Sport And TMA....Again

[K-man]

Everything is relative. The implication is that BJJ is not all that popular. BJJ in particular (distinguishing from MMA) is very popular, throughout the world. Is it popular with everyone? Of course not. Is it better than any other art? That's subjective. Certainly better for SOME people, not for others. Is it failing to catch on? Perhaps in a particular town, but to say that it's not all that popular in Australia or not catching on in Europe is demonstrably false. There are terrific schools run by very high level black belts in all parts of the world, including Isreal.

Nobody is saying there aren't good schools. There are and I have a number of mates training there. Compared to other styles of MAs, BJJ is small beer. Nothing to do with quality, just numbers.

But, all of the above aside, who gives a rip? What does it matter? Whether 10 people in the world trained in BJJ or 10 million, how is that relevant to the topic of the thread? What position is being furthered by a discussion of the relative popularity of BJJ that relates to the value of sport and competition in martial arts?

Perhaps you could check with the person who made the claim originally. I only responded to correct an incorrect claim.

For what it's worth, MMA schools are booming, BJJ is not.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

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

 

[seasoned]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Wes Yager (seasoned)
MT Senior Moderator-

 

[K-man]

Well wouldn't that coincide with my argument that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido? I would also argue that many old school Aikidoka say that most Aikido dojos are garbage these days, making it even harder for someone to learn "real" Aikido, and leading many to view Aikido as mainly a spiritual pursuit instead of a martial art.

i must confess, that Steven Segal randori is pretty fantastical (and hysterical).

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:

 

[K-man]

Yes. Your Judo dojo would be a good example. Too much sport can be detrimental, but not enough sport can also be detrimental.

I also believe that Steve is right on point when he says that you end up utilizing what you train for in sport/competitive styles via tournaments and competitions. That aspect also forces the entire school to achieve a certain level of competency.

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:

 

[K-man]

Did you seriously call me toots?

I did and I'm sorry if it causes offence in the US. Here it is just friendly banter.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Wes Yager (seasoned)
MT Senior Moderator-

In case this was missed.

 

[Hanzou]

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.

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.

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:

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]

Na you don't need any sport. Sport can be fun but its not needed. And the only lvl of competency you achieve is set with the rules the competition governing body has set.

Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.

 

[K-man]

Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.

No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve.
:asian:

 

[Hanzou]

No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve.
:asian:

Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.

 

[K-man]

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]

Okay, I'm going to break this into two conversations here... first, Hanzou and TFP...

So are you trying to argue that that example isn't a self defense situation? If that was a legitimate self defense situation then how could you say it wouldn't be advisible in that situation?

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.

Is this more like it?

Bjj Randori for comparison's sake;

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.

Aikidoka disagree...

http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html

http://www.aikidoofelpaso.org/faq.html

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.

I honestly don't understand this.....

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?

I'm stating Scott came in as a Ninjutsu fighter, so yes. If he won by submission then he knew submissions and ground fighting. You are the one who brought up Steve. Plus your post is odd, first you say no ground fighting taught, then say these guys were learning it before the Gracie's were around.

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).

It's interesting because all one would have to do is type Ninjutsu ground fighting into Google and there would seem to be a whole world of people who disagree with you that Ninjutsu dies t have ground fighting or grappling.......

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.

such as? Tell you arnt one of those "well they couldn't stab each other so that's a rule" kinda guys!

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 toward grappling more so than say being in a room and defending yourself is? And please explain how grappling is not ground work?

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.

how exactly was it staked toward the Gracie's? And again, please state these numerous rules you keep suggesting!

See above.

what were they again? These rules?

And again.

Are you saying GJJ isn't a self defense art. Are you saying most martial arts didn't exist to aid in fighting and defending ones self?

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.

I grasp what you're saying, I just agree with you.

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?

yeah, the Gracie's were good at hyperbole and marketing for sure, but this doesn't change the fact that a legit challenge was made, also doesn't change the fact that Benny and his students did infact spar with the Gracie's before this challenge and got tooled.

