The Truth Regarding BJJ...

[bjjbeijing]

First of all, you know what the implications were, so don't play dumb... The Gracies were trying to play up the idea of "David vs Goliath," which is hardly true.

What implications? What was implied? My friend, there was NOTHING IMPLIED. Royce being "lanky" and "hollow-chested" was an OVERT STATEMENT made by commentators when they looked at how small Royce was when compared to his opponents. It's that simple! Just look at Royce versus Kimo, or Royce versus Dan Severn or Royce versus Remco Pardeu? You mean to tell me that being outweighed by 80+ pounds is not considered David versus Goliath? What is the cut-off point? Is there some kind of measurement that says you have to be outweighed by at least 100+ pounds for the match to be considered a David versus Goliath match? Why don't you tell all of us because you seem to be such an expert at this subject. Please tell us what the weight differential should be in order for the fight to be considered a David versus Goliath fight.

If you detest Royce and his family that badly, why don't you just stop studying BJJ and start up Judo instead? They won't hold it against you and neither will anybody else on this forum I'm sure.

This is the core of your argument... Which is incorrect. Relation implies some sort of correlation in lineage, passage of techniques, etc... So far, you haven't proven that there exists a direct link between BJJ and Fusen Ryu... The statement that Renzo made says, "BJJ is more related to Fusen Ryu than any other style of JJ." How is this so, other than the fact that they may have employed a similar strategy. That's not relative, rather similar.

The Oxford dictionary's definition of RELATED: Connected or associated with somebody or something.

So replace connected or associated in place of related, and you get the following statement: "BJJ is more associated/connected to Fusen-Ryu than any other style of JJ."

How is that statement incorrect? Are you going to start arguing linguistics now with the professors at Oxford? Perhaps the Oxford dictionary should replace their definition with yours? I will contact the Oxford guys and let them know their definition is wrong.

Wrestling is similar to BJJ in some ways... Doesn't mean it's related. Being related implies have some sort of connection. Therefore, Renzo's statement is completely fabricated with the intent of separating BJJ from Judo, which it derived from. Whether the Gracies accept it or not, judo is the ancestor of BJJ... Unless you or they can disprove that, that is the FACT.

I didn't want to have to do this, but you leave me no choice...

You will find at the top of page 40 of "Mastering Jujitsu" the following paragraph which reads...

"If there is any martial art that Brazilian Jiu jitsu most RESEMBLES, it is doubtless pre-1925 judo, which today is seen only in the few kosen judo organizations still in existence. The only traditional style of jujitsu that BJJ has close links with is Fusen-Ryu jujitsu, which was itself a direct forebear of kosen judo. It appears, however, that Fusen-Ryu largely died out after being assimilated into judo. The similarities, then, between kosen judo and BJJ are far greater than those between traditional jj and bjj."

So you've been rambling on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on... about a section of the book that you didn't even read! Renzo didn't mention the word RELATED once in that passage, and in fact gives credit to pre-1925's judo, which he says bjj most closely resembles. That is the passage that you originally READ and MISUNDERSTOOD. How are we supposed to have intelligent discussions or debates when you don't even read and get your facts together?

Look man, who cares about all this... just train and have a good time!

See you on the mat,

Andy

[Uke]

A friend that is trained in grappling or untrained in grappling? If he is trained in grappling that might happen but if he is untrained then he will probaly end up on his back. There are knife defenses taught in some bjj schools and I actually knew a person that disarmed a person with a knife in his guard by putting him in a kimura and the mad dropped the knife. It is also my experience that the attacker pulls out the knife when the fight starts than during the fight. LOL at Pstevens getting schooled.

If anyone here believes that BJJ is effective against knife attacks, then I have a bridge to sell you. The best knife defense, like PStevens stated, is to run. The only reason that stand up arts have effective knife disarms is because:

#1 They have room for evasive footwork
&
#2 Techniques that rely on unbalancing the opponent long enough for a disarm.

You have neither advantage with BJJ. And contrary to some other opinions, BJJ is an offshoot of classical jujitsu. But because of the impact the Brazilians have made with their revamped version of ground fighting, the martial arts community has recognized BJJ and GJJ as their own respective entities.
Once a BJJ player stands up and uses jujitsu in a stand up position, they are not using what the martial arts world considers as BJJ. I've seen the Gracie standup solution to a knife attack and it would get you killed.

