Comments regarding arguments against BJJ

[shamster]

there is a difference between being cut and fatally wounded. The best defense, physically speaking, against a knife is distance. It's hard to make distance when you are rolling around with someone on the ground.

I have to reiterate that it sounds like you don't know much about striking. Punching is just one form of striking and a smart fighter won't punch to the head with a closed fist. to the body though

It sounds like your mind is already made up, what is you motivation for posting here??

Yes, the rolling around with someone on the ground isn't a good idea when the other guy has a knife. Then again, I wouldn't want to have a striking contest either. Cause a clinch is almost as bad, which is what would likely happen.

What do you think I don't know about striking? It's not exactly rocket science. I'm aware body shots are a better idea overall (along with elbows, kicking, etc). However, many styles of MA make a lot of use of fist punching to the head. Also, I think I am quite aware about striking because I have a realistic view about how punching can be dangerous, and how much precision is required. The fighters mentioned above may be great strikers, but how come out of all the fighters who are primary strikers, only a few really can rely on striking heavily?

Yes, my mind is made up on many points. As I have stated, I posted this because I would like to see responses to my criticism of the bjj "weaknesses." I see many posts mentioning points like multiple attackers, weapons, etc., and I have something to say about that. I have not flamed anyone nor do I intend to, so I think I have every right to post my thoughts.

Just for the record, I don't intend this to be a TMA sucks thread. Because I don't think so. I think that every style has at least something to offer, and every style has limitations. Some more than others. I just feel that bjj makes the most sense to me if I was going to only pick one style (and right now, I can only train in one).

[shamster]

You should read the Violence Report I posted, hes researched over 1000+ fights in his area and found only 38% involved ANY kind of grappling, virtually all between two or more drunk men. The rest were resolved by striking.

Can you point me to the exact source of this? Somehow, I have some doubts. I have witnessed more than a handful of fights since I was little. Most of which involved untrained people just throwing wild punches, etc. They almost all ended up on the ground, and if not, they end up in a clinch. Not just me...many others can attest to the same thing. It is rare that I see a fight (whether in person or on video) where the two opponents don't at least end up in some kind of clinch. Remember, grappling involves clinching too, not just ground fighting.

[medic06]

Striking involves clinching too, and is taught in striking styles (in the good ones anyway).

How long have you been training? It sounds as though the only experience you have had with striking (or percussion) arts is what you have seen on TV or heard from a biased point of view.

I won't give you a long sermon on the advantages/disadvantages of both. Just don't knock it until you try it.

[koto_ryu]

Can you point me to the exact source of this? Somehow, I have some doubts. I have witnessed more than a handful of fights since I was little. Most of which involved untrained people just throwing wild punches, etc. They almost all ended up on the ground, and if not, they end up in a clinch. Not just me...many others can attest to the same thing. It is rare that I see a fight (whether in person or on video) where the two opponents don't at least end up in some kind of clinch. Remember, grappling involves clinching too, not just ground fighting.

It's in the MMA forum actually, and all fights that involved grappling he included wrestling, clinches, takedowns, throws, and submission holds. Life in the Marine Corps, seedy bars, and private security has taught me a good hard strike is usually the best way to take somebody down. I can and do grapple sometimes, as it's useful if you don't want to hurt the person, but in a serious encounter I'm striking hard and fast to take them down as quickly as I can.

[EmptyneSs]

Actually, gloves make a huge difference. To say it makes no difference is medically ignorant. Direct fist to skull contact at full force will likely hurt the puncher. Even a thin glove makes a difference. I can assure you that those strikers you listed won't be striking as much (or as long) if not for the gloves they use.

Ok, so maybe some strikers who are well trained can perform under pressure. But I still think that striking involves too many factors to count on. Not to mention the danger of punching without padded gloves. Also, you notice how there are very few fighters out there that can dominate based on superior striking? Perhaps these people are talented and extremely well trained. My point is that one would need to be one hell of a striker to be able to count on it alone, and that it at equal levels, I feel that grappling is the better way to go. Striking has it's benefits for sure...any nhb fighter should learn to strike. But I feel that striking has far greater limitations than grappling.

