or hold"... it is taken from the English term "grapnel", a device to take hold of a wall. It has nothing to do with if you're standing, sitting, lying down, swimming, or flying through the air. The fact that it has come to refer to ground work in the MMA world has no real meaning here. In real terms, I'm a grappler. I don't do ground work.
See above.
And again.
You really want me to say it? Okay, yes. Gracie JiuJitsu, despite all accounts and claims, is not a self defence art. If it's meant to be, it's missed the boat incredibly badly. In my time in BJJ I saw absolutely nothing that I would consider viable, or appropriate self defence teachings... training in a seminar with Royce just solidified that for me, really. To me, BJJ really is a watered down sporting version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sporting version of actual martial arts. It's fantastic in it's specialisation, but it's specialisation isn't anything to do with self defence.
As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.
There's a big difference between what something is said to be, and what it actually is... no matter who, or how many, are saying it.
No, you really don't. Tell you what, can you explain to me the two major categories of violence that could be encountered in a self defence altercation, and the types of violence (and attacker/s) that might present you with? Can you explain what a self defence system actually is?
The "legit challenge" was little more than another publicity stunt.
It's sport. It's a contest. A game, really. And no, it's not "as real as it gets", nor is it anywhere close to serious enough for me. And if you think that the UFC, or MMA is "actually fighting" in anything other than a controlled, sporting environment, then yeah, you're incredibly off base.
No, I didn't ignore them. I gave them the proper relevance. There's a difference.
But, frankly, "testing things in the cage" doesn't relate at all to self defence. At all. Not one bit. But, I suppose we haven't met properly yet either... me not looking at the history of something is quite a funny idea. Get back to me with an understanding of self defence, and you might be able to talk. I already know your context... can you get a handle on mine?
Ha, sure.... "could be"...
No. And I wouldn't be so strong in your defence, as you're also stating later that "hey, it's just a theory". Here's some insight for you... your theory is wrong.
BJJ can be incredibly technical, it is often described as "physical chess", showing that it focuses on longer-term strategy to employ it's technical methods, and, having experience with both, I would say that no, Aikido isn't harder to learn than BJJ is... nor is BJJ harder to learn than Aikido is. Both require a different approach, certainly... but that's not on a scale. As far as the ideas of "real Aikido" of the old days versus now... that type of comment I have seen levelled at pretty much every art that's old enough. Watch, you'll see it applied to BJJ in the next decade or two.... When it comes to Segal's randori... when I believe you know what you're watching, I'll listen to your comments. Answering my questions above will go a long way towards that.
This question I like, and I feel is largely at the heart of the intention of the thread!
Ha, oh, that was funny... "simpler and more practical"? BJJ? Really? Wow, we must have trained in very different arts...
As far as the idea of competition being how to "learn the technique, then apply it at full force" (really? Full force? I seriously doubt that... if you did, you'd have no training partners the next class, they'd all be recovering from broken arms and the like... or you would be yourself), do you really think that non-competitive arts don't do that? Or that competitive methods are the only, or even the best way to achieve such training?
No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...
Self defence training is about high-return, high likelihood situations and tactics/methods. A single account of an action having an effective result once doesn't qualify as an advisable approach to the situation. It's the same as high kicks to the head... sure, they can work, but they're just not advisable in self defence training.
Yes, that's more like it... but did you understand what you were watching?
Oh, and I don't think we've met properly yet... you really, really don't need to show me contrasting methods. Frankly, the Aikido one was far more impressive, especially from a self defence perspective (although neither art really was showing self defence there). Remember, I have a background that includes some informal and formal Aikido instruction, as well as time in BJJ, and a hell of a lot more besides.
And I'd disagree with them. The issue is that the question is far too vague to really be answered that categorically... I mean, it depends on how the art is taught and trained, more than the art itself. But the real point is that I was talking about a relative skill level, separate from the rank (which is always arbitrary, and relevant only to the art it's applied to) that was roughly equal. So, uh... no.
No kidding.
Here's a clue: The US Military incorporated some BJJ into their training methods which are severely limited and curtailed by the very equipment the soldiers would be carrying. The reasons that BJJ was brought in was nothing to do with any of their soldiers using it in any actual, real, genuine combat. Have you figured out the actual reasons?
