Sport BJJ vs Vale Tudo

[pstevens]

Despite “ridiculoous” claims that people make about how ineffective BJJ is when striking is involved, such as in vale-tudo style fighting, I will say this. If the gap between BJJ and adding strikes is so “huge,” why would any fighter invest their time in learning BJJ, or at least aspects of it? The truth is simple - the most effective fighters are those who incorporate BJJ at one level or another.

I hear repeated arguments like, “a Gracie got knocked out, etc...” Well, BJJ isn’t a miracle pill... But what these same people fail to mention is that without training in BJJ (or aspects of it), most people would not have the confidence or skill to get into range for a knock out against a BJJ fighter.

I will admit that there are differences in training for sport BJJ and vale-tudo style fighting. However, the principle remains the same. You must have an understanding of positional control to execute submissions or strikes. Furthermore, you must understand how to “get out of trouble” (escape). In which case, you learn all these fundamentals in the beginning of your BJJ career. Hence, many BJJ practitioners adapt fairly well to NHB.

Another argument is the legitimacy of BJJ in a street fight. Personally, I’ve been involved in and witnessed many skirmishes where the BJJ practitioner used very simple strategies to end the fight, minimalizing damage in the process. I’ve seen fights that went to the ground and remained standing, but the outcomes were very similar. The BJJ guys maintained a level of control and received minimal damage, while ending the fights with simple submissions.

[JkD187]

Very good post.BJJ is a delivery system....which basically means that it can be applied to many different elements of fighting....street...sport BJJ....No-gi submission Wrestling....MMA.The science behind the moves...the leverage...positioning and attribues stay the same for every technique....how you enter and what techniques are best for the situation will change everytime depending on the situation....situations dictate tactics...but the tactics are the same regardless of where you apply it.The game dose change alot with strikes....and if you do pure gi BJJ you will have a hard time adapting to it unless you are willing to open your mind and try new things...there are many excellent BJJ guys who have been decimated in MMA....but those are the ones who refuse to evolve and grow.....Look at BJJ black belt Fabio Holanda...excellent at BJJ but he was submitted by Drew Fickett in MMA and holds a record of like 2-3.Joe morriera is another example of a BJJ guy who sucks at MMA.Those who have evolved have had great great Success...look at everyone on the Brazilian Top Team as an example.

[cam427]

While I agree that you need BJJ to be a rounded fighter I think you also need other skills (Muay Thai, Greco, etc) to be a fully rounded fighter. Many people act as though BJJ is a magic pill and when you mention that it does not work well (or is not the best option) for a certain situation they get all insulted. I tried to start a thread on this but it got deleted (not sure why).

I have done about 4 years of BJJ (and it is my favourite MA) so I am not talking with no knowledge and I am not saying it is crap but I know from experience that if you do not train with strikes then you will not be prepared when they appear. I also know that wrestlers and Muay Thai fighters have a good clinch and are difficult to get down without being badly beaten unless you also have these skills.

I also hear many people with just a short period of BJJ talking as though they can beat anyone. They seem to assume that everyone else in the world has no fighting skills at all.

[pstevens]

Originally Posted by cam427

While I agree that you need BJJ to be a rounded fighter I think you also need other skills (Muay Thai, Greco, etc) to be a fully rounded fighter. Many people act as though BJJ is a magic pill and when you mention that it does not work well (or is not the best option) for a certain situation they get all insulted. I tried to start a thread on this but it got deleted (not sure why).

No one discounts the validity of Muay Thai or wrestling, so naturally when you insult BJJ, you're going to get backlash... All things considered, BJJ has proven itself superior in most style vs style encounters. Following this logic, I wonder why anyone would get angry when someone says BJJ stinks, but MT and wrestling are great?....

Originally Posted by cam427

I have done about 4 years of BJJ (and it is my favourite MA) so I am not talking with no knowledge and I am not saying it is crap but I know from experience that if you do not train with strikes then you will not be prepared when they appear.

You and every other guy who wants to make a case against BJJ...

Originally Posted by cam427

I also know that wrestlers and Muay Thai fighters have a good clinch and are difficult to get down without being badly beaten unless you also have these skills.

BJJ has beaten Muay Thai and wrestling on countless occassions when it was simply style vs style. MT and wrestling may have good clinch and takedown defense, but they lack the overall ground game necessary to subdue a BJJ guy.

Originally Posted by cam427

I also hear many people with just a short period of BJJ talking as though they can beat anyone. They seem to assume that everyone else in the world has no fighting skills at all.

