So you think BJJ is effective for street self defense?

[jubaji]

Years ago I took Tai Chi from a teacher who taught you how to fight, no fancy forms or that honky dory crap.

You studied Taijiquan without forms?

[Uke]

cam427

That is like saying the Wright brothers first plane is better than a 747 because they mastered flight first. Things improve over time and many styles have been around for hundreds of years so saying they are off-shoots of jujitsu is no longer true. Also, if you look at arts from many cultures they contain similar moves. This is because the human body is a certain way, not because they stole it from a japanese guy.

No, its not saying the same thing. In that case, a plane is a plane, and we all give credit to the Wright brothers for developing it. Just because more powerful engines and pressurized cabins have been invented, we don't credit those inventors with inventing the plane. Building the first plane and a building better plane are two very different things.

Just so you know, Kano got all of his formal martial arts knowledge in jujitsu. Tenjin-Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu schools were his education in MA. Now, you can go on and on about whatever. But the truth is that the tactics have regressed today more into sport than into tools for survival. You might be one of those people who thinks that because time goes by things must evolve, but change does not always equal evolution. And in this case the "evolution" you speak of does not help your argument at all.

And yes, anatomical application dictates how a move works. But the name jujitsu in "brazilian jujitsu" imples jujitsu, which was really judo. When you apply a lock, you can say its greco roman or hindu wrestling for all I care. But that isn't even the topic at hand. Just because you may find some similar moves in other styles, that doesn't mean that those styles popularized them. Kano wasn't even the first person to call his art judo, but he popularized it. So we recognize him and the organized system he gave called judo. And the fusen ryu aspect of his judo we see today is being called BJJ. But don't get it twisted, he studied and practiced jujitsu, then he organized it and refined its randori into judo.

Now, will you intelligently reply to me and tell me what moves BJJ has "evolved" to be so seperate? The Gracie's entire reign is just an extension of Tanabe dominating Kano's school in a challenge. And Helio adopted Tanabe's approach to jujitsu because he was too weak to apply Kano's. He didn't have the strength.

[Uke]

mpossoff

On another note, I know boxers that can kick ass both in the ring and outside the ring, so it depends how you train and your mindset.

Yeah, that sounds good, but boxers are usually in the best shape of any athlete and their athleticism alone gives them a huge edge. But the boxer isn't boxing. And boxing will only work well as self defense if the boxer is in relatively better than average shape. Teach boxing to a out of shape guy or a housewife and see how well they use it in a fight. Its about how well the art works on a whole for everyone, not how proficient a trained athlete can use it.

I guarantee most people on this board haven't really been in situations like that and would shit their pants if they were...even though with their martial arts training.

Oh for sure. You can tell by some of the things written here.

I have known some pretty damn tough dudes in my day with no martial arts training that could kick some ass.

I'll take a brawler type street fighter with no fear versus a martial arts practioner any day.

Big difference when attitude comes ito play and how tough you are when it counts.

Marc

People who had to fight growing up usually are better fighters.
They have experience with adrenaline, anxiety, fear and learning from a young age how to take an @ss kicking. Once you're not afraid to get hit, you'll hesitate less and your strikes will be more sure. I'm definitely on the same page with you here.

[IPON]

I'm aware of the Kimura match as we've spoken about this on the thread already. But I don't know the date. Regardless, the untruth is not mine as they've claimed not to have been defeated for decades. But I see your point.

Hey Uke, actually, I was not clear I meant this was another untruth from the Gracie clan not from you.

[medic06]

The worst thing the Wasps around New England do is look down their noses at you and call the cops if you walk through their neighborhood late at night!

LMBAO!!!!!!!

[cam427]

No, its not saying the same thing. In that case, a plane is a plane, and we all give credit to the Wright brothers for developing it. Just because more powerful engines and pressurized cabins have been invented, we don't credit those inventors with inventing the plane. Building the first plane and a building better plane are two very different things.

Just so you know, Kano got all of his formal martial arts knowledge in jujitsu. Tenjin-Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu schools were his education in MA. Now, you can go on and on about whatever. But the truth is that the tactics have regressed today more into sport than into tools for survival. You might be one of those people who thinks that because time goes by things must evolve, but change does not always equal evolution. And in this case the "evolution" you speak of does not help your argument at all.

