I know. You're actually talking about your anal hair.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sport Judo
Collapse
X
-
P.S. Can we leave the weapons and multiple opponents rhetoric out of it?!
If you value BJJ for the street, than you must also value Judo for the street. They are of the same mold
I don't care how big you are, a well placed foot sweep or trip will put you down in a flash-effortlessly.
1) know what they are doing.
2) decide to just latch onto you.
Judo focuses on the clinch (upper body attacks) and also focuses on lower body attacks such as firemans, leg sweeps, leg trips and reaps. A variety of upper and lower body attacks and defenses are part of judo
I find it rather amazing that you find BJJ so effective yet give poor value to Judo. Both arts wear a gi, both arts have takedowns, and both arts have submissions.
Most submissions are done on the ground. So to submit someone, you must first take them down. Judo allows you to take someone down quickly (certainly as quick or quicker than your average BJJer) and then you are on top of them where you can go for a lock or just pound them or whatever.
Judo players are not taught to strike anymore
Comment
-
RYANHALL,
QUOTE: "For the purpose of discussion, I'll do this. However, this is the major point of contention. Weapons and multiples are rarely absent from a self-defense scenario. They are much of what makes the physical aspects of self-defense v sport fighting different."
This is not true. I've probably been witness to a few thousand assaults as a paramedic for over 14 years and an EMT for 2 years prior to that. Been riding on ambulances since 1987. I've worked east Oakland CA, East Palo Alto CA (the former murder capital of the nation), Salinas CA, and currently in San Francisco as well as several middle class and upscale neighborhoods.
I can tell you that the vast majority of male vs male assaults I have responded to have been simple assaults. One on one with no weapons. Weapons are a small minority of the assaults and it is infrequent to see a life endangering injury from a weapon unless of course it is a firearm. And when I DO see serious injuries from such, it is usually the person's own fault ie: being in a gang, going into the wrong neighborhood alone (stupid), being drunk and asking for it, fighting in a bar (a cornocopia of weapons there), etc (except domestic violence). So for most decent law abiding people with COMMON SENSE and mature behavior, weapons are a much smaller occurence than you state.
QUOTE: "They are, and I value them both. However, I would not endorse either as a complete method of self-protection. I do not by any means discount Judo. I feel very fortunate to have gotten my start with MAs in it.
Well I NEVER said either was "complete." I simply said they are very effective. You say you do not discount judo yet you've already said it pretty much doesn't work on the street. So which is it?
QUOTE: This is true, but there is no doubt that manhandling a large individual can be a challenge if they:
1) know what they are doing.
2) decide to just latch onto you.
1. Is correct. But very few people "know what they are doing." isn't that why we train, to have a skill that most others don't (hopefully) have?
2. Latch onto you and do what? Hang from your pants? I mean unless they get a bear hug on you, its pretty hard to immobilize anyone. Even a little guy. And a good judoka will be adept at not allowing you to get a secure bear hug on him. He can use his arms to keep you from getting a secure hold. Like I said, I aint a small guy but there are guys I outweigh by 50lbs that I cannot get a hold of for the life of me (unless I use the wall to trap them hehe). And I KNOW what I'm doing and I still cant latch on to them!
Some other points.
1. Anyone can strike/punch someone while they have them on the ground. The urge to strike is a natural human instinct when fighting. I don't think a judoka or ANYONE for that matter needs to be specifically taught how to do that or reminded that they can do that to someone they are kneeling on or holdind down. Once you have someone down and can control them, its pretty obvious that you can hit him. Every school kid learned that in grade school. Judoka dont grow up in a vacumn tube. They grow up in the streets of America like other kids.
2. You rely more on wrestling takedowns. OK fine. I rely more on Judo takedowns. What works for you works for you. What works for me works for me. Don't knock someone else's preferences.
