Uechi-Ryu.com

I hear all the time that Brazilian JJ is "superior" to traditional (pardon my ignorance, traditional is the best term I could think up) JJ. Why would this be so? One article I read (I don't trust anything I read in the rags) says BJJ focuses more on the upper body and is lacking in leg/ankle/knee/hip locks and cranks. I don't believe this. Just curious, why is BJJ superior? Is it cultural? Gracie family is better? what????

thanks

Hello T Rose-San,

I feel that BJJ is superior to traditional JJ in that it (BJJ) relies more on using leverage generated from the whole body. Most traditional styles rely on pretty hand-throws that look only as good as the Uke's ability to fall. BJJ was modified with the idea that your attacker is bigger/stronger than you and you are using your whole body against one part of his (ex. elbow, knee, neck).

This being said, I still have much respect for traditional JJ in that it contains (although does not focus strictly on)all of the elements of BJJ.

I don't think the Gracies have a monopoly on BJJ (except maybe Rickson), they have just been at it longer.

Safe training to you,
Mal Wagner
Dibenedetto's Karate/Jiu-Jitsu
Hammond, Louisiana

First of all...I despise the notion that any art is "superior" to any other art. It's how you train, not what you train. Superiority is a question of context. In a Muay Thai ring, BJJ is not only not superior, it's outright useless (to use a somewhat absurd example).

That said: The strenght of BJJ comes from the fact that they practice in a very alive manner. Most JJ schools focus strictly on kata and form, without ever getting out on the mat and seeing if they can apply their techniques against a resisting opponent.

BJJ traditionally does actually suffer a lack of hip, leg, and ankle locks. The reason for this is pretty simple: The parent art, Judo (that's right, Judo, not Jujitsu, is BJJ's parent art), also lacks a wide repitoire of leg locks, in part because they are forbidden in competitive Judo. Many BJJ players study arts like Sambo in an attempt to improve their leg locking skill.

The only think the Gracies have a monopoly on is the name Gracie. This isn't to say they aren't phenomenal grapplers...they are. Some of the worlds best. But they hardly have a monopoly on much of anything.

------------------
Jake Steinmann
PDR Team
www.tonyblauer.com

Hi Tracy,

I don't believe that BJJ is the superior art.

The fact is, in 1993 the Gracie family invented the UFC, promoted it, and said, "If you think you can beat us...prove it." Everybody tried and everybody failed. Shamrock fought to a draw, but only after studying their system for some time.

Reality fighting competitions has evolved from that point, so much that today's fighter's would wipe the mat clean of the Royce of 1993.

Today, people have had many years to study the Gracie system, analyze it, and incorporate it into their own strengths, even traditional ju-jitsu practitioners who focus on stand up throws, wrist, and elbow locks. Also, today you will not find a single person who fights NHB seriously that doesn't know something about the Gracie system.

Who thinks NHB is not very close to reality fighting? The person that said, "Me!" probably hasn't had much experience facing somebody that doesn't play by their rules of engagement.

I hear too much that NHB is not reality. Well, as a Marine Close Combat Instructor, and a nightclub bouncer for quite a few years, I can tell you that NHB is as close to reality as your going to get. I would like the "Me!" people to step in the ring and find out.

The rest of us are lucky the Gracies decided to get rich by showing off their system and teaching it to the world, or else they could keep it a secret and only come out once in a while to kick our asses. I would love for somebody to deny that.

Multiple attackers? Who the hell is going to be successful against multiple attackers!?

When Helio Gracie (the big daddy of the system) started training, he trained in traditional. He discarded what would not work in a real fight, and kept what did.

He would put advertisements in the Brzilian newspaper inviting ANYONE to come down to his academy to fight him.

BJJ does not concentrate on leg submissions. They are starting to.

[This message has been edited by Joe Sullivan (edited April 15, 2001).]

I think Jake hit a significant point which is that the rules do affect the outcome of a competition, depending on the skills that the individual brings in with him.

Check out this thread on evolution of the rules and ring strategy:

http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001330.html

I think talking about the competition ring is one thing. Talking about a self-defense scenario is another. I am not sure we can conclusively say BJJ is superior to traditional JJ in the latter regard. Too many uncontrolable factors in the latter regard. For example, in Van's forum, David E raised the issue of a "grandmother with a broom stick" beating up an empty hand "master" after a year of training. Actually, this was the perspective of the late Donn Draegar who frowned upon "modern Budo" and "competitions" as not representing true "jutsu." For him jujutsu will always be about combat and combat means utilizing whatever it takes to win, including weapons. Draegar was himself a high level judo player and aikido practitioner, but his love of the "traditional" arts focused on Koryu -- old systems that emphasized weaponry over the "minor" empty hand arts.

Going back to BJJ vs. JJ. It should be acknowledged that the Gracie Family demonstrated a very successful training program for "competition" and their approach certainly emphasized mastery of technique over brute strength. I also don't doubt the competition skills can carry over to certain street situations as well but as one of the Gracie brothers wrote in a Black Belt article, it's not practical to go to the ground with more than one BG. Of couse, likewise, it wouldn't be practical for many of the "empty hand" artists either.

As the link above indicated, there is an evolution of skills and cross training in the mixed martial arts competitions. It's almost hard to differentiate grapplers from the strikers these days because each will focus some training in arts other than what they specialized in. I haven't watched much of the recent competitions. Yet, I did notice a evolution of even in Royce Gracie's fights from early in the UFC to when he retired. In his initial fight, Royce Gracie demonstrated no striking skills at all. Towards the end, you can see the improvement and the training that probably went into it. He had too. The competition created more and more mixed skilled opponents.

david

Joe-
I'm afraid I'm one of the "me" people. I have not competed in an NHB ring, but I've had a respectable amount of real life experience and was trained very classically.

