Comments regarding arguments against BJJ

[gregimotis]

I am new to BJJ, but have been a "fight fan" for many years. So naturally, I have collected many thoughts relating to the topic. After reading many posts here about why BJJ isn't good as people say it is, I have a few thoughts I'd like to share. This isn't a slam against anyone or any style...just my opinions and I'm open to a friendly discussion.

I am not new to BJJ or Muay Thai, I have also worked a few other styles a bit and I work as a doorman at a local club (I am far from the most knowledgable person on this board, but just letting you know where I come from).

MY Thesis:
Football and rugby are similar, but not identical games. To say that I have watched a lot of rugby and played a little football does not make my opinions on proper rugby play particularly valuable.


1. "BJJ is not effective against multiple attackers"
This is partly true. BJJ does have some techniques to deal with standing positions, which I think some people forget about.

This is true - naked chokes, for instance can easily be used from standing

Worried about multiple attackers? Carry a gun then.

You lifted this statement directly from the Gracies quotation "More than one, get a gun"

2. Punching is very reliant on strength and speed. Chances are if you punch someone hard enough to hurt him, you are likely going to hurt your own hand as well. Kicking doesn't work as well as it does in the movies.

Both these statements are at least partially incorrect. Punching someone in the face may hurt your hand, but a well placed bare knuckle punch is very likely to knock the fight out of your opponent. A boxer is likely to hit an untrained opponent two or three times in a row. Also, trained fighters don't kick like in the movies, that you even imply they might demonstrates your lack of knowledge. Also they don't knee in the movies - perhaps you've never taken a good hard knee? Elbow? Palm strike?

And I agree, most fights do end up on the ground, whether it's intentional or not. It's just reality.

You agree with whom? While I'm sure that most fights against a Gracie end on the ground, most fights I've seen do not end there. Some do, but most end either with one guy looking for a way to back out or end in a scuffle which gets broken up... Or start and end in a sucker punch attack.

I know he (Bruce Lee) was fast as hell, but what he does in movies is not what would necessarily happen in a real life situation.

Again with the movies...

3. "BJJ is too slow for ending a street fight"
I think it's dangerous for most people to think they can strike that fast, powerfully, and accurately.

You contradict yourself here - on the one hand, you argue that BJJ is faster than people think, On the other, you think it's dangerous to assume one's style is as fast as one thinks.
BJJ'ers can wrap up a roll in six seconds against an untrained partner, or it can take thirty seconds or more - depending on a lot of factors. This is pretty similar to me with an untrained striker.

you have to at least know how to deal with strikes at a basic level.
But my beliefs are that fights almost always go to the ground. And ground fighting (assuming the person is trained) is a much better equalizer than fast striking.

Good striking has very little to do with being fast or strong. What appears to the untrained to be 'fast striking' is actually the ability to anticipate situations and to move yourself into the best position to take advantage of the most likely situations. To say that striking depends on 'being fast' and that striking accuratly under pressure requires luck (not your words, but certainly your inference) is patently ridiculous.


BJJ is a great style. It addresses a range which had been neglected by many other styles and is very important. Most of the people on this board probably agree with some part of many of your points, however: Many of the people on this board have a lot more experience than you in BJJ, other styles and street fighting.
Welcome to the forum, consider asking questions rather than continuing the same tired old arguments we've all seen four zillion times already - Nobody cares if you think your style is the greatest style ever invented since the fist was first invented.

[CKD]

You mentioned in mma that all the strikers are very skilled and experts in there art. But yet so are the grapplers in NHB. Boxers end up in a clinch because they are very good at moving around and not getting hit while going in. Boxers do not train much in learning how to stay up. But they are extremely skilled so the fights last longer and so the chances of being in the clinch gets higher. Which is probaly why the clinch comes more into play during later rounds. Everyone already adrressed your barekuckle striking argument. In the first few UFCS many of the fights were ended with standing striking. It was mostly the fights with the grapplers trying to take the guy down that went to the ground. I do not remember the fight going to the ground in Keith's Hackneys fight with a sumo wrestler or Silva's fight with Yuki Kondo.

