Why does MMA count as an own martial art now ?

[Gerry Seymour]

I think your times are a bit off...

Here's the problem, individual working parts mean nothing if the entire sequence is wrong. For example, by "22" I'm assuming you're talking about the arm lock he performs on the guy he's rolled over? Well that's all fine and dandy, except that the roll he performed to get to that point (before he said "bridge the body" ) is laughably wrong. If you attempted that with someone on top of you, you would either not go anywhere and eat fists all day, or your assailant would allow you to roll over so that they can choke you from behind. The "bridging" that he does is lifting his hip and simply rolling to his side. That isn't how you're supposed to bridge. You're supposed to bridge at an angle. Rickson Gracie explains exactly why you shouldn't bridge the way Hatsumi is bridging here;

You should really watch the whole thing. It's a clinic on that technique, but the part I'm talking about starts around 3:30.


Further, you typically don't start bridging until you've trapped their leg so that they can't base out. There was zero attempt at that in Hatsumi's vid. The guy on top actually purposely trapped his own leg as Hatsumi rolled, which is absolutely ridiculous.

And that's really the problem; The point of the Hatsumi video is showing Ninjutsu counters to the mount. If the mount escape itself is wrong, everything is wrong.

I agree - and that's a great video. One comment: those bridging movements aren't entirely ineffective, if the attacker isn't trained in ground fighting. Those are the kinds of movements I learned first, and I was able to successfully combine those with my understanding of body mechanics to roll with some folks who were trained. I wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped (as I said, I was using mediocre bridging techniques), but the opponent wasn't Rickson, either. If your timing is good and you have enough other tools in your kit, even weak bridging can be useful.

That said, I've loved upgrading my ground work over the years and getting a better understanding of the mechanics down on the ground. One of my laments is that I can no longer do much of that stuff - my knees and feet are pretty much constant pain now, so all of my ground work is just escape and stand.

 

[Ironbear24]

I think your times are a bit off...

Here's the problem, individual working parts mean nothing if the entire sequence is wrong. For example, by "22" I'm assuming you're talking about the arm lock he performs on the guy he's rolled over? Well that's all fine and dandy, except that the roll he performed to get to that point (before he said "bridge the body" ) is laughably wrong. If you attempted that with someone on top of you, you would either not go anywhere and eat fists all day, or your assailant would allow you to roll over so that they can choke you from behind. The "bridging" that he does is lifting his hip and simply rolling to his side. That isn't how you're supposed to bridge. You're supposed to bridge at an angle. Rickson Gracie explains exactly why you shouldn't bridge the way Hatsumi is bridging here;

You should really watch the whole thing. It's a clinic on that technique, but the part I'm talking about starts around 3:30.


Further, you typically don't start bridging until you've trapped their leg so that they can't base out. There was zero attempt at that in Hatsumi's vid. The guy on top actually purposely trapped his own leg as Hatsumi rolled, which is absolutely ridiculous.

And that's really the problem; The point of the Hatsumi video is showing Ninjutsu counters to the mount. If the mount escape itself is wrong, everything is wrong.

Yeah we are more or less on the same page, individually these parts look good but all of the before and after parts are not shown at all. For example the armbar is good but as I stated before, the guy layed down and put himself in that position where an armbar would work.

Techniques no matter what they are need to be demonstrated in their entirety and not just selected parts. If he is advertising his skill or his style than he needs to show these techniques done at full speed, against a person that is actually providing resistance. I'll check out your video in a few minutes and see how that is but I'm positive it does well.

This individual is a good martial artist I just think he needs to sell his product better.

 

[Hanzou]

I agree - and that's a great video. One comment: those bridging movements aren't entirely ineffective, if the attacker isn't trained in ground fighting. Those are the kinds of movements I learned first, and I was able to successfully combine those with my understanding of body mechanics to roll with some folks who were trained. I wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped (as I said, I was using mediocre bridging techniques), but the opponent wasn't Rickson, either. If your timing is good and you have enough other tools in your kit, even weak bridging can be useful.

Well keep in mind, Jake was still 90% correct in his overall technique even though Rickson was able to counter it. Hatsumi's technique was far less than that, so you don't need to be Rickson to counter what he was doing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah we are more or less on the same page, individually these parts look good but all of the before and after parts are not shown at all. For example the armbar is good but as I stated before, the guy layed down and put himself in that position where an armbar would work.

Techniques no matter what they are need to be demonstrated in their entirety and not just selected parts. If he is advertising his skill or his style than he needs to show these techniques done at full speed, against a person that is actually providing resistance. I'll check out your video in a few minutes and see how that is but I'm positive it does well.

This individual is a good martial artist I just think he needs to sell his product better.