When I read your first paragraph what I am reading is that you are crediting jujitsu with the development of these moves (like the Wright brothers) but accept that many other styles have improved on them (like Boeing). If this is correct then I agree that other styles have improved the moves but am not too sure about the fact that jj invented the moves.

I was wondering how much truth can be given to the statement that jujitsu created these moves. While the Judo moves came from jujitsu didn't the jujitsu moves come from an earlier style which originated in India and came through China.

You second paragraph about evolution I disagree with as the fact that so many arts are better than JJ in certain areas (as I listed above) proves the evolution.

Cam

[mpossoff]

Yeah, that sounds good, but boxers are usually in the best shape of any athlete and their athleticism alone gives them a huge edge. But the boxer isn't boxing. And boxing will only work well as self defense if the boxer is in relatively better than average shape. Teach boxing to a out of shape guy or a housewife and see how well they use it in a fight. Its about how well the art works on a whole for everyone, not how proficient a trained athlete can use it.



Oh for sure. You can tell by some of the things written here.



People who had to fight growing up usually are better fighters.
They have experience with adrenaline, anxiety, fear and learning from a young age how to take an @ss kicking. Once you're not afraid to get hit, you'll hesitate less and your strikes will be more sure. I'm definitely on the same page with you here.

Yeah, that sounds good, but boxers are usually in the best shape of any athlete and their athleticism alone gives them a huge edge. But the boxer isn't boxing. And boxing will only work well as self defense if the boxer is in relatively better than average shape. Teach boxing to a out of shape guy or a housewife and see how well they use it in a fight. Its about how well the art works on a whole for everyone, not how proficient a trained athlete can use it.



Oh for sure. You can tell by some of the things written here.



People who had to fight growing up usually are better fighters.
They have experience with adrenaline, anxiety, fear and learning from a young age how to take an @ss kicking. Once you're not afraid to get hit, you'll hesitate less and your strikes will be more sure. I'm definitely on the same page with you here.

Right, people who had to fight when growing up are in most cases better fighters.

It's not necessarily about the technique, although technique can make you a better fighter.

Let's get back on track here about....

So you think BJJ is effective for street self defense?

Was really thinking about this alot last night and came up with some theories.

Ideally in a street situation you want to strike first.

Why?

For one striking allows you to retreat if necessary once the attack/strike occurs (hopefully the stiking did it's job.)

Even more important is striking allows you to see any additional threats and address them if possible.

EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, few street fights occur under ideal conditons.

Although developing ground skills is essential, I believe it should be developed in a way to develop ground skills for ground escapes and takedown defense. In other words if get get hit and go to the ground, and it happens, you should feel comfortable so you don't panic if the person is on top of you pounding you.

Again, few street fights occur under ideal conditions like sport or a ring....

If your initial focus is going to the ground better be prepaired to get your head knocked in by the guys friends because strret fights don't occur under ideal conditions.

Be comfortable on the ground if it comes down to it.

BJJ is a nice complement to self defense systems, but there is way too much focus as BJJ for primary self defense.

In ideal conditions BJJ as a primary works.

But we're not talking about ideal conditions.

Marc

[nightrider]

real street fights

it is really surprising how quicly people get offended and just compete with their own opinions about what i sthe best style. i have to agree to Uke that he never said BJJ is not a good martial art.

But what I am really curious about is what a BJJ practitionor is gonna do ( no matter hormany weapons involved ) if he has his opponent on vthe ground and lock him in any way. and suddelny he gets his head kicked by one or two other guys. this is a real possible situation as most `streetfighters´are ninnies and just fight in groups against their ´victims´.

there are some martial arts wich provide solutions for that scenario. in the end it is of course not the martial art but the fighter who make it work or not.

but i have my concerns of fighting several opponents on the ground while locking one of them.

and for the people who like to argue: I do like BJJ as it is for me the best on the ground you can find. but i would just add it to another martial art. with BJJ alone I would never feel safe.

[mpossoff]

it is really surprising how quicly people get offended and just compete with their own opinions about what i sthe best style. i have to agree to Uke that he never said BJJ is not a good martial art.