[shamster]

To the person who said I stole a Gracie quote...that is not true. I had no idea the Gracies even mention carrying a gun. That is my own philosophy, as a gun owner myself.

Also, I never inferred that good striking requires luck. That is your incorrect misinterpretation of my words. What I did say or imply is that good striking requires a good amount of skill. The tougher and better your opponent is, the more striking skills you will need if you rely solely on that.

I am well aware trained fighters don't kick like in the movies. That is, well trained ones. Isn't that what I was implying? Some styles still train to kick "movie style" though, and I believe you will end up fighting like how you train. My point on that was that in the movies, you see people with those fancy kicks taking out multiple attackers. In real life, any kick that can be used effectively can really only be used against one person. To think effective strikes can be used to stop multiple attackers is naive. Again, I am a realist thinking realistically.

Boxers don't train to stand up? Sure they do. Don't you know they train in stances that best keep them on balance during certain situations? Also, clinching isn't a result of fast skill only. Even I ended up in a clinch when fighting someone in high school because both of us were not skilled in striking. So basically, fights end up in a clinch pretty easily. The main difference is that skilled fighters may do it intentionally and unskilled fighters do it unintentionally.

As for the early UFCs, many of the striking fights did indeed end up on the ground. Keith Hackney vs. the Sumo guy? I remember the Sumo guy wasn't standing completely after taking some hits.

And I will state again for the 5th time, I didn't start this for the sake of repeating old arguments. I did so because I felt some issues were never addressed in the past. For example, I read over and over how people criticized bjj for lack of multiple attackers ability. I had a point to make regarding that because I have not read anyone else really post what I thought. Also, I didn't say that bjj alone can take on any fighter. I stated over and over that cross training is ideal. My originally point was that if everyone only trained in ONE style, it's my opinion that bjj would be the best to train. It is my opinion and my right to post it too. I hope y'all can finally understand this, and not attack me for "digging up old arguments" and saying that "bjj is better than anything since sliced bread."

[CKD]

So if you knock a dude down with striking as in with the Hackney and sumo fight then it is no longer a standing fight? Well I guess it is impossible then to have a standup fight then unless you run away because if you don't then you will knock them to the ground making it a groundfight Striking may require a good amount of skill. but you could probaly say that bjj requires the same or even more. No one mentioned anything about taking on multiple attackers with kicks, you brought that up and pretend that we are talking about it. no one said anything about you saying striking had to do with luck. You said that people said you said that. You talked about striking requiring too much strength and speed. We corrected you and you have yet placed a counter argument. The early ufc's were a set up for Royce. Many fights did finish while people were standing and sevaeral times a more skilled striker won the match as oppossed to the bigger guy. I never said boxers do not learn stand up fighting. I said they did not learn to stay up as in learning to sprawl. You once again changed everyone's words. You haven't proved your point of saying that most fight end up on the ground. You just gave us a bad example of how you fought in high school once and ended up in the clinch. I can give you a million examples if you want of amateur boxers beating there atackers without clinching or going to the ground as opposed to your arguments of "well I have seen a few fights in my life and they ended up on the ground". I can also show you mma fights that did not end up on the ground. As for bjj being the best option if you can only train one style, well even though I respect the art and hold a blue belt in it. I would say no.

[gregimotis]

Also, I never inferred that good striking requires luck. That is your incorrect misinterpretation of my words.

I re-read your post and perhaps 'luck' is an exaggerated paraphrase. Nonetheless, you clearly have only second hand knowledge of stand-up fighting. As an example, you are under the impression that boxers clinch because that's the natural progression of stand up fighting when in fact they clinch because within the rules of boxing, it's a good strategy to do so at times - just like stalling in a superior position is good strategy in a grapplling contest at times (like when you're ahead on points and/or tired and don't want to take too many risks).

good striking requires a good amount of skill. The tougher and better your opponent is, the more striking skills you will need if you rely solely on that.

Or put another way:

good grappling requires a good amount of skill. The tougher and better your opponent is, the more grappling skills you will need if you rely solely on that.