The reason I think bjj is better as a whole compared to other arts is that it acknowledges that fights are more likely to end up on the ground. I feel that many other arts rely on staying on your feet.

again, u dont know anything about striking. mma gloves really dont make a difference, they are so thin that the impact is the same. also, people who practice striking develope conditioned knuckles and fists that are far more robust than normal people. anytime u fight theres a risk of being injured no matter what style or techniques u use. aslo, barenuckle boxing has been around for ages all over the world so dont say people wouldnt be throwing strikes if they werent wearing gloves. vanderlei silva is one of the most hardcore mma fighters ever, and his style of brutal striking is one of the main reasons he is a champ. not only that, but he has fought in many barenuckle fights and has dominated. sorry bro, but u dont know much about striking at all.

also u dont need to be a master striker to be able to use striking skills effectively. a couple years of training with lots of sparring time will give u effective, dependable striking skills and the ability to keep ur cool while having someone trying pound u.

and not to burst ur bubble, but most fights dont end up on the ground. thats such bs. i dont even know were that came from. ive seen tons of fights, and been in a couple, and i never saw people grappling on the ground. the closest i ever saw was someone get put in headlock, and that was about it. not only did that report mention that only a very low percentage of fights end up on the ground, but other people who have had experience and witnessed many fights have said the same. mike brewer said the same, that he has been a bouncer for many years in many differnt places and he said that fights rarely ended up on the ground.

bjj is awesome for competition and mma, but bjj alone isnt enough for street self defense, unless u are a brown or blackbelt who has great standup skills(wich are usually taken from judo) as well.

[Tom Yum]

also u dont need to be a master striker to be able to use striking skills effectively. a couple years of training with lots of sparring time will give u effective, dependable striking skills and the ability to keep ur cool while having someone trying pound u.

Agreed.

and not to burst ur bubble, but most fights dont end up on the ground. thats such bs.

I don't know man, it can end up anywhere. Fights are unpredictable, you could end up on the ground for any reason and find yourself grappling.

[CKD]

I do not agree with your comments on striking is more about strength. If it was then no one would really have to learn techniques and all the best boxers would be the best weightlifters as well. Power in punches is determined by directed body mass, timing and other factors. Breaking your hand could be a problem but I do not think a broken hand in exchange for a broken head would be too bad of a trade. Having no gloves did not seem to hinder Mark Coleman (although let me guess you think that wrestling requires too much strength)from ground and pounding, Shamrock from screwing up Royce or in other matches. Besides that the fighters can simply strike with an open palm. The mechanics are similar to boxing.

[gregimotis]

You should read the Violence Report I posted, hes researched over 1000+ fights in his area and found only 38% involved ANY kind of grappling, virtually all between two or more drunk men. The rest were resolved by striking.

This was a great post. Everybody who doesn't remember it should search it in the MMA forum. 'the violence project'

[shamster]

Some people must be from different worlds. Many fights end up on the ground. Even from watching boxers, whose sole purpose is to stay on their feet, many of them would end up on the ground if not for the ropes and the rules. Humans have a rather high center of gravity standing only on 2 feet. It is very easy to end up on the ground. Especially when being struck, shoved, etc. This is even more true for the less trained. The less one trains to stay on his feet, the more likely he will end up on his feet. Almost every fight I have witnessed since childhood that involved untrained people end up on the ground. And these are people who would do anything to stay on their feet. Besides, what is the final purpose of a strike? To KO the person. Where does the KO end up? If any further finishing moves are needed, guess what? It's now a ground fight. A ground fight is defined by at least 1 person being on the ground, not necessarily both.

As I said, even thinly padded gloves make a big difference. And yes, Silva is a great striker. But don't forget he is very well trained. Not to mention, he is a very well conditioned athlete who can take a punch much better than the average fighter. How many average martial artists can strike with this effectiveness? Why is it that in MMA, you see more fighters who train the most in grappling? Even strikers train in grappling today because they are aware that striking is not completely reliable, and that they have a good chance of going to the ground.

Of course it's idea to end a fight as quickly as possible with a 1 strike KO. However, how realistic is this? First of all, I would hope most of us train not for the purpose of picking fights with people. That being the case, you probably are not going to sucker punch someone out of nowhere, in which case a single strike would be the most effective. An actual "fight" where both people are ready to go at it, striking becomes much more difficult. If I have my arms ready to protect my vital areas, along with readiness to react, it's quite different than getting that clear 1 shot knock out.

So I may not be the most well trained person at striking, but what I am is a thinker and realist. I do not fool myself into thinking that striking is something that is the most effective for an average martial artist. And as much of a bjj fan I am, I also do not fool myself with that either. I know there are some weaknesses...some of which are determined by how you train and who teaches you. My original point again is that I do know there are some weaknesses in BJJ keeping it from an ideal complete system. Just that I don't agree with the all weaknesses mentioned here in the past.

Anyone who trains in the extreme can be successful relying on it. A few grapplers can take out most strikers with grappling alone, and a few strikers can do the same to grapplers. However, for the average person, this is not the case.

