Well we can become complacent and believe we are training in a ideal fashion, but this should not lead to close-mindedness. After all, take Toyota for example. People had praised it for sometime overlooking or putting down other manufacturers. Like anything, it is only a matter of time before something has to give, and the hope of it is that we learn from mistakes, furher hoping that such outcime is not too bad.
And I think that would be great first-step. Wher I have seen other threads go awry with this is in the matter of discerning exactly which goal one has for their practice. Overall, I see general pursuits for MA practice. a.) Combat applications. I usually characterize this as activities involved with "going into Harm's Way". Military and Para-military have enough on their plate without spending every extra second conditioning and training. Since they already have a "martial" culture, the need to invest in learning how to perceive the world through "martial eyes" is not high-up on their list. Demands of the job does not allow them to train to exhaustion every other night and expect to meet their responsibilities the next morning. A "middle of the road" approach to training will also require a "middle of the road" conditioning system. b.) Competition applications Though a lot of people don't give it credit, competition training is one of the trickiest balances to strike. The goal is to arrive at peak condition and peak competence at a very specific point in time and place. Train too hard and one arrives at their peak too soon and falls into "staleness" (aka: "over-trained"). Train too lightly and one risks not peaking close enough to the competition leaving the opponent to be in better condition. c.) Hobbyist applications Lay the responsibility for how hard one chooses to train in the hands of the individual. Characterization for this comes in terms of "I need to get back into shape" and "I need to lose a few pounds/inches". These sorts of vague intentions allow a person to exert effort without being held to an objective goal. The way I see it, we can talk about optimal training approaches, but will need to accept that we are talking about three distinctly different goals. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
I can say that have started my training in Hapkido, but now I'm a BJJ stylist, I will say BJJ is more effective. I could never use HKD techniques against a resisting person, and I'm not talking about just the sport aspect. I've gotten into quite a few altercations in the street, and BJJ has always worked.
I practice BJJ for the record. I was just annoyed at the time (over a year ago) when it seemed that NO MATTER what the discussion was about, BJJ was the answer. Funny enough, a few people who have been a part of the all-JJ club that I'm attending longer than I have ask me questions regarding joint-locks whenever we do 'traditional stand-up' JJ. I realize this has bad grammar in it, but can't see a way to fix it within the next 10 seconds. -Kraen
Eh.....this was an honest attempt at getting a productive discussion going. Am I to understand that folks would rather chatter "about"---that is "around"--- BJJ or are there folks here who actually want an intelligent discussion of the art and its training approaches? OTOH, if folks would rather use the forum as a Martial-arts-themed chatroom, I have no quibble with this. Its just not something I have much time for or interest in. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Geeze, Bruce. Sorry if this thread isn't going EXACTLY where you want it, and people aren't talking about EXACTLY what you want them to. To be honest, I thought the content of your post was quite self-evident and I don't really have much to say about it. Of course there are different goals people have for their training, though I'd hazard a guess that there are many more than simply three. If you really want to talk about BJJ and learn about BJJ, I'd suggest that hanging around on a DISCUSSION forum isn't the best place to do that. Go down and take some classes and roll with some experienced practitioners. You'll get a lot more info and experience that way than you ever will here, no matter how honest your attempts at starting discussion.
