BJJISTHEBEST, I’m a kung fu guy who trains multiple attackers and gets knocked down.
This is how it goes in kung fu: You get knocked down, you either get up or take guys down with you. Oh, and grab weapons around you if you can.
You just haven’t seen REAL kung fu yet.
why can’t i represent BJJ too 
Since this is a KF forum, I won’t waste you time too much on this but I think people fail to realize that BJJ is more than just groundfighting, as they (at least Gracie JJ) actually have a curriculum that stresses self-defense. However, I have to say many of the BJJ schools seems to focus on the sporting aspects with a disregard for the self-defense aspects (i.e. only concentrate on the rolling).
FWIW, I do take some BJJ classes (along with some wrestling) to supplement my other training, but the ground is the last place I would want to be in a fight. However, if I do get taken to the ground, hopefully I will be able to maneuver to get back up to my feet. This is the primary reason for me learning BJJ…
Later,
KG
Choke, name me one Kung Fu System devoted to groundfighting. Not a form within a system and not a mythical system you once heard of but you’re not sure exists.
Saying you learn groundfighting in CMA is like saying you take Boxing for the kicks or TKD for its amazing handwork, or you go to McDonalds for the fine Haute Cuisine. :rolleyes:
Once again, I’m not an advocate for BJJ as the ultimate supreme martial art–but lets call a spade a spade. A takedown or two and a choke or three and a joint break or 4 do not a system make. It’s nice, it’s interesting…but if you spend 85% of your time learning to fight on your feet, the “us to, us to,” thing doesn’t fly.
Let’s all stop pretending that each system has everything. Instead, why don’t we recognize there are specialties and weaknesses in each, and (novel concept coming up!) not get all bent out of shape if somebody suggests that fact. :eek:
Brad…
Which BJJ are you talking about: Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or Blow Job Joe???
If you want to represent Brazilian JJ you must:
Badger
I agree MP…
Just last week one of my friends ate a chicken sandwich at Joe’s Crab Shack.
Why would ANYONE get a chicken sandwich at a place that has delicious seafood???
Would you order shrimp at Chick-fil-A???
Badger
Merryprankster wrote:
Let’s all stop pretending that each system has everything. Instead, why don’t we recognize there are specialties and weaknesses in each, and (novel concept coming up!) not get all bent out of shape if somebody suggests that fact
Makes sense to me!
Dam[size=2]nit[/size] MP stop copying my analogies.
Badger - You really suck. You are solely responsible for me not eating the food I brought with me for lunch yesterday(well, yesterday I didn’t eat it because my co-worker wanted to go to lunch, and I wanted to ride in his new z06 vette. So your off the hook for yesterday). You know how I feel about chick-fil-a. ****. I gotta go.
As for the question, I’ll ****in order anything from chick-fil-a.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Choke, name me one Kung Fu System devoted to groundfighting.
“Devoted to?” Doesn’t exist. But then, that’s sort of the point. It’s one thing to say that a CMA is inferior to BJJ in a contest built for grappling, like, say, a UFC match. It is another thing to say that a CMA is inferior to BJJ because once you end up on the ground (as many fights do) you’re screwed.
Most CMA’s teach a great deal of grappling and groundwork. Sure, it’s not the focus of the art. But saying that the art doesn’t contain a well rounded set of techniques and skills developed to address the need of groundfighting is simply ignorant.
Frankly - asking for a CMA ‘devoted to’ groundfighting is a straw-man.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Saying you learn groundfighting in CMA is like saying you take Boxing for the kicks or TKD for its amazing handwork, or you go to McDonalds for the fine Haute Cuisine. :rolleyes:
No, it’s not like that at all. No one is saying that they study CMA for the ground fighting. We are saying that we learn ground fighting in CMAs. Take a look at your sentence structure above.
HINT: grammatical inconsistencies frequently point to a rhetorical inconsistency!
saying [subject] [obtains result] [from action]
IS NOT THE SAME AS
saying [subject][does action][to obtain result]
The first says that the result obtains, the second says that the result is intended - and implies that it is intended as a primary result.