The "legit challenge" was little more than another publicity stunt.

but Dana White says it "as real as it gets". Lol, not serious enough huh? If actually fighting isn't serious then I guess I'm off base.

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.

well to me the problem is your lack of ability to admit that things testing in the Cage do directly translate to self defense, then your lack of ability to look at the history, the videos of what BJJ practitioners are doing on the street with these moves. I mean I posted plenty of videos of BJJ being used in self defense/street fights, gave plenty of accounts but you just ignore them......

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?

could be.

Ha, sure.... "could be"...

YUP

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.

Well wouldn't that coincide with my argument that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido? I would also argue that many old school Aikidoka say that most Aikido dojos are garbage these days, making it even harder for someone to learn "real" Aikido, and leading many to view Aikido as mainly a spiritual pursuit instead of a martial art.

i must confess, that Steven Segal randori is pretty fantastical (and hysterical).

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.

If you think BJJ is easier to learn than Aikido, why do you think that is? Is it because BJJ techniques are simpler to learn? Is it because of the competitive/sport aspect to BJJ training?

This question I like, and I feel is largely at the heart of the intention of the thread!

Because they're simpler, more practical, and allow a larger margin of error. However, the competitive aspect definitely plays a role, because you're forced into free sparring constantly. You spend time learning the technique, then you spend time applying the technique at full force.

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?

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:

No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...

 

[Chris Parker]

For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it.

LOL... sorry about this. Autocorrect got me last night. I meant who don't train in BJJ.

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).

Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts. They train to the test. In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box. If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling. The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.

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.

Non-competitive arts also have some advantages. The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art. If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition. This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset. For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.

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?

And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful. You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler? Try it. Hook up with some grapplers and find out. Maybe make some friends in the process.

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.

Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.

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.

Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense. It's just not. But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.

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.

Guys, BJJ is doing just fine in Australia and in Europe. John Will, one of the first 12 non-brazilian black belts in BJJ, has several thriving schools in Australia and he is very active within the martial arts (not just BJJ) community. There are lots of great schools in Australia.

Same for Europe. The European open is a HUGE IBJJF event and elite athletes from all over Europe compete.

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.

LOL. So, I post 4 paragraphs on the actual topic at hand, and not one response. I post two sentences on BJJ and get a smart *** comment. This thread is hopeless.

Hey, I was getting to it...!

Excellent point, and I agree completely. Most people who claim to train for self defense will never really put their training to the real test -- and I don't want them to have to! And this is why some silly things persist... I like how Rory Miller has put it: every training exercise has a flaw, especially when you're training for self defense purposes. They have to -- or you won't have playmates. Good training balances those flaws in different exercises, or with careful selection of flaws that are less likely to persist through to real application.

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.

I think it's generally impossible for someone to become an expert in self defense because it so broad a topic and so dependent on the specifics. There are some commonalities across the field -- but lots of differences, too. A bouncer has different concerns that a cop, who has different concerns than a bodyguard, who faces different issues than a simple private person being attacked. Male and female can be radically different (consider that just about every self defense situation for a woman is likely to involve the equivalent of my nightmare opponent... who there's not a lot of chance I'll encounter. There just aren't that many guys out there that much bigger and stronger AND likely to attack me...). And so on... And, if you're not a special kind of stupid, you hopefully won't face enough opportunities to test yourself and distinguis "worked once" from "damn lucky it worked at all" from "works just about every time".... even if you're a cop -- cause if I KNOW I'm going to fight you, I'm stacking the odds and you won't have a chance to fight me.

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.

Sure, but it takes two to tango, ballen. Sure. Something is better than nothing. The key to remember is that if you haven't used the skills and techniques for self defense, you don't know whether they will work... for you. A technique may be perfectly sound, but whether you can rely on it when the **** hits the fan has NOTHING to do with whether or not I can rely on it. The advantage that sport has over non-sport, IMO, is that I know I can execute certain techniques. Whether or not they are a good idea for self defense is a different matter. The tunnel vision is only training within the ruleset. So, yeah. I think it's tunnel vision. Judo training, with a mind toward self defense is, I take it, practical training in your opinion.