As a matter of fact, since we are giving opinions, I feel that using BJJ outside MMA and weaponless, one-on-one confrontations where no one can interfere is not intelligent. If you look at any application of BJJ, its always one-on-one where no one will interfere. I've been to Renzo's school in NY and its the same thing there. No different. I've seen the Gracie tapes where they're fighting on the beach and in grudge matches. But guess what? They always travel with at least 10 brothers or cousins, so everytime something happens they have enough people to make a circle and keep it fair.

BJJ has its place, and you should learn it to be able to competently defend against anyone using it or any other form of grappling, or against a bigger opponent who you have no chance of outstriking...if running isn't an option.

I've previously stated that no intelligent fighter would go to his back in a crowded nightclub for fear of simply being trampled to death by people trying to escape the fight. I still feel that way. I still also feel that shooting in on a man on concrete or asphalt is stupid, because here in NY there is broken glass and even little pebbles that can tear your knees up. And if you miss and your knees are bloody, will you still be willing to shoot in a 2nd time?

On a last note, I'm going to share this story with you guys. While I lived in Hawaii, I had friends who were really interested in improving their grappling skills for the same reasons I've given. So, they went to Relson Gracie's school
to get lessons. After speaking with my friends a while and learning that they wanted to learn grappling to fight with he stated and I quote "If you want to learn jujitsu, come to the Gracies, but if you want to learn to fight, go to Inoue."

That is straight from Relson Gracie's mouth.

The only thing that differs BJJ from Judo or sambo or any other grappling art is pretty much the emphasis put on the guard, and the way a BJJ player learns to escape from it, submit from it and choke from it.

[darrianation]

If anyone here believes that BJJ is effective against knife attacks, then I have a bridge to sell you. The best knife defense, like PStevens stated, is to run. The only reason that stand up arts have effective knife disarms is because:

#1 They have room for evasive footwork
&
#2 Techniques that rely on unbalancing the opponent long enough for a disarm.

You have neither advantage with BJJ. And contrary to some other opinions, BJJ is an offshoot of classical jujitsu. But because of the impact the Brazilians have made with their revamped version of ground fighting, the martial arts community has recognized BJJ and GJJ as their own respective entities.
Once a BJJ player stands up and uses jujitsu in a stand up position, they are not using what the martial arts world considers as BJJ. I've seen the Gracie standup solution to a knife attack and it would get you killed.

As a matter of fact, since we are giving opinions, I feel that using BJJ outside MMA and weaponless, one-on-one confrontations where no one can interfere is not intelligent. If you look at any application of BJJ, its always one-on-one where no one will interfere. I've been to Renzo's school in NY and its the same thing there. No different. I've seen the Gracie tapes where they're fighting on the beach and in grudge matches. But guess what? They always travel with at least 10 brothers or cousins, so everytime something happens they have enough people to make a circle and keep it fair.

BJJ has its place, and you should learn it to be able to competently defend against anyone using it or any other form of grappling, or against a bigger opponent who you have no chance of outstriking...if running isn't an option.

I've previously stated that no intelligent fighter would go to his back in a crowded nightclub for fear of simply being trampled to death by people trying to escape the fight. I still feel that way. I still also feel that shooting in on a man on concrete or asphalt is stupid, because here in NY there is broken glass and even little pebbles that can tear your knees up. And if you miss and your knees are bloody, will you still be willing to shoot in a 2nd time?

On a last note, I'm going to share this story with you guys. While I lived in Hawaii, I had friends who were really interested in improving their grappling skills for the same reasons I've given. So, they went to Relson Gracie's school
to get lessons. After speaking with my friends a while and learning that they wanted to learn grappling to fight with he stated and I quote "If you want to learn jujitsu, come to the Gracies, but if you want to learn to fight, go to Inoue."

That is straight from Relson Gracie's mouth.

The only thing that differs BJJ from Judo or sambo or any other grappling art is pretty much the emphasis put on the guard, and the way a BJJ player learns to escape from it, submit from it and choke from it.

Good post. I agree with you. I have never been impressed with the gracie self-defense and their book (SD book) is a total joke. Also BJJ is not a good stand alone system for SD.

For self-defense you need good striking skills, grappling skills, and weapons skills. In the steet the last place you want to be is on the ground, but shit happens and you need some ground skills. Of course you need some good skills to keep you from going to the ground in the first place.