[koto_ryu]

Some people must be from different worlds.

The report was based in Maryland I think, so it's not all that different from being anywhere else.

Why is it that in MMA, you see more fighters who train the most in grappling?

Because most of their opponents train in grappling so they need a way to counter it. Look at the Cro, he's been kicking some ass and he's a vicious striker.

So I may not be the most well trained person at striking, but what I am is a thinker and realist. I do not fool myself into thinking that striking is something that is the most effective for an average martial artist.

Depending on the situation, striking is probably preferential to grappling. I only grapple when I don't want to hurt the person, if they're out for blood then I'm striking and giving them some.....hopefully their own

[EmptyneSs]

Some people must be from different worlds. Many fights end up on the ground. Even from watching boxers, whose sole purpose is to stay on their feet, many of them would end up on the ground if not for the ropes and the rules. Humans have a rather high center of gravity standing only on 2 feet. It is very easy to end up on the ground. Especially when being struck, shoved, etc. This is even more true for the less trained. The less one trains to stay on his feet, the more likely he will end up on his feet. Almost every fight I have witnessed since childhood that involved untrained people end up on the ground. And these are people who would do anything to stay on their feet. Besides, what is the final purpose of a strike? To KO the person. Where does the KO end up? If any further finishing moves are needed, guess what? It's now a ground fight. A ground fight is defined by at least 1 person being on the ground, not necessarily both.

As I said, even thinly padded gloves make a big difference. And yes, Silva is a great striker. But don't forget he is very well trained. Not to mention, he is a very well conditioned athlete who can take a punch much better than the average fighter. How many average martial artists can strike with this effectiveness? Why is it that in MMA, you see more fighters who train the most in grappling? Even strikers train in grappling today because they are aware that striking is not completely reliable, and that they have a good chance of going to the ground.

Of course it's idea to end a fight as quickly as possible with a 1 strike KO. However, how realistic is this? First of all, I would hope most of us train not for the purpose of picking fights with people. That being the case, you probably are not going to sucker punch someone out of nowhere, in which case a single strike would be the most effective. An actual "fight" where both people are ready to go at it, striking becomes much more difficult. If I have my arms ready to protect my vital areas, along with readiness to react, it's quite different than getting that clear 1 shot knock out.

So I may not be the most well trained person at striking, but what I am is a thinker and realist. I do not fool myself into thinking that striking is something that is the most effective for an average martial artist. And as much of a bjj fan I am, I also do not fool myself with that either. I know there are some weaknesses...some of which are determined by how you train and who teaches you. My original point again is that I do know there are some weaknesses in BJJ keeping it from an ideal complete system. Just that I don't agree with the all weaknesses mentioned here in the past.

Anyone who trains in the extreme can be successful relying on it. A few grapplers can take out most strikers with grappling alone, and a few strikers can do the same to grapplers. However, for the average person, this is not the case.

just because u really wish bjj was the ultimate art, it doesnt mean that it is. u keep repeating the same bs that isnt true, and all the points u tried to make i already answered in my last post.

[BrGlnn]

indeed *chuckle*

just because u really wish bjj was the ultimate art, it doesnt mean that it is. u keep repeating the same bs that isnt true, and all the points u tried to make i already answered in my last post.

Based on my experience - and mind you all that I have a lot - the best training is military hand to hand combat. There are a lot of people out there that believe in jujitsu but I'm not about to take their word over my experience.

[Tom Yum]

Based on my experience - and mind you all that I have a lot - the best training is military hand to hand combat. There are a lot of people out there that believe in jujitsu but I'm not about to take their word over my experience.

Hey Br, welcome!

My understanding of military hand to hand training is that it takes the most succesfull techniques from a lot of different martial arts: karate, judo, jujitsu, muay thai, kali and so on. I read a book on combatives and found alot of techniques from these arts.

Can you shed a little more light on this?

Thks

PS - A colleague of mine was an MP for the army. He showed me some basic sweeps and strikes that he learned, but I think it was more from his own interest in training outside what he was allready taught.

[koto_ryu]

Based on my experience - and mind you all that I have a lot - the best training is military hand to hand combat. There are a lot of people out there that believe in jujitsu but I'm not about to take their word over my experience.

Oorah, what branch Br?

[shamster]

just because u really wish bjj was the ultimate art, it doesnt mean that it is. u keep repeating the same bs that isnt true, and all the points u tried to make i already answered in my last post.

By the same token, just because you believe bjj isn't the ultimate art doesn't mean it's not either.
And while you have brought up points, you still haven't proved why your points disprove mine. You are welcome to share opinions of course, but an opinion it is. Same goes for me.