The first time I watched UFC, my initial reaction was "why aren't they.." I saw small joint manipulation opportunities (which you already explained) that would have ended matches in seconds. I saw opportunities for spine attacks, and it seemed that Gracie was hitting everywhere but the points where he would finish the fight (albeit at the cost of paralyzing the opponent, I assumed there was an unstated rule against it).

In short, in NHB competition, I haven't seen spine locks, spine strikes, throat strikes or finger locks. Those techniques are the core of my training in survival fighting.

I've seen joints slowly pressured to submission when a quick action would pop the joint immediately.

I admit that it is closer than any other controlled venue in that the variety of techniques allowed is the greatest, but the emphasis is still on causing no permanent injury.

Rory

Tracy sensei,

I will have to agree with Jake in that there is no real "superior" art. It's how you train that really matters. I always think about Sean Connery in the "Presidio" when he wails on the goon in the bar with only his thumb, and even warns the moron before he does it. No matter what style you are training, the key IMHO is timimg and balance, and like people like Joe and others who have cross-trained, knowing a little from here and there certainly helps in the overall picture.

To answer about the "Traditional" part. I think that question is really unfair as you would be hard pressed to find real pre-Tokugawa Jujitsu being studied anywhere. Why? Because there is no need to train that way anymore. The threat was taken away in 1604 and many of the traditional styles went the way of the "do" arts. It really is wrong to claim that I teach and learn jujitsu, because the "reality" training has left us long ago. And we really can't call it Judo, because I don't teach it as a sport, nor do I learn it that way.

Although BJJ is not thought of highly in old school Japan (sorry Joe and others) because of whatever reasons they decide (and yes, I have heard that on more than one occasion by the horse's mouth), it doesn't mean that it is not effective and that EVERYONE, traditional or not, can learn from it. I wish the Japanese would take that attitude, but they are set in their ways.

In sum, anyone can take anyone on any given day, whether it be at the dojo or on the street. A good BJJka might lose to a good freestyle wrestler, just as a good karateka could lose to a good boxer. It doesn't matter. We can only train to be as good as we can be and keep an open mind. Screw what the magazines say!!

mike

Great replies..thanks..

Ok... so technique wise, what if the difference between BJJ and Japanese, post 1604 JJ?

I belieave also that it is the person, not the style. I guess I am looking for technique deltas or training methology. I notice that BJJ (unlike today's Uechi) is very grounded in fighting. Is this what makes BJJ so formidable?

thanks

I like what y'all are saying about BJJ having free-fighting at it's core---I do believe that is what makes the difference. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the perfection of form in kata; but, my confidence in my ability to defend myself reached a new level when I discovered contact in grappling. You can punch and kick the air all you want, but you can't get an idea of how good your base is without the resistance of a partner.

Some say that BJJ is no good against multiple opponents, but tell me this, if you can't learn to defend against one opponent, how will you ever take the next step to multiples?

Do all of your schools now include grappling in your curriculums?

Thanks for the time,
Mal

"Base, mobility, focused-calm"
Gracie Jiu-Jitsu

Please don't misread what I posted. I think some of the mixed martial artists that we see in some of the NHB competitions are definitely superb athletes and competitors. No doubt many can handle themselves quite well on the street. But my only peeve is when it is made out to be the "supreme" and only "reality based" art out there by some.

I am also a firm believer in freestyle against a resistant partner to have test out some of the techniques in one's arsenal -- whatever that encompasses. I also know from experience while this is good training, it is still far short of the "real thing." Frankly, you can't train for the real thing unless you want to engage in some of the truly underground, tough guy fights in the third world. I for one ain't volunteering. I not that gung ho about my training.

As I said to Joe personally, I am not disparaging NHB. ON the contrary, I greatly respect and agree with the notion of cross training. (Just a do a search of my posts.) Yet, in the recent stuff that I've seen in the streets and been pulled into, the last thing I want is to go the ground which BJJ is very focused on. In fact, as I said on the previous post, I am not sure any empty hand artist would do well "empty handed" in some of these situations. I won't go further in detail than that in a public forum.

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited April 16, 2001).]

"Ok... so technique wise, what if the difference between BJJ and Japanese, post 1604 JJ?"


http://www.isja.com/

A good place to start.

Mal

Joe,

Are there kata sets in BJJ? If so, how many, and are they rank based. Perhaps if you could summarize the BJJ curriculum that would be helpful for people to understand BJJ more completely.

mike

Well, I'm not Joe, but I can answer that one.

BJJ has no kata sets. It's basically kodokan judo, but the emphasis has been placed on ne-waza (ground technique), as oppossed to stand up technique. It seems to have removed the Kodokan kata, however.

How are the techniques different from most JJ systems? Most JJ focus on standing locks, defense against wrist grabs (makes sense when you're trying to free a blade up), and don't do free sparring.

Or so is my experience.

No idea what the cirriculum looks like. I believe it varies from school to school.

------------------
Jake Steinmann
PDR Team www.tonyblauer.com

[This message has been edited by Jake Steinmann (edited April 17, 2001).]

http://bjj.org/editorials/19980308-tradjj/

an article comparing pre-1900 JJ with post 1900 JJ. It's the training methodology

Interesting article. The basic point is true...the strength of BJJ is that it forces it's practioners to test their methods in a field of resistence. If something doesn't work, you'll find out pretty quickly.

My only problem with the article is the implication that BJJ is somehow derived from traditional JJ. It's not. The techniques, training methods, concepts, etc are all Judo derived, not Jujitsu derived.

Sorry...the history major in me had to say it.

------------------
Jake Steinmann
PDR Team
www.tonyblauer.com