[Mister]

I agree that the ground is the last place you want to be in a street fight. But you know what, sometimes it will go there whether you like it or not. So for self defense, I would not train mainly BJJ, but I'd train some. Ground fighting is still essential even if you really dont want to go there. Also against a bigger larger opponent, BJJ is very useful, if its a one on one confrontation. Most of the techniques do not require a lot of force, but more technique. So if youre in a one on one confrontation, and the guy is bigger and outstriking you, you might want to use some BJJ techniques to take him out. But then again you could just kick him in the nuts

[pagan]

I'm glad I cam to this forum. I was at fightauthority and the nitwits there tried to tell me that fights rarely go to the ground and that they have never been in fights that go to the ground etc. Then one of them mentioned that one should carry a knife for those moments in a fight if they start losing. Being a police officer I had a problem with this advice and posted so. I then proceeded to get a load of crap on BJJ (which I defended) and about being armed. I stated that BJJ was the best form that "I HAD TAKEN" for grappling and pull a knife in a fist fight was folly. My experience on complaints is the person who pulls the knife usually started the fight. Anyway, reading this thread leads me to believe that I'am now at the right forum.

Pstevens
What you need to realize is who cares where anything came from!!! All martial arts are related (Oxford Dictionary meaning) due to the fact that they all teach the art of combat. Define Martial arts and it means anything dealing with combat (that could mean shooting weapons in todays day and age). Anyway, if you have as much experience as you claim you should then realize that you know enough to know you don't know enough. Figure that logic out and you'll do better on this forum. Go train and forget where any of it came from. If you use it and it works then use it and screw evryone else. If it doesn't work throw it away and who cares who defends it.
One last note... MA is great but the first thing should be environmental awareness. You got jumped because you were not aware of the people around you and what their posturesz were and that is what put you at a disadvantage. You probably sit with your back to a door at a restuarant to right?


To everyone else... be safe training.

[darrianation]

Fights amoung the general civilian population go to the ground at some point around 75% of the time that number increases for law enforcement personel to around 90%.

So in SD you need a good ballance- striking, grappling, and weapons. Of course the best skill is avoiding the problem in the first place.

[Uke]

I'm glad I cam to this forum. I was at fightauthority and the nitwits there tried to tell me that fights rarely go to the ground and that they have never been in fights that go to the ground etc. Then one of them mentioned that one should carry a knife for those moments in a fight if they start losing. Being a police officer I had a problem with this advice and posted so. I then proceeded to get a load of crap on BJJ (which I defended) and about being armed. I stated that BJJ was the best form that "I HAD TAKEN" for grappling and pull a knife in a fist fight was folly. My experience on complaints is the person who pulls the knife usually started the fight. Anyway, reading this thread leads me to believe that I'am now at the right forum.

Pstevens
What you need to realize is who cares where anything came from!!! All martial arts are related (Oxford Dictionary meaning) due to the fact that they all teach the art of combat. Define Martial arts and it means anything dealing with combat (that could mean shooting weapons in todays day and age). Anyway, if you have as much experience as you claim you should then realize that you know enough to know you don't know enough. Figure that logic out and you'll do better on this forum. Go train and forget where any of it came from. If you use it and it works then use it and screw evryone else. If it doesn't work throw it away and who cares who defends it.
One last note... MA is great but the first thing should be environmental awareness. You got jumped because you were not aware of the people around you and what their posturesz were and that is what put you at a disadvantage. You probably sit with your back to a door at a restuarant to right?


To everyone else... be safe training.

Great to have you here, pagan.

I don't feel that BJJ is the best form of grappling. I feel that it put tremendous emphasis on an area that either you learn or be weak in.

As far as PStevens, he has the right to care where an art comes from, and many feel as he does. I don't think that it will have an impact on your training, but realize that the martial experience is not the same for everyone. There are people who love the arts, but don't train at all. They prefer to stay on the sidelines and be spectators. Then you have those who want more of what they perceive to be the more spiritual side of the arts. Then there are those who fall in love with a culture to the point where they dress, eat, speak and even celebrate what that culture normally does. Back in the 80's, there were alot of non-chinese guys in NY wearing Kung Fu jackets, with the kung fu slippers, who would eat everything with chop sticks and celebrate the chinese New Year.

See, not everyone is looking to be a warrior. Some just like a feeling of belonging to something, and being knowledgable about its origins and best practitioners.

BJJ is good to know how to survive an attack and to reverse against someone who is using it in my opinion. BJJ disarms are a disaster. Better to stand up avoid it if you can.

Oh and by the way, 90% of fights do go to the ground, but 90% of self defense situations DO NOT.