Just a note, this looks to me like he's giving instruction, rather than demonstrating his skill. That doesn't excuse poor technique, but it may explain part of what we see here. If I want students to see the parts of a technique, I'll have a partner who knows when to pause, etc., so I can explain where the next move comes from. I wouldn't post those without audio (and not without something closer to full-speed along with it), but I think most instructors could be caught doing something that looks awful unless you see what it ends up as. Mind you, I see things that I think won't work well, but maybe in a flow they work better than I can see here.

I tend to be more optimistic than Hanzou. He's probably closer to right than me on this one.

 

[Skullpunch]

Allowing someone to get that close to you and control you via grabbing your clothes is too dangerous.

So is allowing someone to attain side mount. It still happens and you still need to know what to do if it does happen.

I never said that a DLT can't be countered. What I said was that a DLT is far more idiot proof than an Uchi Mata or an Ashi Guruma. If your goal is take someone to the ground, a DLT is far more likely to get them there than the Judo throws simply because the Judo throws are more complex and reliant on various factors.

Actually what you said was "You can screw up several aspects of the DLT and it'll still take someone to the floor. You simply don't have that level of cushion in Judo throws" which is wrong for exactly the reasons I stated before. As for a double leg being more likely to get an opponent on the ground....if you're on the outside then yes. If you're in various clinch positions then obviously variations of o goshi/harai goshi/sukui nage are better options and not half as complicated as you're making them sound, especially against an attacker who doesn't understand the clinch.

IJF reasoning aside, the loss of those takedowns cripples Judo stand up since those leg based attacks are some of the most common takedowns in grappling.

You say that as if as soon as IJF bans something every judo school out there just forgets about it and the techniques are lost forever. Unfortunately, you may eventually be right if the leg grab rule stands throughout the course of a generation or two but for the time being it still gets trained and drilled at a good number of clubs.

Which btw, is another reason I would tell a person to cross-train in wrestling over Judo.

I would tell the same person to do both

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well keep in mind, Jake was still 90% correct in his overall technique even though Rickson was able to counter it. Hatsumi was far less than that, so you don't need to be Rickson to counter what he was doing.

Oh, definitely agreed. My point was that I've made poor bridging work by pairing it with other mechanics. Good bridging doesn't need that help.

Jake is probably at least as competent as I was at my best in ground work. I loved the demonstration Rickson used there - the kind of "all he'd have to do is this" I show to my students all the time. These kinds of things make it very clear why some techniques are done the way they are, rather than the "easier" way.

 

[Hanzou]

So is allowing someone to attain side mount. It still happens and you still need to know what to do if it does happen.

And we do, but my point is that it's nothing like Judo which requires a great deal more timing and precision. The clinch for example is far more intuitive than the Judo lapel and sleeve grips.

Actually what you said was "You can screw up several aspects of the DLT and it'll still take someone to the floor. You simply don't have that level of cushion in Judo throws" which is wrong for exactly the reasons I stated before. As for a double leg being more likely to get an opponent on the ground....if you're on the outside then yes. If you're in various clinch positions then obviously variations of o goshi/harai goshi/sukui nage are better options and not half as complicated as you're making them sound, especially against an attacker who doesn't understand the clinch.

So you disagree that Judo throws require more overall technique than wrestling takedowns? Interesting.

You say that as if as soon as IJF bans something every judo school out there just forgets about it and the techniques are lost forever. Unfortunately, you may eventually be right if the leg grab rule stands throughout the course of a generation or two but for the time being it still gets trained and drilled at a good number of clubs.

Well the club I visited a few months ago had banned it from practice. Additionally I've seen various Judoka throughout the web discuss how their clubs have had to follow suit because they are partially funded by the IJF and their coaches have to abide by their rules. So honestly that knowledge will be lost far sooner than a generation or two.

I would tell the same person to do both

Why?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And we do, but my point is that it's nothing like Judo which requires a great deal more timing and precision. The clinch for example is far more intuitive than the Judo lapel and sleeve grips.

I'll agree that the clinch is fairly intuitive, but I don't see it as more intuitive (or less for that matter) than grabbing the front of someone's shirt, which is about the same as Judo's sleeve and lapel grabs. I was just talking today about how a person can end up being grabbed that way when someone is getting aggressive with them.

 

[Hanzou]

I'll agree that the clinch is fairly intuitive, but I don't see it as more intuitive (or less for that matter) than grabbing the front of someone's shirt, which is about the same as Judo's sleeve and lapel grabs. I was just talking today about how a person can end up being grabbed that way when someone is getting aggressive with them.

I would argue that it's more intuitive because it's a more natural reaction to stopping someone from hitting you. If someone is hitting you, you're not going to grab the front of their shirt, because that's not going to stop the blows, you're going to try to clinch them.