This happens with any martial art... But with BJJ the attitude is enhanced because of BJJ's success rate... That and the fact that someone who is untrained is simply not prepared.

Fighting is highly psychological. Basically, your mind and body go into shock, because the activity is life-threatening. Someone who is trained will have some sense of control... An edge, even if they may be physically weaker. In fact, some people with a lot of fighting experience, will not feel the effects of shock at all.

[cam427]

Originally Posted by pstevens

No one discounts the validity of Muay Thai or wrestling, so naturally when you insult BJJ, you're going to get backlash... All things considered, BJJ has proven itself superior in most style vs style encounters. Following this logic, I wonder why anyone would get angry when someone says BJJ stinks, but MT and wrestling are great?....

I dont think I did insult BJJ. I am actually a big supporter. This is a classic example of a BJJ person overreacting when someone suggests that BJJ may not be the answer to everything.

Originally Posted by pstevens

You and every other guy who wants to make a case against BJJ...

I assume from this comment that you do not believe that I study BJJ. Look through my previous posts and you will see that I am usually the one defending BJJ against stupid attacks. That does not mean that I should not look at it objectively and see if there is something I can be combining with it to make me more effective.

Originally Posted by pstevens

BJJ has beaten Muay Thai and wrestling on countless occassions when it was simply style vs style. MT and wrestling may have good clinch and takedown defense, but they lack the overall ground game necessary to subdue a BJJ guy.

I dont agree. Give me some recent examples (the last few years). I can provide examples like Wenderlei Silva, Pedro Rizzo, Genki Sudo. This does not mean that I think BJJ is crap just that in certain ranges (striking and Clinching) other styles are more effective.

Originally Posted by pstevens

This happens with any martial art... But with BJJ the attitude is enhanced because of BJJ's success rate... That and the fact that someone who is untrained is simply not prepared.

Fighting is highly psychological. Basically, your mind and body go into shock, because the activity is life-threatening. Someone who is trained will have some sense of control... An edge, even if they may be physically weaker. In fact, some people with a lot of fighting experience, will not feel the effects of shock at all.

This was my whole point. This is the reason why pure BJJ fighters can be taken by surprise. They are not used to receiving strikes.

[pstevens]

Originally Posted by cam427

I dont think I did insult BJJ. I am actually a big supporter. This is a classic example of a BJJ person overreacting when someone suggests that BJJ may not be the answer to everything.

No, it’s a classic case of cause and reaction. You’re claiming that BJJ guys cannot handle strikes, when it has been proven by theory and practice that BJJ guys continually nullify strikes and get the takedown, submission, etc...

Originally Posted by cam427

I assume from this comment that you do not believe that I study BJJ. Look through my previous posts and you will see that I am usually the one defending BJJ against stupid attacks. That does not mean that I should not look at it objectively and see if there is something I can be combining with it to make me more effective.

I don’t assume anything, except that everyone has an agenda, as this is the internet and I could be communicating with anyone.

Originally Posted by cam427

I dont agree. Give me some recent examples (the last few years). I can provide examples like Wenderlei Silva, Pedro Rizzo, Genki Sudo. This does not mean that I think BJJ is crap just that in certain ranges (striking and Clinching) other styles are more effective.

Well, whoopee doo.... I NEVER said BJJ was more effective at clinching or striking than MT or other striking arts either... Besides, all those guys you mentioned cross train... Your initial point was that BJJ with strikes is completely different from BJJ. My point is the only difference IS the striking... Case closed.

[treehugger]

style vs. style, with no cross training whatsoever, BJJ wins hands down, all things being equal (the fighters' skill level in their respective arts, toughness, agility, fitness, etc). My club works in certain wrestling takedowns, because they are simple and VERY effective, as well as some striking. If I am on the street and I have to choose one style only to defend myself, I am taking bjj. Multiple attackers? If I do not have friends with me, I am OUTTA there! Weapons? What, you can't get stabbed or shot if you are a great striker?? Try grabbing for a weapon and using it successfully when I have you in a RNC with hooks in or figure four around your gut, squeezing for all I am worth. In my experience, those who have no submission experience panick quickly when a choke is applied, and are unlikely to mount an effective defense. I have played around a bit with friends, and it is TOO EASY to put a sub on a person who has no training. Almost any guy you come across who is half way athletic can throw a decent haymaker or even tackle you for some ground and pound, but not many can apply or defend a sub.

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by pstevens

BJJ has beaten Muay Thai and wrestling on countless occassions.