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.

As an aside, if a karate style has competitions... guess what? It's not a non-sport art with competitions. It's a sport art in exactly the same way BJJ and other traditional martial arts are "sport" arts.

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.

This is what I was referring to in my previous post. The way you say this makes it sound like it's contrary to what I said above. It's not. This is exactly the point I was making earlier.

I think the issue is one of emphasis.

Yeah. Hanzou touched on it.

Can you elaborate on it, then? Personally, I can't see it being anything other than a longer path to less skill.

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Again, you really need to know what the aims and construction of that randori was...

Sport and competition helps martial arts to evolve.

No. Sport and completion help sport oriented MAs evolve.
:asian:

Fair point. However, that gives sport-oriented MAs a distinct advantage over non-sport MAs.

In sports, son. Nothing else.

 

[MJS]

OK, I'm not trying to be a wanker here, I'm just trying to nail down a definition of what counts as a "legitimate fighter." I'm getting kinda a mish-mash mix of various "Sport Fighters" (such as Judoka) and high level TMA guys. What counts? Is it people with a verifiable "sport fighting" record such as Golden Glove boxers or Judoka? Is it guys with a history of going out and picking "street fights" in order to "test out" their stuff (which was, apparently also common in Judo at one time). Is it LEO or CO? I mean, really, what counts?

Again, not to be a wang, but it's kinda sounding like "the definition of porn."

As to the issue of only local guys showing up, well... um... What else would you expect? I have a friend who's making a name for his crew in WMA and Irish MA, following a sort of home-grown "alive testing" development of stick fighting. He's of Irish extraction and his "Family System" is, essentially, just bashing each other with sticks and, over time, finding out what seems to work and what doesn't. His style looks a little like a cross between Jo-Jutsu (when held at one end), Hutton's "Great Stick," and some of the FMA 5' stick material. It's all well and good and seems to work well, at least for them. But some years back the gent issued, literally, a World Wide Challenge for Stick Fighting Champion. Being, essentially, a nobody at that time, well, nobody showed up except for his crew and a few locals who were interested in cross-testing against other material. When he later on issued a statement about who had taken the title, he was, well, politely, it was met with some skepticism. Back when the Gracies were doing these challenges (they still are, ims) who would be willing to fly from New York, for instance, just to take some apparent blow-hard up on his "come fight me" challenge? Heck, you still occasionally see some blow-hard issue a "come fight me" challenge on some forums and they get exactly the same response; laughter. So, honestly, why would anyone, much less a "legitimate fighter," work up much effort to travel any respectable distance to take the Gracie Challenge? No one on the national stage even cared until UFC 1. Whether UFC 1 was "a work," a "marketing stunt," or an honest style-vs-style test, it was, undeniably, pure genius. Suddenly people who weren't local to a Gracie academy actually cared about the Gracie Challenge but now they had the UFC as a venue to "test" and the motivation for making the effort was money (the Purse).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

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]

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.

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.

Yes, that's more like it... but did you understand what you were watching?

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.

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.

Fair enough.

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?

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.

 

[MJS]

Gene Lebell
Benny the Jet
boztepe (who eventually sent one of his top students)
Schultz (wrestler)

some of these guys went to "spar" (Benny & Schultz), now Shultz was down for whatever, but Benny was not and would not step up to an official challenge.

to act like they did not attempt to fight legit comp is silly! They openly challenged all arts in open letters and adds in the top martial arts magazines of the time. You cannot discredit them because certain people would not fight them.

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!

 

[Hanzou]

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!

Considering that Benny the Jet lost two matches yet still claimed to be "undefeated", I tend to believe the side of the Gracie account.

 

[MJS]

Chances are if you can do a triangle choke during sparring or a competition, you have a higher chance of pulling it off in a self defense situation.

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.