Additionally, I said the lapel and the sleeve grab in Judo, a typical starting position that is pretty far removed from a self defense application, and not very intuitive.

 

[Ironbear24]

I would argue that it's more intuitive because it's a more natural reaction to stopping someone from hitting you. If someone is hitting you, you're not going to grab the front of their shirt, because that's not going to stop the blows, you're going to try to clinch them.

Additionally, I said the lapel and the sleeve grab in Judo, a typical starting position that is pretty far removed from a self defense application, and not very intuitive.

Clinching is also taught in many martial arts styles because it prevents your opponent from running away from you. It can prevent your opponent from punching and kicking you as well. Everyone should practice how to so it effectively and deal with it effectively.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would argue that it's more intuitive because it's a more natural reaction to stopping someone from hitting you. If someone is hitting you, you're not going to grab the front of their shirt, because that's not going to stop the blows, you're going to try to clinch them.

Additionally, I said the lapel and the sleeve grab in Judo, a typical starting position that is pretty far removed from a self defense application, and not very intuitive.

Okay, if we're talking about someone hitting you, I'll agree. If they grab you (okay, not you - you're trained - but an untrained person), one natural response is to put a hand in the way (close enough to the lapel grab). Another could be to reach for a shoulder, since that's where your hand might land anyway (close enough to the sleeve grab). Each half is a natural attack or response by an untrained person, so we can build on that as we train.

I'm not arguing against the clinch, mind you. I think it is a great position to train to and from. I also think lapel grabs, especially, (and sleeve grabs to a much lesser extent) are good to work with. Interestingly, when I teach responses to a lapel/shirt grab, I teach the opposite of a clinch. A clinch is a trapping/pulling position, and I teach a framing out position that forces space, which is the opposite of the attacker's intention.

 

[Hanzou]

Clinching is also taught in many martial arts styles because it prevents your opponent from running away from you. It can prevent your opponent from punching and kicking you as well. Everyone should practice how to so it effectively and deal with it effectively.

"You can't have good Jiujitsu without a good clinch." Is a pretty common motto within Gjj. I took up boxing to improve my clinch.

Okay, if we're talking about someone hitting you, I'll agree. If they grab you (okay, not you - you're trained - but an untrained person), one natural response is to put a hand in the way (close enough to the lapel grab). Another could be to reach for a shoulder, since that's where your hand might land anyway (close enough to the sleeve grab). Each half is a natural attack or response by an untrained person, so we can build on that as we train.

I'm not arguing against the clinch, mind you. I think it is a great position to train to and from. I also think lapel grabs, especially, (and sleeve grabs to a much lesser extent) are good to work with. Interestingly, when I teach responses to a lapel/shirt grab, I teach the opposite of a clinch. A clinch is a trapping/pulling position, and I teach a framing out position that forces space, which is the opposite of the attacker's intention.

I think it would be interesting to see which came first in Judo; The clinch, or the lapel/sleeve grip. I'm almost certain that the clinch and no-gi Nage Waza came from Maeda and was adopted by the Brazilians. It would be interesting to see if early Judo was geared around the clinch, and gradually evolved into the lapel/sleeve grip, or if clinching was developed by Maeda (and others who left Japan) as a response to fighting wrestlers, boxers, and other shirtless fighters.

 

[Ironbear24]

"You can't have good Jiujitsu without a good clinch." Is a pretty common motto within Gjj. I took up boxing to improve my clinch.

But boxing is not supposed to clinch . Dirty boxing?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"You can't have good Jiujitsu without a good clinch." Is a pretty common motto within Gjj. I took up boxing to improve my clinch.

That's a nice bit of insight into GJJ. Next time I'm feeling good enough to roll with one of my BJJ friends, I'm going to deny the clinch every time and see what happens. I'll probably get hurt.

I think it would be interesting to see which came first in Judo; The clinch, or the lapel/sleeve grip. I'm almost certain that the clinch and no-gi Nage Waza came from Maeda and was adopted by the Brazilians. It would be interesting to see if early Judo was geared around the clinch, and gradually evolved into the lapel/sleeve grip, or if clinching was developed by Maeda (and others who left Japan) as a response to fighting wrestlers, boxers, and other shirtless fighters.

Since early Judo used the gi, and practiced against it, I'd guess the sleeve/lapel grab was earliest, and the clinch was a good adaptation to working with other arts. All of us who practice in gi have to watch out for "gi fixation". I now allow my starting students to work in regular clothes until yellow belt, to force us all to work without a gi to grab - a counter to my old Judo training.

 

[Skullpunch]

And we do, but my point is that it's nothing like Judo which requires a great deal more timing and precision. The clinch for example is far more intuitive than the Judo lapel and sleeve grips.