Anyway, I'm glad you've found a style which really clicks with you. I did BJJ for a while and found that I simply like Muay Thai better - not because I think it's necasarily better than B.J.J., but just because I like the flow of it better than the flow of grappling.

[shamster]

CKD, the above poster did admit to implying that I believe in "lucky" strikers. So you are wrong there.
You fail to realize that being knocked DOWN and knocked OUT aren't always the same thing. So if the person who gets taken to the ground by a strike is capable of ground fighting, it will then become a ground fight. If he isn't, then too bad for him...he will be knocked OUT by further downstrikes by the standing guy. Which proves my point even further how groundfighting can give you an edge. Also, when I told you that boxers train to stay on their feet, you said that wasn't so. Just re-read your old post as I have.
I am well aware that Rorion set up the early UFCs for Royce to dominate. However, that has nothing to do with the stand up fighters fighting each other. I have seen all the early UFCs, and the majority of fighters, regardless of style, do go to the ground. And as stated by someone else, even more likely when going against a grappler. Also, I would like to also point out that it was more so in later events (following the early UFCs) that strikers began making a "comeback." And the reason is because they cross trained a lot more. Even your favorite strikers mentioned earlier are cross trained. It's not often you find a successful striker these days who don't have at least some basic grappling training.
All you have done by telling me that striking doesn't require strength or speed is state your opinion. I hardly call this correcting. Tell me how I am wrong based on physics and physiology. If one does not have strength or speed, what kind of technique is required? Give me an example of how a slow and weak person should strike you? As I said, to take out someone much stronger with you by strikes, you must go for accurate shots. Strikes that land in particular areas that is.
CKD, you claim you have thousands of examples of fights that have pure strikes with no elements of grappling/clinching at all. And I also claim to have seem thousands of fight, either in person or on TV. So don't bother trying to cancel out what I saw because you saw something different. We caprobably go on forever with the "you saw this but I saw that."

Also about boxing, thanks for mentioning that clinching is a tactic allowed and thus the reason it occurs. It doesn't matter whether a clinch occurs because of careless untrained fighting or if it's intentional. A clinch is a clinch, and once it happens, grappling skills come into play.


That is fine that you may think another style is better if one can only train in one area. As I stated over and over again, it's an opinion. Just like how you give me a list of reasons why you think striking beats grappling overall, I can give you a bunch of reasons why I don't agree.

[koto_ryu]

That is fine that you may think another style is better if one can only train in one area. As I stated over and over again, it's an opinion. Just like how you give me a list of reasons why you think striking beats grappling overall, I can give you a bunch of reasons why I don't agree.

I know you're into a big kick with it right now since you just started taking it, so give it a few years when you really get to know your art and you'll see the weaknesses in it. That's when you cross-train.

[CKD]

Boxers train to fight from there feet. Not to stay on their feet when people are trying to take them down. You mentioned that it is not often a striker succeeds without knowledge about grappling. Yet it is just as uncommon to see a grappler succeed without some knowledge of striking. The physics behind striking is well known. Boxers use Newtons second law of motion in their strikes. Most people judge power by how much an athlete can bench or on his windup for his Sunday Punch. Power is found in the equation F=ma or force=mass x acceleration In a striking context this means KO Power = Directed Mass x strike speed. Punching power is utilized through basics technique through physics. The practice of putting some muscle behind your shots is actually bad technique. If you try to wind up and simply use muscle when striking it does little good for your k.o. goals. You need to put your Center OF MASS or COM in your strikes. COM is generally located in your hips. This is the point of the body's greatest weight. For example when throwing a cross you would use a hip thrust to add more power. In other punches you would use similar methods to add COM. You also need to snap your punches or treat your arm like a whip. The combination of snapping punches (acceleration) and putting COM (directed body mass) into your punches allows for you to put the most power in your punch. Also I do not believe that striking beats grappling overall like you think I do. Most wrestlers could probaly take down a pure boxer and beat them up. If strikers get decent takedown defense the chances become higher. Maybe not a huge amount higher in terms of fighting the wrestler but he will have a great chance against a typical BJJ guy who knows very little about takedowns. I was simply responding that I do not think that BJJ is the art you should study if you have one choice, I don't think most fights go to the ground, they are fought in a bunch of ranges, and that striking is more reliant on strength compared to grappling. There now you have your physics lesson on striking.