Peace

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Fights amoung the general civilian population go to the ground at some point around 75% of the time that number increases for law enforcement personel to around 90%.

So in SD you need a good ballance- striking, grappling, and weapons. Of course the best skill is avoiding the problem in the first place.

don't know about the 75% but the 90% for law enforcement might be because an officer can't just punch someone to the head without the risk of being sued and an unwilling person being arrested will almost alway be cuffed on the ground ( face down) BUT this very often takes more than 1 police office to do so

As for the 75%, I just do not think so, out of my own experience I can saay only those fights on soft surfaces ended up on the ground, did a survey on a dutch forum and the majority had to conclude the majority did NOT end up on the gound
when I watch the bumfight and streetfight videos I do not see the majority of the fight end up on the ground either
In MMA yes there the percentage might be right but in the streets of most european cities more likely the other way around
If on the other hand it is right for your neck of the woods then it becomes cleaa there is no global best method of SD ( which there isn't, since weaponlaws differ so much)

[IPON]

What you need to realize is who cares where anything came from!!! All martial arts are related

All MAs are not related even if they were it would be more of direct or indirct relationships. I find it interesting when I hear ppl make this staement, becuase if you love your art I would think you would want to know everything about it the good the bad teh indifferent. What does it mean to you day to day training maybe something maybe nothing. Also, many MAs require this type of reseach in order to advance in ranking.

But like UKE stated everyone is entitled to thier opinion.

[pagan]

All MAs are not related even if they were it would be more of direct or indirct relationships. I find it interesting when I hear ppl make this statement, becuase if you love your art I would think you would want to know everything about it the good the bad teh indifferent. What does it mean to you day to day training maybe something maybe nothing. Also, many MAs require this type of reseach in order to advance in ranking.

But like UKE stated everyone is entitled to thier opinion.

I disagree, simply put if you define the study of Martial Arts it is the study of anything combat related and therefore any study of any aspect of it would be related. I'm not saying don't be interested in the history I'm saying that there is no need to get wrapped around the axle about stuff when it is obvious that the time should be used to study the art first. When I learned how to shoot a rifle I wasn't taught where guns came from and such. Brief history so working knowledge can be understood should suffice. Anything else can be learned due to students curiosity. Forms have evolved and thus have changed greatly therefore history is nice to know and learn but not essential to use. Of course this is my opinion and all can disagree.

[IPON]

I disagree, simply put if you define the study of Martial Arts it is the study of anything combat related and therefore any study of any aspect of it would be related.

Your example makes no sense So you are saying that ALL fighting art are related simply becuase they may be used for combat. So there was a relationship among all sword-fighters of the world just by teh virtue of using a sword??

I would also disagree with your example of learning to use a rifle. But it is your opinon if you choose not to know history. Personally, I find it to be very sad when I see instructors and students that have little knowlege of teh arts ingeneral and their own art specifically. That is why we have these long drawn out discussions (this does not refer to you) becuase most speak from the aspect of pure ignorance of thier respective style. I have spoke with BJJ stylists with rank which think the guard was created by Helio. Now this is not a Judo vs BJJ. My point is the discussion break down becuase you make a point, then somone comes back and refuses to accept something becuase of ignorance (this is with any style just used BJJ as a example). Then when hit with all the facts they come back with "well that's in teh past who cares" it is most disturbing to me for those who desire to become instructors. I think students deserve for than technical instruction. But hey that's just my opinion.

[pagan]

I'm saying that warriors focus on there art and due to wars and travel they learn other forms. This comes from respect of your opponent in the old days. So everything get cross pollunated (for lack of a better word). And yes I'm saying anything combat is Martial Arts. I did not need to learn every aspect of rifles to be a three time award expert and instructor in the Marine Corps. The fact is though the more you study the art the more proficient you get the more curious of the history you become. I'm not saying don't learn it I'm saying don't necessarily seperate it from all the rest as I see being done. I learned a brief history of Hand to Hand Combat in the Marine Corps before I became an instructor ( yes I instructed both in the Marine Corps) As you can tell I like studying - the Martial Arts - all aspects of combat. History is great to know but to argue the lineage when no definant answer can be found is a waste. Gleam what you think to be true and what makes sense and move on. What is not accepted due to ignorance??? Just curious!!

PS yes most sword fighting is related because combating warriors took moves from other forms that they saw working against them.