There is no ground fighting in Ninjutsu. None. Bob and his guys were always doing their own thing (there's also no high-kicks in Ninjutsu, but Bob's guys used them a lot... why? Because Bob taught an eclectic mix of a number of things, including Ninjutsu, and his first art, a form of TKD, as well as constantly exploring and studying all other areas of combat they could), I'm not saying that there wasn't any in RBWI, I'm saying that the traditional systems that make up the Ninjutsu schools syllabus doesn't actually contain any ne waza. The closest they have is some kime waza and osai komi (pinning techniques) and suwari waza (seated/kneeling techniques). I'm also saying that people like Steve and Scot being able to apply locks and chokes on the ground isn't a huge alteration from our actual training and application of them standing (which is how they are presented in our art).
Grappling is not ground fighting. There is no ground fighting in the systems taught in Ninjutsu. Do a number of instructors create ground fighting approaches out of the methods we have? Yep. Have some also studied things like BJJ, and explored that in their approach to their Ninjutsu? Yep, I've said that as well.
Here's a challenge for you, though. You seem to be trying to tell me what my art has in it, can you cite some examples of ground fighting in Ninjutsu? I'm going to need kata names, ryu-ha, sections... you don't have to demonstrate what makes it "ninjutsu" ground fighting, just find some actual examples.
Actually, yes. That's a very crude one, of course, but yes, that, and much, much more. Simply by agreeing to meet in a place and fight implies rules... hell, there's rules even when there isn't such an agreement. True "no rules" fighting doesn't actually happen... if you can't see (or follow) the difference between an absence of rules and an absence of restrictions (which is really what the UFC were in the beginning), you're not going to do well for the rest of my comments...
How was it geared towards grapplers? In a number of ways, actually... first was the rules. The lack of time limits or rounds played into a longer strategy. Next was the lack of referee interference (the fighters wouldn't be broken up for lack of action, as later happened in order to make the fights more "exciting"), also allowing the art of attrition that was brought up earlier. The only banned actions were ones that would only be applied against a grappling opponent, of course (not that fish-hooking would result in immediate defeat of the grappler, but it is interesting that that was not allowed, whereas striking the throat or groin was fine...). Beyond the rules, was the environment. A number of fighters afterwards (particularly those from striking-based arts) mentioned that the floor was a lot softer than they were used to... which invites going to the ground, as you're not about to break your knees in a bad fall, but, more importantly, robbed the strikers of their usual speed and power. The surrounding cage allowed grappling competitors more handholds and grips, providing leverage which wasn't really any help to the strikers (seriously, they needed a cage?). Then, of course, was the selection of the competitors. Very grappler friendly, and, more specifically, ground fighting friendly. Really, why would there have been any surprise that Royce won?
It's interesting to note that the surface has become a lot more solid (still padded, and a little slow, but faster than it used to be), there's been an instigation of time limits and rounds, attrition isn't encouraged anymore, there are more restrictions on what can be done, and so on...
As far as "please explain how grappling is not ground work?", seriously? Maybe read a dictionary? Grappling means "to seize or hold"... it is taken from the English term "grapnel", a device to take hold of a wall. It has nothing to do with if you're standing, sitting, lying down, swimming, or flying through the air. The fact that it has come to refer to ground work in the MMA world has no real meaning here. In real terms, I'm a grappler. I don't do ground work.
See above.
And again.
You really want me to say it? Okay, yes. Gracie JiuJitsu, despite all accounts and claims, is not a self defence art. If it's meant to be, it's missed the boat incredibly badly. In my time in BJJ I saw absolutely nothing that I would consider viable, or appropriate self defence teachings... training in a seminar with Royce just solidified that for me, really. To me, BJJ really is a watered down sporting version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sporting version of actual martial arts. It's fantastic in it's specialisation, but it's specialisation isn't anything to do with self defence.
As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.
There's a big difference between what something is said to be, and what it actually is... no matter who, or how many, are saying it.
No, you really don't. Tell you what, can you explain to me the two major categories of violence that could be encountered in a self defence altercation, and the types of violence (and attacker/s) that might present you with? Can you explain what a self defence system actually is?
The "legit challenge" was little more than another publicity stunt.
It's sport. It's a contest. A game, really. And no, it's not "as real as it gets", nor is it anywhere close to serious enough for me. And if you think that the UFC, or MMA is "actually fighting" in anything other than a controlled, sporting environment, then yeah, you're incredibly off base.
No, I didn't ignore them. I gave them the proper relevance. There's a difference.
But, frankly, "testing things in the cage" doesn't relate at all to self defence. At all. Not one bit. But, I suppose we haven't met properly yet either... me not looking at the history of something is quite a funny idea. Get back to me with an understanding of self defence, and you might be able to talk. I already know your context... can you get a handle on mine?
