I could be BJJ blackbelt in 2yrs

Underground BJJ Ground
41

Your Father,

First off people make martial arts, martial arts do not make people. Any defect in any "system" of martial arts is totally the fault of the individual. No activity including martial arts has ever created itself.

What law say one HAS to train contrary logic and common sense?

People tend to make things far more complicated then it really is and needs to be.

Martial Arts are physical activities. One develops skill in them the way they do any other physical activity.

Bjj didn't "create" common sense or logical training. Nor did "kung fu" create idiotic or illogical training. Either come directly from the individual who happens to participate in the "physical endeavors".

If a person choses to do things which totally have nothing to do with the practical use of their physical activity then that isn't the activity's fault.

The premise is simple. Assuming that what one is taught is useful and practical then all the individual has to do is consistently and dilligent practice what they know and learn. This is the logical and common sense way to learn and develop skill in a physical activity.

If a person comes up with alot of unneccessary things to do and for what ever reason does them than it is that person fault plain and simple not the activity or martial art. Martial arts do not perform or teach themselves.

You seem not to understand is the idea that true skill is demonstrated on the mat was invent by Bjj is dumb premise. This principle is as old as physical activity itself.

People didn't all of a sudden realize that true skill is demostrated on the mat when Bjj came to town.

42

"Part of the difference between BJJ and most other arts is the way you train. What other art can you train full contact on a regular basis?"

Judo, Wrestling, Boxing for starters...

43

He does say MOST other arts.

44

Your Father, Daredevil,

Incidently, this though came to mind yesterday, when you speak of Bjj training and approach being different from "most" martial arts I assume you basically talking about groundfighting.

As far as I know that is the only elelmt or aspect of bjj which is truly "tested" on the mat.

I guess you both forget that Bjj also has a stand-up self-defense component. And this component is nearly as efficient as the groundfighting component.

So I guess while you complain about others martial arts so-called unrealistic training and technique Bjj's standup self defense isn't apart of that.

Bottom line Bjj's stand-up self defense is taught and trained via kata style. So not all of Bjj is so revolutionary.

45

Your Father,

You say: "I never claimed that BJJ came up with this idea. It's simply one of the few MA systems that practices it."

That's crap. There are but a handful of martial arts/combat sports out there that are geared toward realistic fighting like PART of Bjj is.

And out of those handful full ALL OF THEM practice in the very way you claim Bjj does. So in that respect Bjj isn't alone.

Aside from that the ONLY aspect of Bjj that is geared toward "realism" or is learned, practiced, and taught in a "realistic" way is the groundfighting aspect and all of its applications.

The other aspects of Bjj, namely the standup self defense aspect, is taught, learned and practiced via kata style like the rest of the so-called MA you talk about.

So only PART of Bjj is practiced the way you claim which supposedly sets it apart from other MA. As much as you want to claim bjj is different from other MA it isn't when you look at and take into consideration the stand-up self defense aspect of it WHICH incidently is APART of Bjj.

The only thing that makes Bjj stand out among other MA is its groundfighting. It is the ONLY aspect of Bjj that is realistic and is trained in a realistic fashion.

46

Your Father,

Your missing my point.

First off. You say name the handful martial arts/combat sports which are geared toward realistic fighting. I did.

In case you missed them they are: boxing, wrestling (including Sambo), Judo, Bjj (part of it) and Muay Thai. Out of all the Martial arts around these represent the "handful" which are geared toward realistic fighting.

Incidently, MMA is a misnomer in that it essentially made up of more combat sports than any traditional martial art. In fact I'll go on record to say there is NO other system of martial arts that contribute what is called MMA other than the ones I mentioned.

So in reality when speaking of "other" martial arts in regards to MMA there is no connection. MMA IS NOT traditional martial arts, never has been and never will be. MMA is derived from that handful of martial arts which are geared toward realistic fighting. So any talk martial arts such as kung fu, TKD and the like in relation to MMA is nonsense and irrelevant to me.

So with that said of all the martial arts/combat sports which form MMA, ALL of them are practiced, taught, and learned essentially the same way. So the point I made stands: "out of those handful full ALL OF THEM are practiced in the very way you claim Bjj does. So in that respect Bjj isn't alone".

My argument isn't thin as I am making a distinction between realistic MA and tradtional MA (that are not the same) AND furthermore I am stating that among realistic MAs (which Bjj is apart) Bjj's approach in regards to instruction and training isn't all that different from the rest in that group.

The only thing different is the content. Bjj is groundfighting whereas Boxing is striking with your hands. BUT the approach in learning and practicing is nearly identical in that there the "realistism" and "dynamism" element involved.

Now it is important for me to say that it is only the groundfighting element of Bjj that is taught and practiced realistically. The other portion of Bjj, which you ignored, the standup self defense, is not taught nor practice the same way the groundfighting aspect is. In that regard Bjj is no different from any other traditional MA. BUT only in that regard.