Actually that has never happened. The disembodied spirit of a form of fighting has never engaged in combat with another. Human beings beat each other, not 'styles'. If you're not careful you're going to end up sounding like Kung Fu Kenny (Boarspear?) talking about how your 'art' can beat all.

[cam427]

Originally Posted by pstevens

No, it’s a classic case of cause and reaction. You’re claiming that BJJ guys cannot handle strikes, when it has been proven by theory and practice that BJJ guys continually nullify strikes and get the takedown, submission, etc...

I disagree. This was true when no one had ever heard of BJJ and had no takedown defense. I asked you to give me some recent examples but you chose not to.

Originally Posted by pstevens

Well, whoopee doo.... I NEVER said BJJ was more effective at clinching or striking than MT or other striking arts either... Besides, all those guys you mentioned cross train... Your initial point was that BJJ with strikes is completely different from BJJ. My point is the only difference IS the striking... Case closed.

So you are saying that all of the positions and submissions that work without strikes are equally as effective with strikes? Perhaps you should try it out instead of relying on the fact that it must work because because you saw Royce (one of the best BJJ fighters in the world) beat some guys.

Treehugger,

You are doing what I am suggesting by including some striking and wrestling takedowns so you are prepared for strikes. Do you remember when you first started how difficult it was and how many moves you had to stop using?

I agree with you on the "street vs sport" argument. At my club we learn "sport" vale tudo as I think it is a much healthier mindset and is more effective than the "deadly" arts anyway. It is also more athletic.

Cam

[pstevens]

Originally Posted by cam427

I disagree. This was true when no one had ever heard of BJJ and had no takedown defense. I asked you to give me some recent examples but you chose not to.

Your argument was that BJJ was useless if strikes were involved. I said that's because everyone cross trains now. You think those strikes would work if those guys didn't understand BJJ? NO!

Your logic is flawed by this - you believe BJJ is useless now because people have learned to strike. NOT!... Many people were strikers who learned BJJ so they could strike effectively. If what you're implying is true... Then why would anyone bother to learn BJJ in the first place?

Originally Posted by cam427

So you are saying that all of the positions and submissions that work without strikes are equally as effective with strikes? Perhaps you should try it out instead of relying on the fact that it must work because because you saw Royce (one of the best BJJ fighters in the world) beat some guys.

I have tried it out, on more than one occassion. In my first 2 MMA fights, the other guys knew very little groundwork. I didn't throw any punches, except for a few feints, got the takedown and submission. The same is true of a lot of matches I see in local bars and competitions.

If you're training for MMA-style matches, then "yes" you should cross-train... I was NEVER against this. I was merely commenting on your statement that "if you throw in strikes, BJJ becomes useless," which is not the case.

[cam427]

Originally Posted by pstevens

Your argument was that BJJ was useless if strikes were involved. I said that's because everyone cross trains now. You think those strikes would work if those guys didn't understand BJJ? NO!

Your logic is flawed by this - you believe BJJ is useless now because people have learned to strike. NOT!... Many people were strikers who learned BJJ so they could strike effectively. If what you're implying is true... Then why would anyone bother to learn BJJ in the first place?



I have tried it out, on more than one occassion. In my first 2 MMA fights, the other guys knew very little groundwork. I didn't throw any punches, except for a few feints, got the takedown and submission. The same is true of a lot of matches I see in local bars and competitions.

If you're training for MMA-style matches, then "yes" you should cross-train... I was NEVER against this. I was merely commenting on your statement that "if you throw in strikes, BJJ becomes useless," which is not the case.

Perhaps you could show me where i made the statement "if you throw in strikes, BJJ becomes useless,". I think you will find you cannot because I did not say it. Please do not asssign statements to me that I did not say

I think you will find that this is what I said (try and actually read it this time)

Originally Posted by me

While I agree that you need BJJ to be a rounded fighter I think you also need other skills (Muay Thai, Greco, etc) to be a fully rounded fighter. Many people act as though BJJ is a magic pill and when you mention that it does not work well (or is not the best option) for a certain situation they get all insulted.

If I thought it was useless then why would i train in it? I said it is better to cross train as if all you did was BJJ you would find it difficult to deal with striking (which you also agree with as you cross train). So why are you arguing with me

I think that this is definately one of those situations where someone makes an observation about BJJ that is not 100% praise and people (meaning you) go ballistic without even reading what was said.

[treehugger]

Treehugger,

You are doing what I am suggesting by including some striking and wrestling takedowns so you are prepared for strikes. Do you remember when you first started how difficult it was and how many moves you had to stop using?