[darrianation]

don't know about the 75% but the 90% for law enforcement might be because an officer can't just punch someone to the head without the risk of being sued and an unwilling person being arrested will almost alway be cuffed on the ground ( face down) BUT this very often takes more than 1 police office to do so

As for the 75%, I just do not think so, out of my own experience I can saay only those fights on soft surfaces ended up on the ground, did a survey on a dutch forum and the majority had to conclude the majority did NOT end up on the gound
when I watch the bumfight and streetfight videos I do not see the majority of the fight end up on the ground either
In MMA yes there the percentage might be right but in the streets of most european cities more likely the other way around
If on the other hand it is right for your neck of the woods then it becomes cleaa there is no global best method of SD ( which there isn't, since weaponlaws differ so much)

I have heard many different statistics on this and they range all over the place from 45-95% so it's hard to say. Jim Wagner reports the 75% for civilians and it seems resonable to me. I know other guys who have tried to come up with numbers from crime models and they came up with 60-70%. In my own fighting (street) experience it's probably 45%, and through personal observations it's about 45-50%.

So who knows but I think it is important whether or not the % in purely accurate is that we understand that the fights go to the ground a large numbr of times.

As far as which systems are the best for the ground that is subjective. There are a number of good systems- Pankreation (SP?), BJJ, Submission wrestling, Sambo, and so on.

[CKD]

don't know about the 75% but the 90% for law enforcement might be because an officer can't just punch someone to the head without the risk of being sued and an unwilling person being arrested will almost alway be cuffed on the ground ( face down) BUT this very often takes more than 1 police office to do so

As for the 75%, I just do not think so, out of my own experience I can saay only those fights on soft surfaces ended up on the ground, did a survey on a dutch forum and the majority had to conclude the majority did NOT end up on the gound
when I watch the bumfight and streetfight videos I do not see the majority of the fight end up on the ground either
In MMA yes there the percentage might be right but in the streets of most european cities more likely the other way around
If on the other hand it is right for your neck of the woods then it becomes cleaa there is no global best method of SD ( which there isn't, since weaponlaws differ so much)

What bumfight and streetfight videos did you not see go to the ground? Just out of curiousity since I see the opposite. As for my experience in security yes most fights I saw and was in went to the ground. But I understand that different areas may be different. I grew up in an urban enviroment where people could take a punch so it defenitely ended up on the ground. When I went to the suburbs I noticed that some people just covered up if hit well.

[pstevens]

What implications? What was implied? My friend, there was NOTHING IMPLIED. Royce being "lanky" and "hollow-chested"

Really? Is this why BJJ has advertised on so many occassions that a small weakling like Helio, or Jacare, or some other weakling can beat all these baddasses because they learned BJJ? Tell me you haven't heard this a thousand times.

The Oxford dictionary's definition of RELATED: Connected or associated with somebody or something.

So replace connected or associated in place of related, and you get the following statement: "BJJ is more associated/connected to Fusen-Ryu than any other style of JJ."

Basically, your definition tells me that you don't understand the english language, or you simply can't read. How have you proved that Fusen-Ryu is "connected or associated" with BJJ? Did Maedo study Fusen-Ryu? If so, where's the proof? The FACTS state that Fusen-Ryu was eliminated from Judo, hence... the techniques of Fusen Ryu were not known.

What"If there is any martial art that Brazilian Jiu jitsu most RESEMBLES, it is doubtless pre-1925 judo, which today is seen only in the few kosen judo organizations still in existence. The only traditional style of jujitsu that BJJ has close links with is Fusen-Ryu jujitsu, which was itself a direct forebear of kosen judo. It appears, however, that Fusen-Ryu largely died out after being assimilated into judo. The similarities, then, between kosen judo and BJJ are far greater than those between traditional jj and bjj."

Exactly, more contradictions to your claims... Fusen Ryu didn't just die out, it was eliminated from Judo's syllabus. How does this make Fusen Ryu related to BJJ if it died out before ever being connected to BJJ? It doesn't. The fact that you and I both may use a grappling tecnique doesn't make us connected or anything. That's a generalization that is not based on any truth.

So you've been rambling on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on... about a section of the book that you didn't even read! Renzo didn't mention the word RELATED once in that passage, and in fact gives credit to pre-1925's judo, which he says bjj most closely resembles. That is the passage that you originally READ and MISUNDERSTOOD. How are we supposed to have intelligent discussions or debates when you don't even read and get your facts together?

Look man, who cares about all this... just train and have a good time!

Obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't have gone to great lengths, only to contradict yourself. So far you've managed to prove to yourself that you can't read or understand language.