Ha, sure.... "could be"...
No. And I wouldn't be so strong in your defence, as you're also stating later that "hey, it's just a theory". Here's some insight for you... your theory is wrong.
BJJ can be incredibly technical, it is often described as "physical chess", showing that it focuses on longer-term strategy to employ it's technical methods, and, having experience with both, I would say that no, Aikido isn't harder to learn than BJJ is... nor is BJJ harder to learn than Aikido is. Both require a different approach, certainly... but that's not on a scale. As far as the ideas of "real Aikido" of the old days versus now... that type of comment I have seen levelled at pretty much every art that's old enough. Watch, you'll see it applied to BJJ in the next decade or two.... When it comes to Segal's randori... when I believe you know what you're watching, I'll listen to your comments. Answering my questions above will go a long way towards that.
This question I like, and I feel is largely at the heart of the intention of the thread!
Ha, oh, that was funny... "simpler and more practical"? BJJ? Really? Wow, we must have trained in very different arts...
As far as the idea of competition being how to "learn the technique, then apply it at full force" (really? Full force? I seriously doubt that... if you did, you'd have no training partners the next class, they'd all be recovering from broken arms and the like... or you would be yourself), do you really think that non-competitive arts don't do that? Or that competitive methods are the only, or even the best way to achieve such training?
No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it.
It's the way the thread went, Steve. This isn't the BJJ thread... some of us didn't come here to discuss BJJ, but that's where the conversation has gone. Like yourself (and Boar Man, and a few others), I tried to deal specifically with the topic itself... and it got lost in the mix. Honestly, we're not the ones pre-occupied... it's just become the nexus for the conversation, as it represents sporting approaches in broad terms (even aside from the specific "BJJ is the only real combat art!" style posts).
Sure. Although, honestly, I wouldn't say they "train to the test", as, well, they don't. They train to the application. Testing really isn't a part of it, when looked at accurately, as that would mean that you train in order to test whether or not boxing works... in a boxing ring, in a boxing match, under boxing rules, in a boxing context. You don't. You train to be able to apply the skill of boxing in a boxing ring/match/context. That could be seen as testing yourself (and your abilities) in such a context, but that's all. And really, non-sporting arts do exactly the same thing, just differently. We train to the skill.
As far as your last comment there ("The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand"), well, yes. That's kinda what we've been saying. And we've been saying that that context is not self defence or real world application. It's a sporting contest. Having that context clear and easily understood sounds fine... but the nuances seem to be being missed. Sports ability does not equal combat or defensive ability. Nor does self defence training equal applicable skills in competition.
That's true, but it's only a part of the entire equation. Realistically, focusing on competition at all can be detrimental. When training in something (martial arts), it's vital to have a clear goal in mind, and to have everything you do geared towards that goal. You need to only focus on that single approach and methodology... anything else takes time away, removes you from doing what you're needing to do, and can very easily counter-man otherwise good work you may have been doing. The clearer you are in what you're doing, and why, the more powerful the training will be. Otherwise, it's two steps forwards, one step back.
It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style. However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense. What if he has a knife? What if he has a friend? What would I do if this happens or that happens?
This is actually a good example of the split focus I was talking about, and why introducing sport into an art whose context is quite divorced from it can be the end of (that arts) world. Really, it can only benefit the art if it is done in a way that keeps the system moving towards the intended goal the art has... otherwise, two steps forward, one back... I mean, why would you spend time training in things that don't fit what you're supposed to be training for?
If your aim is to be able to "hang" with skilled opponents, sure. Self defence actually isn't really concerned with that at all, as it's not likely, high return, practical, or realistic. So again, it depends on the context and aims of the training.
Well rounded is one thing... but, again, being geared towards a particular focus (whether sports, self defence, duelling, battlefield application, or whatever) won't really lead you towards being "well rounded"... I mean, I train with some two dozen or so primary weapons, I train striking, evasion, throws, locks, chokes, traditional movement and modern application and self defence methods, and far more... I have a background that includes everything from the most traditional of traditional systems, to arts that were designed purely to win tournaments, to no BS self defence systems, unarmed, armed, standing, ground, group, security, military, and more... and I aim to not be "well rounded". I aim to be skilled in my context, with everything I do geared towards my aims.
I disagree completely. It's absolutely possible to become an expert in self defence... but you have to work towards that context specifically. Again, well rounded just isn't the way.