I agree with you on the "street vs sport" argument. At my club we learn "sport" vale tudo as I think it is a much healthier mindset and is more effective than the "deadly" arts anyway. It is also more athletic.

I don't remember having to stop using any moves, but I never trained bjj on its own. We use guard for defense only, and try not to be there if possible, top is always better in my opinion. I am not even sure if we do the full spectrum of bjj (from what I garner at bjj.org we do), as we have do not use belt ranks. I guess we are a more submission grappling club, what with the wrestling and all. Sport training translates extremely well to streetfighting, especially against untrained guys. The more guys train no gi, I think you will see even more submission wins in MMA (not like there are not plenty now). How can a guy who has trained for years with a gi on be expected to have the same expertise fighting a guy not wearing one (in the ring, wearing only shorts)? Some of these guys will train no gi here and there, but I am guessing it is a fairly large gap to bridge (this is just a guess, as I have never trained with the gi). Most people wear clothes on the street, so I would think conventional bjj would still be quite effective there, I know from personal experience that no gi certainly is

just my .02

[pstevens]

Cam,

You’ve lost the litttle respect I had for you... In your post which was deleted, you said that if you threw in strikes, BJJ was useless... Then you go on name people who cross train.

Well, bub... I NEVER said cross training was bad. I simply said that cross training enabled these guys to do what they do best, be it striking or whatever.

You were implying that if a BJJ guy didn’t train in strikes, they would be useless against someone who knew how to strike. In the context of a MMA fight, this would be true to a degree, but in a random confrontation, it’s ridiculous...

The best counter argument you’ve been able to offer is to accuse me of flaming your points... Please... I’ve given you every opportunity to prove your points and all you’ve given me is the same old MMA-cross training story, which I’ve already addressed.

This debate is over... No sense in applying logic where it’s void.

[pstevens]

Originally Posted by treehugger

Sport training translates extremely well to streetfighting, especially against untrained guys.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by treehugger

The more guys train no gi, I think you will see even more submission wins in MMA (not like there are not plenty now).

Nope... Guys train "no gi" because they will be fighting in a sports venue that favors “no gi,” although some have had success with the gi. However “no gi” or “gi” training is meant to be specific to their event.

Also, you will actually see more knockouts now because guys have trained “no gi” submissions to avoid them. Now that most people know all the counters and reversals of submissions, striking has emerged as the difference.

Originally Posted by treehugger

How can a guy who has trained for years with a gi on be expected to have the same expertise fighting a guy not wearing one (in the ring, wearing only shorts)?

Gee... That’s funny, many guys who now fight in MMA began with a “gi.” Aside from collar chokes and more grips, the same techniques are applied in “gi” and “no gi” and this argument has been debated to death, so I won’t go into it any further.... But I will say that the gap isn’t as big as people make it out to be... Eddie Bravo, one of the most vocal antagonist of the “gi” began by wearing one... It’s a matter of preference and judgement.j

[cam427]

Originally Posted by treehugger

I don't remember having to stop using any moves, but I never trained bjj on its own. We use guard for defense only, and try not to be there if possible, top is always better in my opinion. I am not even sure if we do the full spectrum of bjj (from what I garner at bjj.org we do), as we have do not use belt ranks. I guess we are a more submission grappling club, what with the wrestling and all. Sport training translates extremely well to streetfighting, especially against untrained guys. The more guys train no gi, I think you will see even more submission wins in MMA (not like there are not plenty now). How can a guy who has trained for years with a gi on be expected to have the same expertise fighting a guy not wearing one (in the ring, wearing only shorts)? Some of these guys will train no gi here and there, but I am guessing it is a fairly large gap to bridge (this is just a guess, as I have never trained with the gi). Most people wear clothes on the street, so I would think conventional bjj would still be quite effective there, I know from personal experience that no gi certainly is

just my .02

It sounds like you train exactly like we do at my club. I think no-gi training is best and I also encourage my guys not to use the guard unless they have to because being on top is so superior. I also think "sport" training translates better to streetfighting than anything else (unless you are talking about weapons).

pstevens,

I couldn't really care what amount of respect you have for me. You flew off the handle because of what I said about BJJ but you are unable to show any particular points that you disagree with. In fact you seem to agree with them all. Wow, thats an impressive argument.

and for your information I never "implied" anything. I "said" that if you had only done sport BJJ with no striking then you would be unprepared when the strikes started which I still say is true.