Understand that difference and you’ll go a long way to understanding why your argument is simply WRONG! You’re point may not be, I’m ignoring your point for the moment, since I’m not sure what it is. But the argument you’re trying to use to get there is intrinsically flawed.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Once again, I’m not an advocate for BJJ as the ultimate supreme martial art–but lets call a spade a spade. A takedown or two and a choke or three and a joint break or 4 do not a system make. It’s nice, it’s interesting…but if you spend 85% of your time learning to fight on your feet, the “us to, us to,” thing doesn’t fly.
Why doesn’t it? We’re not saying that we’re as good at ground fighting as someone who spends all their training time doing it. We’re saying that there are ground fighting techniques that are part of our systems and that they are sufficient to deal with what we feel we’ll need in a street fight.
And btw, my school teaches 108 grappling techniques, and their reversals. It’s a bit more than “a joint break or 4.”
I’ll put money (well, actually I do, every time I pay my tuition) that it’s a tad more complete and comprehensive than some bjj school where the instructor got their black belt after a whole 3 or 4 years of study.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Let’s all stop pretending that each system has everything. Instead, why don’t we recognize there are specialties and weaknesses in each, and (novel concept coming up!) not get all bent out of shape if somebody suggests that fact. :eek:
[B]
Is a BJJ practitioner, well instructed by an experience instructor (one of the whole 40 or so folks above 5th faixa preta) better at ground fighting than a well instructed CMA practitioner of similar experience? Sure.
Can the BJJ practitioner handle half of what that same CMA practitioner can? Maybe – but not within the confines of their style!
A CMA practitioner from a quality school with 4 or 5 years experience is going to be a **** site better off in a street fight with multiple opponents than a BJJ practioner from a quality school in the same situation – even if the fight ends up on the ground.
First, can the rhetorical arguments–I don’t buy into logical positivism and the resultant emphasis on languistic analysis so dissecting sentence structure is only going to **** me off.
Learn to read a little within context rather than breaking down the sentence and we’ll get moving a lot more smoothly.
Secondly, can the don’t want to be on the ground/multiple attackers argument, and stick with the point here. I don’t care who is better prepared for a streetfight–it’s open for debate, but certainly wasn’t the point. Nice side tangent but hardly the issue at hand. You’re arguing against a point I wasn’t making.
Choke stated that CMA’s learn takedowns and chokes. Wonderful. I’m happy for him, and every other CMA guy out there in a non-grappling oriented system that thinks this makes them proficient.
To argue they understand groundfighting because of that is absurd. I have some exposure to Muay Thai, but I don’t pretend to be proficient at it. So to say “Oh, we learn that too…” Forget it. That’s the difference between playing chopsticks on the piano and a professional concert pianist.
Here’s the deal–BJJ IS a groundfighting system. End of story. That’s what it is, that’s what it’s good at.
The 108 grappling maneuvers and the escapes you’ve picked up are well and good. I don’t care. There’s a big difference between doing something ALL THE TIME, and not. An experienced BJJer does groundfighting practice in and practice out. I don’t expect a strict BJJer to be particularly good trying to punch or kick somebody. It’s not emphasized or practiced enough for them to be good at. They would have little understanding involved in timing, movement, counterpunching, etc… Similarly, a CMA guy might know what an armbar basically is, but have a far less comprehensive understanding of how to hit it, make it work, apply it from different positions, the body mechanics involved in it, etc.
I’ll put money (well, actually I do, every time I pay my tuition) that it’s a tad more complete and comprehensive than some bjj school where the instructor got their black belt after a whole 3 or 4 years of study.
This statement only shows that you are completely ignorant of what a black belt in BJJ entails. There are two people I can think of off the top of my head that got their black belt in “3 or 4,” years. One is BJ Penn, who, aside from being a gifted athlete, lived with Rickson Gracie, and with his parent’s support, trained as though it were a 9-5 job for 6 days a year. The other is a man who was recruited NFL caliber talent before seven knee surgeries sidelined him.
More often, it takes 7-10 years, if you are reasonably gifted, diligent, and train around 5-6 days per week for about 2-3 hours a day, to get your black belt. I JUST got promoted to purple belt, had a prior wrestling background, and I’ve been doing this for a little over 2.5 years on the 5-6 days per week, 2-3 hours per day training schedule.
Have we reached an understanding? Are we going to drop the formal rules of rhetoric or are we going to sit around and discuss straw men, red herrings, and the fallacy of the dilemma? This is an internet forum, not debate club. I might remind you, however, that “missing the point,” is one of the classic rhetorical fallacies…
Poke around a little bit and I think you’ll find I’m hardly a troll here, but that I do have a low tolerance for “silliness” to use a polite term.