3. Your experience at your judo school is not the same as everyone else's experience. Our school focuses approx 1/3 on sparring groundwork. Just like in ANY martial art, some schools are better than others. Where I train we have had several former Olympians and world champions train. One of our guys who was in the 84 Olympics is the 2004 Olympic coach and the school has been there since 1948. Our coach was 2 time assistant Olympic coach and current coach for the blind team. We have SJSU (probably the toughest judo competitors in the US) come up and frequently train with us. Probably about 1/3 of us do or have done BJJ in addition.
4. I've been sparring with you on this forum only because your attitude towards Judo was in my opinion rather poor and insultive. You practically dismissed it at almost useless by the comments you have made. Now I see that your last post (which I'm currently responding to) is much more positive toward Judo and you seem to have changed your tune a bit and been a bit more fair in your assessment. Maybe you should have done that from the begining?
I want to reiterate that I absolutely never said it was a "complete" system. I simply said that it works well in the street-and it does. If you wanna make it ultra effective, top if off with a little Muay Thai or boxing and you have a very dangerous arsenal at your disposal!
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelarsanis
P.S. Can we leave the weapons and multiple opponents rhetoric out of it?!
Palo Alto murder capitol of the nation?? Not unless somone asked thier maid or manservant to wack somone
Seriously, I agree with all your points. but I do not think that weapons multiple opponents is not rhetoric. It is definately reality. Even if you consider a low probability it can still happen and that is the pupose of training in terms of SD. I think the reason why it is brought up so much is that people don't take this issues consideration, so therefore are not training realistically.
There could be regional differences, but Knives are very common on the street in urban and suburban. And I am sure you have far more experience seeing these incidents but not all people get to the ER and not all admission to the ER are from an ambulance. I am not trying to argue just make a point. but hey if there is a gun and distance involved H2H doesn't mean too much.
"isn't that why we train, to have a skill that most others don't (hopefully) have?"
Yes and no, here you make assumptions that are not totally incorrect but the point is you will never know who is skilled/unskilled. I train with the understanding that somone is skilled, meaning they undertsand all ranges, if they don't yeah it makes my situation easier
just my 2.5 cents
Comment
-
IPON,
thats EAST Palo Alto - not Palo Alto. They are 2 seperate cities that border one another.
EPA is only about 2 1/2 miles square with a population of 30,000 and they had 42 homicides in 1992. Thats when it was the per capita murder capital of the nation. We used to bring in shootings to Stanford ER EVERY SINGLE DAY. Frequently the medics couldn't leave the station to respond to an emergency because there was shooting outside. Even the fire dept got some intentional shots into their apparatus doors.
Approx 14 years ago or so, they formed their own police dept (took over for the San Mateo Sherrif). It was the lowest paid police dept around. Half the cops were corrupt and the FBI was investigating them. They almost disbanded the police dept and gave EPA back to the Sherrif's dept. The city is so poor that the police dept didn't even have their own station, they used the bottom floor of a city building for their station. They couldn't even afford new police cars, they bought used ones from other depts., and they couldn't afford to paint them so they were driving around with all different color squad cars. EPA police had the highest officer assualt rating in the nation. It was THE murder capital of the nation and made national news.
Basically the chief of police called for help from all agencies because it was so out of control. Highway patrol, Sherriff and oficers from a dozen other depts came down to help secure the city on a daily basis. Its murder rate dropped from 42 in 1992 down to 5 the next year (remember, the city in only 2 1/2 miles square!). Over a 100 drug dealers were arrested. It is much quieter now, but still a very bad and violent area. With businesses venturing in, it is slowly becoming a nicer community.
___________________________________________________
As far as the weapons issue, yes I believe it is something important to consider but I didn't want it to get mixed in with the current discussion which was whether or not judo was street effective.
Comment
-
Hmmm...through all this crazy debating, michaelarsanis does bring up an interesting point.
I believe the last set of statistics I looked at said something to the effect that 60-80% of all street assaults involved weapons and/or multiple attackers. However, it would be interesting to know what that percentage would be if we tossed out the numbers which involved rival gang members battling it out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelarsanis
Great Sage,
As far as you comment regarding ripping people's nostrils and eyes while they try and get a hold of you: I think you are being very narrow minded and foolish not to mention overconfident. A good grappler can be so quick and smooth that its doubtful you will have all this time to apply all those techniques.