Incidently just make this clear MMA is not made up of traditional martial arts so any talk of traditional martial arts in regards to MMA is irrelevant to me. Other than the stand up self defense BJJ in my mind is exactly like boxing, wrestling, Muay thai in regards to how it is taught and practiced so those are the arts which I compare it to. I don't compare Bjj to TKD or kungfu because those arts don't have the same function as Bjj. BUT I do compare Bjj to boxing, wrestling ect and when compared Bjj isn't that much different from them in regards to how it is taught and practiced. And that is my point.

47

Your Father,

First off I think you sort of read something into my original statement that isn't there.

My point wasn't that ALL martial arts are equal or that even train for the same thing. My point was that ALL martial arts are physical activities AND true skill in any physical activity is demostrated on the mat, court, field, etc.

So regardless of the style or type of martial art or physical activity a person's skill in that activity is demostrated in the field of play (for like of a better word).

This is just the nature of physical activities. Even if it is a physical activity I don't like, a person's true skill in that activity is STILL demostrated on the court, mat, field ect.

This is a simple fact.

NOW you took that to mean that I think ALL martial arts are equal. No there are not. No only do I think that all martial arts are NOT equal, also I think there all really can't be compared to one another, so grouping together as if they are all apart of the same thing is dumb to me.

Now don't get confused here concerning this point. I think that ALL martial arts are physical activities BUT I don't think ALL martial arts are really the same and I don't think they ALL should be catagorized together as martial arts.

In my mind TKD, Kung Fu, Tai Chi, traditional karate and other so-called martial arts are not the same as Wrestling, boxing, Bjj, Judo, Muay Thai, Sambo. They are all collective grouped together under the name martial art BUT in my mind they are not all martial arts. They are all artforms and they are all physical activities but they have different functions. They are all fruits but different types or kinds. Thus comparing Kung Fu to bjj is like comparing apples and oranges. Comparing Bjj to Judo or boxing is different because in my mind there are of the same fruit but different shape, color and size.

I could go into how I view and see each art but that would take time (I will say for example Tai Chi in my mind is a type of conditioning/relaxation exercise similar to yoga and pilates. It has more in common with those two artforms than other so-called martial arts.

Anyway back to my original point, any skill one has in a given artform is always deomstrated in the field of play whether that field is the mat, the court, the dance hall, the ring, etc.

A person skilled in TKD will demostrate that skill physically. Now being skilled at TKD is not the same as being skilled at BJJ. Both of these artforms have different skills. Nonetheless I am not comparing those skills to each other (I don't think you can). But I can look at someone who has trained in TKD and say that they are or are not skilled IN TKD. Does that mean they are good at bjj? No! Does that mean they are good at any other physical activity or artform? No! What it means is their ability (or lack of) in TKD is physically evident. I can tell, from a physical stand point, whether a person is or isn't good, skilled or unskilled in a specific artform or physical activity.

That is my original point.

Incidently just because I see and say that a person is skilled at TKD doesn't mean I am making a comment about TKD or that I am endorsing it. Anyone who takes that from such a comment is reading in to it. Saying a person is skilled at TKD, kungfu or whatever is a statement about that person and that person's skill in that particular activity nothing more nothing less.

48

ttt

49

Your Father,

I would agree with you EXCEPT when it comes to Bjj's stand-up SELF DEFENSE. It is learned, taught and practiced differently from the other aspects of Bjj namely the groundfighting.

The stand-up SD techniques of Bjj are taught Kata style and or practiced Kata style. What I mean by Kata style is one person plays the role of attacker and attacks with a "specific" and "particular" attack; the other person plays the role of defender and defends with a "specific" defense. There is NO free-play in regards to how these techniques are taught and practiced. It is a prearrangement in both instruction and application in practice. Therefore it is essentially a "kata".

In my mind the stand-up SELF DEFENSE (I am specifically talking about those techniques of Bjj which are called self defense technique. I'm not talking about the "fighting" techniques nor the "sport" techniques. There is a specific body of techniques which I am talking about which I believe you know about, which are and have been historically apart of the Bjj syllabus of techniques and have been taught by Bjj instructors since Bjj has been around) are no better or worse than the so-called self-defense techniques of traditional jiu-jitsu. In fact they look just like them. Furthermore this techniques ARE NOT taught nor practiced any differently than "self-defense" techniques of other MA particularly other systems of Jiu-jitsu.

This is why I said PART of Bjj is conveyed and taught (as well as trained) in the way you claim.