But what I am really curious about is what a BJJ practitionor is gonna do ( no matter hormany weapons involved ) if he has his opponent on vthe ground and lock him in any way. and suddelny he gets his head kicked by one or two other guys. this is a real possible situation as most `streetfighters´are ninnies and just fight in groups against their ´victims´.

there are some martial arts wich provide solutions for that scenario. in the end it is of course not the martial art but the fighter who make it work or not.

but i have my concerns of fighting several opponents on the ground while locking one of them.

and for the people who like to argue: I do like BJJ as it is for me the best on the ground you can find. but i would just add it to another martial art. with BJJ alone I would never feel safe.

nightrider, it's IMPORTANT to realize that striking allows you to have perception, to see what's going on around you and to try to take care of additional attackers.

VERY important that people realize this!

BJJ for me is the best for groundfighting, only for defense against takedowns and to escape from the ground.

If I'm in a street I want to know what's going on around me. I want to be on my feet. I have many of a street fights in my younger years and I can tell you that wanting to take an oppenet to the ground wouldn't have been a wise choice.

Now if 2 oppositions wanted to street fight and had it in an ideal situation and a controlled environment, then BJJ can work. Provided "both sides" agreed not to get involved in the fight.

Again I can't stress this enough, that street fights very rarely happen in ideal situations.

We're talking about in the STREETS, not in an ideal environment.

BJJ as a primary means of self defense in an "un-ideal" environment is not a wise choice.

Marc

[Nutz]

Marc, well said! IMO, in the typicall "steet" envrionment you want to be as mobile as you can in order to escape the situation as quickly as possible. Going toe to toe with an aggressor is not what countering an assault is about. Its about neutralizing the threat as quickly as humanly possible, while taking the least amount of damage feasible to the situation, and leaving that situation before more harm can be inflicted on you. That's the reality one must keep in mind. To this end, going to the ground should be a last resort as you loose all mobility and become an immobile target for other possible opponents, seen or unseen (especially with regard the latter that going to the ground can get you into mortal danger).

In my experience, in order to successfully counter an assault, the event needs to be ended in 3-5 seconds. We're not talking street fights with guys dancing around for a few seconds before engaging. I'm talking about when a guy (or 2 or more) presents a knife, club, fists, etc while your walking down the street, at an ATM, etc.

[Uke]

cam427

When I read your first paragraph what I am reading is that you are crediting jujitsu with the development of these moves (like the Wright brothers) but accept that many other styles have improved on them (like Boeing). If this is correct then I agree that other styles have improved the moves but am not too sure about the fact that jj invented the moves.

I was wondering how much truth can be given to the statement that jujitsu created these moves. While the Judo moves came from jujitsu didn't the jujitsu moves come from an earlier style which originated in India and came through China.

You second paragraph about evolution I disagree with as the fact that so many arts are better than JJ in certain areas (as I listed above) proves the evolution.

Cam

Cam, this is becoming semantics. Let me just get straight to the points.

Other styles did not improve upon jujitsu as the moves are the same, the applications are the same and the human body is the same so the techniques can only evolve but so much because anatomy is the same. What possibly may have changed is some of the chokes because judo made it mandatory to wear a gi which jujitsu did not. The applications of the gi chokes may have changed, but the naked chokes have not. All the armbars, leglocks, and neck cranks are the same. Even kuzushi was used before Kano coined the phrase and made it a main principle in his system.

I am not debating whether jujitsu "invented" all these techniques, as the these techniques can be traced even further back than India. That is another debate. I am stating that jujitsu is the parent art where many of today's modern grappling and self defense practitioners have adopted their techniques and concepts.

Your example of inventing the plane was not a good one, because while you are correct that the Wright brother's plane is not as advanced as today's planes, you failed to supply the example of how today's jujitsu/judo/BJJ has made a similar advancement to the Boeing that I asked for. And you won't give an example because there isn't one.

I already explained to you that many of the arts that we practiced have regressed due to the social climate in most non 3rd world countries. People used to train to kill, not compete. And not just to be killers, but to protect themselves from killers and their land from those who would take or loot it. Today, we rely on police and a so-called, non-existent evolved sense of social conciousness and political correctness to prevent crime. The way we live today isn't condusive to justify being a killer in the USA or Canada, and that's why alot of people train for "the sport of it", and not because they feel they need to be better survivors. That attitude right there can demonstrate why the goals of our arts have changed today. They are watered down because many have been lulled into believeing that good ole' Uncle Sam will take care of everything. But where I live, people die from violence every day.