Thanks, Omni. I hope you are hearing what I am saying in the spirit in which it is given. As I mentioned, I have no problem with people using this forum as they see fit. I can say, for myself, that I have had higher expectations for the INTERNET functions. However, it seems that we are encumbered by the Human nature that tends to reduce all things to their most pedestrian level. In this way, interpersonal relationships are about sexual politics, service to the community is about self-promotion and so forth. My own goal has been that if there is room for people reducing things to the most fundamental levels I would hope that some people would want to promote things to some higher level. In the thread in point, we have more than enough folks who want to discuss BJJ, MMA and NHB in terms of how such practices are superior to other more traditional practices. We never quite get around to talking about the practices themselves but always discuss in terms of one practice against another. This reminds me very much of religious and political discussion where name calling and derision pass for intelligent discussion of the facts. Put another way: Yes...I know I can always go take some classes. But... I am talking about being able to discuss a subject on some level above Grade School playground altercations. Am I asking too much? Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
ok here you go, a thoughtful article about the practices of mma and bjj and why they are (in general) superior. I'd be interested to hear you thoughts on its content. http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html
I have a question for you, Bruce. Up to now, this thread has asked the question, "why BJJ?", or "why MMA?". I'd like to ask you: why not? What reason could you possibly have not to adopt the methods of aliveness and full pressure testing found in these martial arts? Do you think, in your heart of hearts, that someone without that type of training could stand up to someone who did have it? I'm not saying that everyone out there on the street is a trained MMAist and we should all be ready to fight them at a moment's notice, but we ARE discussing ideal training methods here, and so I think the comparison is a valid one. I remember, back in my TMA days, feeling very uneasy discussing the topic of BJJ, MMA, and other sport based martial arts. I had my TMA blinders on: I enjoyed my martial art very much, and I liked the sense of safety and self-confidence it gave me. However, whenever the topic came up, I always had my doubts about the effectiveness of my training versus that of someone who'd been doing BJJ or MMA for the same amount of time. Finally, through a series of eye-opening experiences both in person and online, I came to the cold, hard realization that traditional training methods simply are not as effective as modern alive methods. That is what you're going to have to disprove here, if you want to argue against the effectiveness of the training methods found in BJJ, MMA, judo, etc.
I have found that, after training in the 'bjj way,' my Hapkido training has served me well and is not all that different from the training I am receiving now. It has transferred very well over to the club I'm at right now. Obviously better to the 'traditional standup style self defense' class' than the 'ground game' class. I did receive comments like 'you have good survivability' in my first few classes in BJJ. I think it's apparent that my teacher taught me with 'aliveness' in mind. We never did any kata-type training because it is 'dead training' as the article so eloqently put it. -kraen
i love the meme that bjj/mma practitioners always employ...i used to train tma, but because of some eye opening experience, i now train mma/bjj. there's always the not-so-subtle warning that tma sucks and that if you don't train in mma/bjj, you suck too. or at the very least, the tma is not tested in some supposed "real world". "alive-ness" or whatever you want to call it is not new. aikido has it, judo (which of course is a bit more modern) also has it. when i trained in hapkido, we did not train in a static manner. karate also has a competitive aspect. why would you want to train in a sport application when you're training for self-defense or combat? i'd rather take my chances with aikido, techniques come from battlefield applications than some sport "martial art". or hapkido, which was also developed from a combat perspective. i've done judo. also, i'm obsessed with watching judo competitions, be it olympics or world champs or whatever. i'm sure that judo or bjj do provide some great benefits in self-defense. but if you watch any judo competition, the first thing you will notice is how many openings there are for non-judo attacks. seriously. like a quick stomp on the foot. or a quick knife-hand to the throat. i also love watching ufc. but the first thing i always notice is how the competitors have to follow certain rules still, like not being able to hit in the back of the head, or the throat, or gouge the eyes or groin, or stomp on feet. or bite... ...or the best defense...run like mad!!!...run like **** over the octagon fence!!! and for those of us who have actually had to use martial arts to defend ourselves...when i hear people say "well why wouldn't you want to train in ground fighting", i always cringe. the absolute worst thing you can do in a street fight is go to the ground. absolute worst thing imaginable! sport is not self defense. get over it. sorry for the winded message, but these "alive" dudes **** me off. i'm not sure what kind of tma these people were studying, but it must have been the crappy kind.
The worst thing you can do is to train exclusively for one range of combat (in some cases very poorly), delude yourself into thinking its sufficient and then support this position with a load of old drivel. I train grappling exclusively but at least I'm aware of its limitations. The rigor and nature of my training also keeps me 'honest' and rational in relation to the assessment my own skills. The shreds of my machismo get left on the mat...which means I have nothing to prove to myself so I'm less likely to start something I can't finish. That's an invaluable tool from a self defence perspective.
Ok Im going to pick all your points apart, one by one, when I have time over the next few days. No1. aikido comes from a limited amount of daito ryu patterns, daito ryu is not, and has never been about the battlefield.
If you cant control the grip fight, then you wont be able to have distance to 'judo chop' the throat, and / or then lifting your one leg up to stomp the foot is a sure way to end up on the ground. If you saying that judo isnt full on fighting 'caus it aint no got striking then you would be correct, but judo is strong in the two out of three catagories of unarmed fighting, clinch and ground.
that's why we train for it. some of us recognize that, you know, it's nice to have the skill and ability to disengage and stand up when brought to the ground against one's will.