50

Your Father,

I don't want to get into an argument with you on this BUT yes that is "kata" style. First of partner kata are done with resistance. In fact that is how the partner katas of traditional jiujitsu are done. The attacker attacks with a predetermine attack AND attacks with force. The defender defends with a predetermine defense and defends with force. If either side (the attacker or defender) isn't putting forth force or resistance then they are not doing the kata right. Example is katame no kata of Judo. One person applies a "specific" hold, choke or submission. The other person is suppose to make a realistic escape. He is then suppose to TAP to the actual application of the hold, choke or submission. Force and resistance on both sides is suppose to be actual. What makes Bjj's standup self defense taught and practice in "kata" style is the FACT there is a PREDETERMINED attack and defense. Person A attacks with a predetermine attack AND person B defends with a predetermine attack.

And as I stated before it doesn't matter what people train Bjj for the FACT of the matter is the Stand-up self-defense IS APART of the Bjj syllabus and curriculum and has been since Bjj has been around. When people talk about the Bjj techiques Helio and the Gracie family "perfected" they are also talking about the stand-up self defense technique.

Look I hate those techniques too BUT there are STILL Bjj techniques.

Whether people like it or not, whether they train it or not, it STILL is Bjj and STILL is taught in many Bjj schools.

Furthermore that fact you claim people train in Bjj to become submission fighters all the more proves my point. It seems that people recognize that only PART of Bjj is practical, beneficial and attractive to them and that part is the "groundfighting" aspect. This all the more says that only PART of bjj is as you say.

51

Your Father,

Your right this issue is dragging on. You're actually making my point but you don't, for some reason see that.

You're also avoiding the issue.

You beating around the bush and not coming out and saying that the only good thing about Bjj is the groundfighting.

You seem to admit that the stand-up self-defense of bjj isn't all that good and that it isn't tested AND that no one studies Bjj for it AND that Bjj is essentially a system of groundfighting...so why do you make it seem as Bjj as a whole is the best thing since sliced bread?

See, I really don't disagree with you. In fact you're making my point (although you don't see it).

What you don't realize is no one will come out and say point blank Bjj is all about groundfighting and that Bjj is really only good for groundfighting. The groundfighting aspect of bjj is the only thing I like about Bjj.

What I found is few people will come out and say that. The ride the fence. And in fact become protective of Bjj. You are a perfect example you one hand clearly admit that the stand up self defense of bjj isn't that good BUT on the other hand seem to defend that stand-up self defense (that is essentially what I got from the first paragraph of your last post) being "unique" and "good" and better than other MAs.

Do you know why the stand-up self defense aspect of bjj is "obscure part of its curriculum" and "not even a widely adopted curriculm"? It is because people simply didn't like it and didn't place much value in it. It because an "obscure part of its curriculum" for a reason no one wanted to learn it. AND because of this Bjj has ultimately change to and become even more about groundfighting becuase that is the only reason why people even study Bjj for the groundfighting.

My point is Bjj is groundfighting. That is what bjj is all about. When you learn bjj you learn how to fight on the ground. The other aspects of bjj (namely the satnd up self defense) aren't worth much and aren't much better than other martial arts. What makes Bjj unique among martial arts is the groundfighting.

My point is people won't come out and say that. They'll dilly-dally around it but won't say it point blank.

52

Your Father,

Finally. You're admit what is obviously true.

Of course now you are going to say that groundfighting is the most "important" aspect of fighting, self defense, altercation etc.

You say this only because you "love" bjj so much. We have already established that Bjj is essentially groundfighting and that groundfighting is what bjj is good at SO in order to make bjj seem all the more important you elevate the importance of groundfighting.

So now, base on your logic, because "groundfighting" is the be all of self-defense, fighting, altercations etc and Bjj is groundfighting then bjj is the best thing since slice bread.

Any way that is my response to your "last" response so take for what it is worth.

Incidently my comments have more to do with your belief about bjj as a system and the logic behind how you value it and the importance you give it. I don't neccesarily disagree with some of what you're saying I do tend to think alot of how you feel about bjj is subjective. Oh yeah I'm not saying groundfighting is a small aspect of fighting. I think it plays as big as a role as boxing (which is essentially fighting with your hands, so it is for the hands what bjj is for groundfighting). Actually the role it plays varies from person to person. If a person happens to be good at Bjj then of course it is going to play a bigger role in what they do in a fight, altercation etc. If a person happens to be good at boxing...well...then boxing will play a bigger role. Furthermore what the adversary or opponent brings to the table also effects things. If he is a scrub who knows essentially nothing then either (bjj or boxing) will do. If he is good at one or the other than one will play a bigger role more so than the other.

Anyway, I value boxing as much as I value bjj. I give them equal value. I see them as the same just that have different areas of expertise and emphasis. I believe in giving equal training/practice time to both. If I happen to favor one over the other than I'll be honest enough to say that I happen to "like" one more than the other and attribute this to my likes and not to the art in and of itself.