This isn't an attempt for me to say that NYer's are tougher than everybody else. This is me telling you that there's a big difference between taking MA for fun or because you like to work out, and taking MA so that you can stay alive walking home from work, or on the job if you are police or a C.O. They say necessity is the mother of all invention, but if you don't have the need, you probably won't find the way. Unless you're just determined to be the best at surviving and not competing, that is.

This has been one part of the problem with BJJ. They have made it seem through their marketing that they've been using BJJ to survive, and they haven't. As someone here said, its basically submission wrestling, not self defense. And that's exactly why I pointed out that the Gracies survive because they travel in numbers, not because they're confident that what they do is formidable on the street. That's not a put down either. Its an observation. I would say the same thing about today's tai chi and point fighting karate and tae kwon do.

The real contribution that Kano gave was randori, or sparring with rules but trying to keep it real. Its basically the equivilent of point fighting in karate. He did this so that his jujitsu, later called judo, wouldn't be looked upon as tough guys beating each other up in the dojo and getting hurt. Less injury means less healing time and more training time, but even Kano noticed it was drifting away from practical application. After sport judo became mainstream and point fighting grew in popularity and rose to the top, the saying "Sh!t rolls downhill" comes to mind.

Lastly, jujitsu was the art of the warrior class of japan. You can say that jujitsu "formulated" the moves, or "organized" them. It doesn't matter. The reason that the rest of the world has taken a page from jujitsu is because of the efficiency and prowess of the warriors who used it. The example of how good an art works is in the example of those who use it, and the samurai are renowned for being one of if not thee best H2H warriors of all time. There are hieroglyphics that illustrate so-called jujitsu moves that predate hindu wrestling, but you don't call it Kemetian combat, do you?

I don't see where you could feel that you proved some evolution. And its not because I don't want to see it. Its not there, buddy. Had you proved a point someone(if not me first) would have acknowledged it by now.

[cam427]

Uke,

Afraid I disagree with some of your statements again little man.

Your statement - "Other styles did not improve upon jujitsu as the moves are the same, the applications are the same and the human body is the same so the techniques can only evolve but so much because anatomy is the same."

is very much like my previous statement - "if you look at arts from many cultures they contain similar moves. This is because the human body is a certain way, not because they stole it from a japanese guy."

so I guess we agree but I am just wondering why we picked the point where it was called jujitsu to stop evolving. The chinese styles were also very strong by this time and also contained most (if not all) of the moves.

Your next statement - "What possibly may have changed is some of the chokes because judo made it mandatory to wear a gi which jujitsu did not."

is an example of evolution. Someone takes something, strips out what he believes to be good for his purpose and by the very act of concentrating on it so hard he improves it. I think proof of this is that judo players are better at throws than jujitsu students (same with BJJ on the ground, kali with knives, etc). I certainly think there are aspects of fighting that have improved since fuedal era Japan if you do not then please explain why all of these other arts are better than JJ in the areas they have become specialised in.

I do agree with you that the reason for training is very different and that many people are looking for something different in their training. I train because I enjoy it and it is a great chance to meet cool people and keep fit, etc. This does not mean that I cannot use it to defend myself.

I also agree with you about the Gracies. Their reason for training is to make money. Their fights are not self-defense but organised fights and the marketing is amazingly effective (this does not mean they are not tough). I do not hold this against them as I have no illusions about what it is like to be poor in a third world country.

Cam

[blitz]

There's a difference between streefighting and taking the martial art as a sport. If you learn the right way, you'll be able to stop streetfighters with any martial art, they all have their advantages, even the ones you think are the weakest. Its all about practice imo. BJJ shows you how to break someones arm/leg, get a good choke, it shows you techniques you can use. You don't have to be on the ground to use everything. You just have to think how you can use your ground techniques in the right way. When i took Kali(stickfighting) we took how to counter sticks without one, and when you think about it you can use these counters to punches some kicks.. get my point?

[Uke]

cam427

Its fine that you disagree, Cam. Its that you're not sure what you disagree about that is the problem.