Yeah, I know John's schools... great guy, good solid head on his shoulders. I don't always agree with what he writes, but he's generally got a good approach. Of course, John is basically the most well-known BJJ instructor in Australia, and a frequent writer in magazines here... but his schools doing well doesn't mean that BJJ as a whole is making much of a splash here. It's certainly got it's place, but it's lost it's sheen of "the new thing", and is settling like many other arts around. As ever, it's arts like TKD that are probably the most "dominant" (in terms of market penetration) here.
Hey, I was getting to it...!
I agree with this (well, it's Rory Miller, he's hard to disagree with... ha!), but I would still say that it's more than possible to become a self defence expert. Catch is, of course, that not everyone who claims to be one, or even to be an instructor, actually is.
Yep, self defence is a broad topic, with quite a lot to cover, but at the same time, you can be an expert at it, commonly in a particular area or focus. I also wouldn't necessarily class bouncing, security, body-guarding, being an LEO, or anything similar as actually self defence... they're high risk, high likelihood of getting into physical altercations, but that's something quite different and separate, really.
By the same token, even if you've applied a technique in a sporting contest, that also doesn't mean you know if it will work (for you) in a self defence situation... or if you could pull it off. As a result, the sporting approach suddenly loses it's reason for claiming to have superior applicability. Here's the thing, though... in a self defence class, you learn the methods in a self defence context, you train them in a self defence context, you apply them in a self defence context, and you test them in a self defence context. Is it a real attack on the street? No, it's a training exercise... but it's a hell of a lot closer than a sporting competition is.
Knowing you can pull off a particular technique in a sporting context, though, doesn't teach you anything about your ability to pull it off elsewhere. And, if it is, as suggested, not a good idea for self defence, what does it matter if you can pull it off in competition? It's a very false security being relied upon, I feel.
Hmm. No. If it focuses on competition, it's a sports art. If it doesn't focus on competition, but tries to have them anyway, it's a mess. And BJJ is a sports art. It's a traditional one, yes. But it's a sports art nonetheless.
I think the issue is one of emphasis.
Can you elaborate on it, then? Personally, I can't see it being anything other than a longer path to less skill.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
No, it's not. It's equivalent to purple in BJJ. That's it.
To emphasise, grades/ranks/belts etc are completely arbitrary. They mean nothing outside of the school who uses them. No rank in any school is the equivalent of any rank in any other school.
This is something I've been thinking about... you've been going on about how BJJ is better than non-sporting systems because of it's sporting methodology, which ensures that everything in the system is practical, realistic, and works... therefore, it's the best fighting style around. What about TKD, then? It's a dominantly sporting system, but it gets railed on for being ineffective and unrealistic. So, uh... which is it? Sporting methods makes it effective, or not?
Again, you really need to know what the aims and construction of that randori was...
In sports, son. Nothing else.
I know you're not addressing this to me, and I've been away from this party for a few days, but I'll toss in my .02 on this. For me, I'd say he's probably talking about a big name fighter. Who knows...perhaps the guys that took the challenge, were big names, I honestly don't know. So, one of the top point fighting Karate guys, a ranked boxer, or kickboxer, etc.
Hanzou
Grandmaster
Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position. It would seem bizarre not to apply the triangle choke or a similar hold in a similar situation.
I understand it just fine. I'm just curious as to why we never see that type of randori being done outside the confines of an Aikido dojo or seminar to non-Aikido practitioners. It reminds me of Masaaki Hatsumi touching people and making them submit in the Honbu, but for some reason neither him, or his students could replicate that effect anywhere else.
Fair enough.
Full force as in full, non-compliant resistance. You don't need to break someone's arm if you're placing the proper pressure on your partners arm, and forcing them to tap. Same thing applies to chokes. Broken limbs and choke outs happening in competitions are testaments to the effectiveness of that training.
Some non-competitive arts don't even spar, much less participate in free sparring/randori at full force.
Last edited:
IIRC, there was a Black Belt magazine article about Boztepe and the challenge. I might be wrong, but if memory serves right, there was some sort of dispute with the setting up of the match. Both sides I believe, wanted specific conditions, and neither side would budge. Was this a ploy to avoid a fight? Don't know, but personally, I'd have loved to have seen it go down!
As Steve said....that is if the person actually wants to go to he ground in a SD situation. Just because someone does BJJ, does that mean that they always have to go there? If it does, it implies that they've got no other options, other than that. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it...assess each situation accordingly.
Similar threads