"****, just who the heck IS representing BJJ? "
I am, along with clear jelly jelatin, and automatic pancake machines.
presents card
Here’s the deal–BJJ IS a groundfighting system. End of story. That’s what it is, that’s what it’s good at.
Doh.
That’s kind of the point, isn’t it . . .
Many CMAs are complete fighting systems.
BJJ is a ground fighting system only.
Thanks for agreeing.
Move along, nothing more to see here . . .
What have the gracies done for me lately … ooh, oooh, oooh, yea.
No, seriously, with all do respect, BJJ is dead. It had its hey day 10 years ago against “black belts” who had their heads and reality handed to them when they faced somene who actually practiced hwat they preached. For that, I credit the BJJ practioner, the boxer, the wrestler. They practice how they play.
But, the rest of the world has woken up (caught on). I think BJJ played an important role in waking up serioues MA, but it is by no means supperior. No style is, no style is complete. But BJJ is lacking in many areas, and for the street, it lacks right from the get go as far as aproach – never go down willingly.
You’ll say you don’t – I know you guys – but you do, you seek contact then shoot.
Multiple apponants? Run. Deal with one, two if he’s in you way, and go. Use one for a shield, then go. Take out your knife, do you have that in BJJ, and hopefully by some time and run. Cut one guy and run. Do soemthing, and run. DO NOT GO TO THE GROUND.
Merryprankster,
I agree with your post. Although I’m a BJJ newbie and train only three days a week for about 3 hours (in BJJ)… Out of curiosity, do you train/supplement your BJJ with other arts? I would imagine you don’t since you train 5-6 days per week in BJJ.
KG
Spirit Writer–BJJ is not dead. However, the wierd idea that some people had–that all you needed was BJJ, has been soundly thrashed.
BJJ is a great art to either start in or have as a second or third thing to learn, but it’s hardly the end all/be all.
Secondly Spirit, this is the self-defense game of BJJ-- assume the worst–that you are taken down.
Stand-up in base and run if there is enough distance.
Create that distance if the guy is not closing, and then stand up in base.
If the guy has opted to come forward, reverse the position and come up top.
Knee on belly, couple whacks in the face while looking around, soccer kick/boot stomp to the head and run like hell.
Simple. I might note–knee on belly is EASIER to stand up from than ANY other ground position, and a hell of a lot faster than flailing about like a seizure victim while trying to stand.
Kempo Guy, I also box around 10-12 times a month. I occasionally work out with an MT coach who’s a buddy of mine, but it’s mostly so I can teach his guys to clinch and to practice kick defenses.
"First, can the rhetorical arguments–I don’t buy into logical positivism and the resultant emphasis on languistic analysis so dissecting sentence structure "
Man… MerryPrankster is now officially my hero in the debate department. I would tap out just from hearing words like this. 
I don’t think what is being said is that KF does not have grappling techniques. (My training partner who did a lot of N. Shaolin kung fu knew quite a bit of throws, chin na locks, etc.)
But he had to learn the details of being able to survive in a groundfight with someone who knew groundfighting to a decent degree. He rolls constantly now because BJJ addresses the groundfight more effectively then the techniques he had already known.
That doesn’t mean KF doesn’t have grappling moves, or that they’re “crap” or anything else. But it does mean that BJJ probably has a more effective “lock” on the concept of groundfighting by means of positional dominance, reversals, submission holds/breaks, groundpounding, etc.
Ryu
What a close-minded post Ryu. Geez you wonder why everyone around here thinks MMA guys are *******s.
Badger
You owe me $5.27 for CFA. Thank you. It was delicious.
ewallace,
Can I ask what was closed minded about it??
I thought it was pretty straight forward but I could of missed your viewpoint.
Ryu please feel free to correct me but what I believe you were stating is that if a person wants to get the best technical ground grappling/ground fighting instruction then one would be best to take a look at a set system that works deeply in those elements.
I see a lot of sense in that but IMHO when two combatants cross hands or really fight it out on the street, its really the man and not the system, systems are intangible, people are real.
Can I ask what was closed minded about it??
Sure. I was being a wisenhiemer.