A takedown can be nearly as quick as a punch. I would not be standing in front of my opponent motionless so that he can stick his fingers in my nostril etc. Once a good grappler moves in on you and gets a hold of you, its pretty much too late to attempt those techniques. Its especially difficult if YOU are off balance and his head is in your chest or beside your neck and you are fighting to stay on your feet. Let alone if your arms are tied up. Most likely you are going down.
Originally posted by michaelarsanis
[BI looked at your profile and see that you DO train a grappling art-Brazilian Jiujitsu. I'm very surprized. I wonder if you think that it would be easy for you to defeat a black belt in BJJ on the street by simply poking his eyes and ripping his nostrils etc while he is in close to you on the ground? [/B]
Your idea of a fight is called “matchfighting.” I haven’t had that kind of luxury since high school. If I train in BJJ, it’s for the sport. When I’m in a real fight, I forget all that and use whatever will save my ass, BJJ or not. In that regard, I agree with you. If judo works, great...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Great Sage
No, I’m not being narrow-minded, just realistic. If someone gets in close enough, I’m going to do everything in my power including: biting, eye-gouging, ear and nostril hooking, and perhaps stabbing or stoning to stop them. I’m not talking about taking your time to hook nostrils... I’m talking about savagely attacking someone once they get close enough, whether that be hooking nostrils or not.
In other words, you will flail around like a spaz. That's one of the best ways to get your ass kicked.
Comment
-
Self-defense involves weapons quite frequently. That would be a situation that you did not particiapte in creating.
Fights, however, as Michael stated, will involve them less often. If you participate in the escalation of the problem, you are fighting, not defending yourself. Two assholes yelling at one another and throwing a few punches does not qualify as self-defense. It qualifies as crappy fighting. A Judo player, wrestler, boxer, etc. will wipe the floor with most of these people.
Self-defense, however, is a much different animal that involves far more in terms of danger to yourself than most fights. Weapons, multiples, sucker punching, and Murphy's Law rule here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelarsanis
Half the cops were corrupt and the FBI was investigating them. They almost disbanded the police dept and gave EPA back to the Sherrif's dept. The city is so poor that the police dept didn't even have their own station, they used the bottom floor of a city building for their station. They couldn't even afford new police cars, they bought used ones from other depts., and they couldn't afford to paint them so they were driving around with all different color squad cars. EPA police had the highest officer assualt rating in the nation. It was THE murder capital of the nation and made national news.
LMAO -seriously that is sad....DAMN!!! I would be mad as hell going to work everyday.....I'd be on the take too. buying used cop cars damn that's embarrising. I would shoot up the town just to get some money from teh govenor
Comment
-
Great sage,
the problem with our communication is that you change your story or meaning quite a bit during posts. Look at the following:
This is what you just now posted:
"If someone gets in close enough, I’m going to do everything in my power including: biting, eye-gouging, ear and nostril hooking, and perhaps stabbing or stoning to stop them."
This indicates that you are going to do everything in your power to defend yourself without guarenteeing any results. Hey, it might work, it might not. We can agree to that.
But look at the next quote of yours which was the FIRST quote that I initially responded to:
" ... Let me in close enough and I'll rip your eyelids off, hook your nostrils while you try and throw me... "
Do you see the subtle difference in wording that changes the whole meaning? Basically what you are saying here is that you will simply negate my throw simply by using those dirty tactics-NOT that you will attempt them, but rather that you will succeed at defeating a throw with finality simply by eyelid ripping or whatever. So you are making it sound as if you can and WILL surely prevent being taken down by using those tactics. Which is different than the other post.
So the top quote is realistic but the bottom one is narrow minded. Thats why I said that you are narrow minded - because of the bottom quote (which was your first). If you had said the top one (latest) from the begining, we wouldn't even be having this discussion!
So its hard to have a discussion with you because you are not consistent in your statements!!
continued.............
Comment
Comment