[shamster]

Thanks...however, I was well aware that F=MA. I did take engineering physics in college after all.
The fact remains though, that force relies on acceleration and mass, as you kindly stated. The snapping of the arms, backed by the mass you can put behind it, still does depend a bit on one's physical capabilities. Not only that...what is enough to KO one guy may not work on a much stronger guy who has a high tolerance to pain. Don't forget, there is also a unit of measure called foot lbs of energy. Two equally trained people can still put out different amounts of punching power.

Sorry, but all you have done is shown me how a person can maximize the effect of his own punch. That still does not prove that he can outpunch a bigger stronger person.

[HtTKar]

Not only that...what is enough to KO one guy may not work on a much stronger guy who has a high tolerance to pain.

A KO is from your brain bouncing around in your skull. It shuts down your body to protect you. Pain tolerance has nothing to do with it. Also the bigger someone is; the harder YOU can hit THEM.

I'm glad you love BJJ. It's obvious that this is the only art that you've trained in. You've probably only had one teacher. And you have not yet been taught punches, kicks or many ranges used in fights. You think that a punch has to be a KO. Even a well landed bare-knuckle jab will split your face open leaving you bleeding and dizzy, not to mention a cross, straight, or an uppercut while someone tries to shoot in. Its true that a lot of MA dont teach all the groundfighting techniques.....but they have 1000's of defenses against someone trying to take them to the ground. Also you say you know for a fact that most fights end on the ground. I challenge you to back that up with solid facts. Do you think BJJ is so good, only because it deals with groundfighting? In that respect look at Sumo. A traditional sumo fighter (not imperial court rules) would destroy a BJJ practitioner.

I understand that you have a great teacher, and he is making you a better person, but unless you can prove something that puts BJJ above all others then what you have posted is just an opinion by someone with little experience. I could just as well say that having bathwater 105 degrees is better than all other temperatures because I say so and am entitled to my opinion.

[CKD]

Thanks...however, I was well aware that F=MA. I did take engineering physics in college after all.
The fact remains though, that force relies on acceleration and mass, as you kindly stated. The snapping of the arms, backed by the mass you can put behind it, still does depend a bit on one's physical capabilities. Not only that...what is enough to KO one guy may not work on a much stronger guy who has a high tolerance to pain. Don't forget, there is also a unit of measure called foot lbs of energy. Two equally trained people can still put out different amounts of punching power.

Sorry, but all you have done is shown me how a person can maximize the effect of his own punch. That still does not prove that he can outpunch a bigger stronger person.

Weight and strength is as much as an advantage in BJJ. Putting all your bodyweight behind a punch allows you to hit much harder. Which allows him to k.o the guy Vitor Belfort was able to outstrike a much bigger Tank Abbott but I could give you all the evidence in the world and you would still just sit their and say "that does not prove anything". Why are you even arguing about something that you know nothing about? You have not done anything except going around saying that if you had to do one style then BJJ would be it and the only evidence you give is saying that striking requires too much strength while bjj requires none of that and is a great equalizer. You have not put out any evidence on either point but you just deny other peoples points. I would suggest you go get more experience before yo go around the internet making these claims.

[shamster]

Strength helps in anything you do almost. Even in shooting a gun at times. A person who is stronger can use that as an advantage in BJJ too. However, bjj makes use of positioning and leverage more so than pure striking. To say that striking uses the same amount of positioning and leverage would be foolish, and anyone who says that has no idea about either aspect of fighting. BTW, Vitor Belfort is not a weak person. And he is a better striker than Tank.
Anyhow, for the 6th time now, my original point was NOT that striking is always useless. It's that I believe that grappling is better for most average cases. However, this doesn't matter because for every person like you who believes in striking beating grappling, someone else will believe the opposite. What I wanted to address was that the weaknesses mentioned weren't quite the weakensses they were thought to be.