And my point is that even if this is true it’s still good - if not necessary from a self defense perspective - to know how to COUNTER someone grabbing your clothing, because it happens and Judo’s counters against a haphazard grip work brilliantly.

So you disagree that Judo throws require more overall technique than wrestling takedowns? Interesting.

No but I disagree that the difference is as big as you say. You are underestimating how technical wrestling is.

Well the club I visited a few months ago had banned it from practice. Additionally I've seen various Judoka throughout the web discuss how their clubs have had to follow suit because they are partially funded by the IJF and their coaches have to abide by their rules. So honestly that knowledge will be lost far sooner than a generation or two.

I know the IJF has a tendency to over reach (understatement of the century) but there’s no way they can enforce this. Many clubs are still training leg grabs, the IJF can’t stop it. Short of sending UC’s into the clubs or something like that.

As for it being lost sooner than a generation or two, we don’t even know if it will be lost yet at all. There are already talks of reinstating leg attacks in 2017 but with rules to prevent using them for stalling or false attacks (aka belly flopping in some sad attempt to trick the ref into thinking you’re going for a double leg when really you’re just trying not to get thrown), which is really what they should’ve done in the first place.

Why?

Ask Randy Couture and the ouichi/osoto gari takedowns he’s landed in numerous fights - particularly against opponents who were able to stifle his initial wrestling attacks (Kevin Randleman and Tito Ortiz come to mind). Or Jon Jones and the osoto gari, harai goshi, and de ashi barai takedowns he’s so fond of. Or any practitioner of guerilla jiujitsu (guerilla jj is judo + bjj) - such as Cain Velasquez, Jon Fitch, Josh Thomson, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Luke Rockhold, etc.

Wrestling, Bjj, and Judo complement each other with near perfect synergy.

Also, if you’re a gi player in bjj then the benefits of judo should be quite obvious there

 

[BrothersMA]

I was tought, NEVER hit somebody who is already on the ground! This is a rule I would follow in a street fight

I Like the honor in this but your enemies might not share it. You hit them until the threat is neutralized. In a street fight you cant afford to honor rules because you dont know how serious this could get, you might die.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I Like the honor in this but your enemies might not share it. You hit them until the threat is neutralized. In a street fight you cant afford to honor rules because you dont know how serious this could get, you might die.

Agreed, within reason. If he's still trying to attack/fight, you keep defending, regardless of whether he's on the ground or standing. (The "within reason" is mostly this: you can't pummel while he's on the ground and expect someone watching to see you as the defender.)

 

[Steve]

No, if you have never trained in another system then to bag on it based on "no experience" is just being ignorant.

Just want to point out that limited experience is not the same as no experience. Just by virtue of being active on this forum, we all have some experience with a wide variety of martial arts styles, even though we do not train in them. The danger is in remembering that this experience may be superficial, as it is more academic than practical. But it is not without value.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Just want to point out that limited experience is not the same as no experience. Just by virtue of being active on this forum, we all have some experience with a wide variety of martial arts styles, even though we do not train in them. The danger is in remembering that this experience may be superficial, as it is more academic than practical. But it is not without value.

No not without value but.... this is a forum where by and large within the rules people can say all kinds of stuff that may or may not be true! Or completely misinformed...

 

[Steve]

No not without value but.... this is a forum where by and large within the rules people can say all kinds of stuff that may or may not be true! Or completely misinformed...

My personal opinion is that knowing ABOUT something is a kind of experience. It's not practical experience, but it's also not the same as zero experience.

The information I'm thinking of is the more concrete information that can be independently verified. For example, I have never trained in WC (or VT or any of the other variants). But I know that they exist because of this forum. Further, I'm not completely unfamiliar with what chi sao is, even though I can't do it, and have learned quite a bit about the various, underlying philosophies of the style from the debates (some pretty heated) by the various practitioners. I've learned that there are several variants of tai chi, including chen and yang. I know a little about aikido, judo, kendo. Heck, I've learned about various firearms, including the difference between a clip and a magazine. If someone says the term Krav Maga, I have a pretty good idea what they're talking about.

Point is, if we're doing this right, we're learning quite a bit around this place. Don't get me wrong. We have a professor or two around here who I'm sure have learned nothing (and believe they have nothing to learn), but that's a bad way to go about it, I think.

Also, just to be clear, knowing about something isn't the same things as knowing how to do something. A baseball fan may be able to dissect the mechanics of swinging the bat in excruciating detail, but that doesn't mean he can hit a 95 mph fast ball. This is where the professor gets into trouble, not distinguishing between academic expertise and practical expertise, and failing to understand the limitations of one vs the other.