First you state:

Uke,

Afraid I disagree with some of your statements again little man.

Then you write:

so I guess we agree but I am just wondering why we picked the point where it was called jujitsu to stop evolving.

So you disagreed to agree 7 lines later?

And just because a hold, choke or technique exists doesn't mean that they were all put together into a system. This is just like the Jeet Kune Do debate. Jeet Kune Do is a system based on an idea and some concepts, but because it has no real foundation in anything, you can call anything Jeet Kune Do. Before jujitsu, the moves that you see in jujitsu weren't put together in a systematic way. That's why you have to say "aren't they from India?", and can't name the system. That's what seperates "some moves" from an art. There are principles in an art. There are concepts in an art. Chin Na, while considered older describes what jujitsu does(sieze & grab), and wasn't a fighting system. Chin Na was basically a name for the grappling range that other styles like praying mantis and white crane employed.

That is why jujitsu is commonly referred to as the art, even though some of the techniques may predate the organization and refinement of them into a system.

Then you went on to write:

Your next statement - "What possibly may have changed is some of the chokes because judo made it mandatory to wear a gi which jujitsu did not." is an example of evolution.

How is that evolution? Wearing a gi and using it to choke is evolution? To evolve is to grow and advance to a higher, more capable state. Requiring people to wear garments that you can choke them with is not advancing to a higher state. Its adding a technique because now you have introduced a garment to work with. An evolution would be what Ueshiba Sensei did by mastering circular motion and becoming proficient at it WITHOUT having to use strength or strikes. He didn't make his students wear football helmets so that he could throw them by grabbing the facemask and called it evolution. The methodology of jujitsu changed drastically when it became aikido. True softness and true manipulation of momentum(blending). That's evolution because the applications of jujitsu are still there, but the principles and the skills are different. Kano just gathered techniques that he liked and could perform, and added kuzushi. Jujitsu styles had mostly relied on leverage. It was his concept of kuzushi and his practice of randori that set his jujitsu apart and made it judo. Was it an evolution? I'm not so sure. It definitely was modified, but the techniques were pretty much the same. But once Kano intergrated fusen ryu jujitsu, it really changed as it focused on ground techniques. But is that an evolution? Or just a change in what range you focus on? Either way, if there was an evolution it was evolution into sport and away from the killing ways of those who had to fight for survival.

I do agree with you that the reason for training is very different and that many people are looking for something different in their training. I train because I enjoy it and it is a great chance to meet cool people and keep fit, etc. This does not mean that I cannot use it to defend myself.

I also agree with you about the Gracies. Their reason for training is to make money. Their fights are not self-defense but organised fights and the marketing is amazingly effective (this does not mean they are not tough). I do not hold this against them as I have no illusions about what it is like to be poor in a third world country.

So what were you talking about when you said you disagreed? You've agreed with EVERYTHING I wrote. I've asked you twice to tell me which techniques you felt evolved beyond the scope of what jujitsu has always been. Once again, you listed none. And that's because there are no techniques that you're aware of that you could offer up as evolved. Even though there are evolved techniques of jujitsu, like those in aikido, you aren't educated enough to discuss them because you are a proponent of MMA, a system of oversimplifying other systems as a quick fix means of brawling and submitting.

I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to actually write something in a civil manner, even though the sarcasm is still there. But if you just stay focused and re-read what you wrote, you'll see that the following is true:

You're arguing because you don't like my opinions, not because you think they're incorrect or inaccurate

[Tant01]

You speak like an authority on the subject but you still don't get it. Jujutsu is dead. What survived was gathered from the leading Jujutsu masters and grouped under the umbrella of JUDO. The difference between the two is more philosophical than anything else but hardly worthy of a history lesson.

I think Kano deserves much more credit for his contribution to the globalization of the art.

Read this: http://members.lycos.co.uk/fight/judo/judo.html

The author is a real authority on Judo and Jujutsu, Unlike some of us here...


On Jujutsu and it's modernization: http://www.judoinfo.com/tomiki2.htm


It might be nice to think you know something but it's better if you have more than a clue.

To understand (really) you need a perspective on the spirit of Budo. I'm just not seeing it folks...

Show me! It's not that hard. Quit taking everything personally and just explore it...

Enjoy.