Also, I'm not quite as clueless about punching as you think. On the contrary, I am realistic about it. To say that even a thin padded glove doesn't make a difference is a sign of someone who isn't too knowledgable about the human hand.

I too, can give you thousands of examples of how grappling can beat striking and you won't want to acknowledge it. The bottom line is that some fighters can still get away with relying on pure grappling and little striking, but very few strikers today can rely on pure striking. Why is it that as those NHB competitions progressed, grappling skills became even more important?

[EmptyneSs]

i think for men, striking skills are probobly more important for self defense than bjj. the reason i think this is because although u should know both, boxing and muay thai develope skills and attributes that are awesome for self defense, that bjj does not develope. i only mention muay thai and boxing because these are the only striking arts i have experience in. for example, boxing and muay thai teach a person to keep calm and collected while they are being attacked. u say its hard to use good striking skills under pressure, and thats because u really dont have any training in decent striking skills, otherwise u would have known that statement isnt true and wouldnt have even said it. also may thai and boxing allow the practitioner to become used to taking hits and continue fighting. people who dont have skills in striking usually ball up when someone is throwing strikes at them, or they have never really experienced getting hit, so when they do they are completely thrown off their game. also, boxing and muay thai develope extremeley fast reflexes, speed in movements, awesome footwork that can bring u in and out of range, parrying, counters to attacks, attacks in combinations, awesome endurance, and above all....muay thai and boxing give their practitioners a kind of tenacity and toughness that alot of arts do not.

btw, muay thai and boxing require just as much positioning as bjj. muay thai and boxing are all about positioning. u want to put urself in superior positions that will allow u to unleash effective, devasting strikes. thats what parrying, bobing, weaving, slipping, footwork, and headmovement is all about. i know to most people who have no experience in boxing and muay thai, it looks really simple, and it is, but at the same time theres so much more to it all than people realize.


on the other hand, for women, i would say bjj is probobly one of the best arts for self defense. this is because most women, even if they train in boxing or muay thai, unless she is awesome, most guys are jsut too much bigger and stronger. when women are attacked on the street, they are usualyl grabbed and pushed to the ground to be raped, and the positioning, and joint locks of bjj is probobly her best bet.

[bbbb]

Fight's

...I've only seen two-let alone been in one; but they were all over in no more than two punches...only one person goes to the ground

[koto_ryu]

1. "BJJ is not effective against multiple attackers"
This is partly true. BJJ does have some techniques to deal with standing positions, which I think some people forget about. If you are on the ground and your opponent has friends that are backing him up, you are pretty much screwed. But then again, I don't believe any style is truly effective against multiple attackers......Worried about multiple attackers? Carry a gun then.

There are many arts that train against multiple attackers, some judoka do, as well as jujitsu, ninjutsu, batto jutsu, and even freestyle wrestling on occasion (3 on 1 bull in the ring is not fun).

2. "Being on the ground is the last place you'd want to be in a street fight"
Not necessarily. It is if you have multiple attackers, but that's another problem (see my last point). I think against one opponent, the stand up game is more dangerous for many people.

I'd rather be on my feet than on the ground. Depending on where you're fighting, the ground could be worse off for you than if you're standing. I saw two guys wrestling on a basketball court once, and one got his back torn up so badly he looked like ground meat from behind.

Punching is very reliant on strength and speed.

Thats already been covered, so no worries.

a kick can knock you off balance easily.

That's why you kick low, a good low kick to the knee or instep can often turn the tide of a fight. If he's distracted, let's not forget a nice crotch shot too. Knees are effective as well at close range.

And I agree, most fights do end up on the ground, whether it's intentional or not.

This has been covered too. You'd be surprised how many real conflicts end with little to no grappling involved, including clinches, throws, takedowns, and submissions.

It's just reality. It's much easier for a person to fall or be taken down than it is to remain standing.....And to repeat, going to the ground is probably going to happen anyway.

I'd rather kick them when they're on the ground. You don't get your pants dirty and it's a lot easier.

Pro boxers end up getting in a clinch much more often than they do landing actually landing effective punches.

You obviously need to watch more boxing