Brazilian jujitsu or Japanese jujitsu (for a police officer)

Pulling guard as an offensive measure is fairly unique

 

I had to think this over. There are new things.

Where I'm coming from is the idea kind of the opposite of how older systems are viewed in this thread. I am in the line of thinking that the original systems (under the founders) was very limited (e.g. contained less than they do now) and they grew over time.

For example, the idea that JJJ is a Jack of All Trades system is not correct to me. JJJ is generic term, but the actual schools were more specialized... often keeping knowledge and techniques "in the family". Over time, much of the specialization was lost and things became more generic.

Judo and BJJ were much more specialized when they first were created. Over time, they grew (e.g. introduced more techniques). Original Judo did not have many strikes, much of the striking was added later based on cross-training with karate. BJJ was changed from mostly self-defense towards sport with Vale Tudo (from what I can assess).

So when we talk about something new, I look at it two ways. One, is it natural growth to a system (e.g. adding in things from other systems). Or is it a specialization for a specific context that may or may not lose popularity in the future (e.g. Berimbolar).

Specializations always have existed. There were many specializations that may have been lost over time. However, today we have the Internet and there is a lot more visibility to specializations. This is why I believe there was more new stuff around fifty years ago that was lost over time than there is today.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=b...id&ei=p1YMVZm7PInjar-OgMgE&start=0&sa=N&dpr=2

ninjers did it first!

 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you. My main point is that bjj's recent developments (50/50, x-guard, dela riva, berimbolo etc) are not techniques inherited from judo newaza or any jjj ryu that we know of. As far as everyone knows, those are new techniques not seen in any other art. If bjj was known to be mere rehashed material and didn't have anything truly new to offer, I don't think Dan Inosanto would have bothered training in it in the first place.

 

It's not the art, it's the fighter. Not all BJJ fighters are flawless. I don't get who you mean by "they". Not every Ju-jitsu practitioner in the world can all be judged the same without seeing them surely?

 

Why does it have zero credibility? You're the one who didn't answer my last question. And why the nastiness and child-like attempts at being smart? You're not actually saying anything of use. The Shakespeare comment, I mean, what was that? Maybe you could try being civil?

 

Well yes and no. A practitioner can transcend his art for sure, however, in a competitive environment the BJJ fighter has won more consistently against all comers than JJJ ever did since BJJs inception.

You can find the techniques in other arts, but not many arts do the moves as consistently as BJJ guys, or under as much pressure testing. Sure a JJJ guy could be good at submissions and sweeps because they practice them, but they don't focus as much as BJJ fighters on it. I'm sure they could, but if that was their interest then surely they would do BJJ instead anyway?

 

If you think I am being rude stick around....

The point is that you made a false assertion about BJJ having "nothing that isn't in JJJ and only JJJ can be called JJ because that is t3h r34l JJ" (paraphrased) which is patently false. Furthermore your assertion that it is "all in JJ" was then expanded when it was clear that you were not accurate so you included "and other arts"

That is a dumb statement. It doesn't make you dumb, just your statement

As for not saying anything of use, i have just categorically shown your postulate to be false - I can see why you don;t find that useful, but as you were wrong such an opinion is equally invalid as your initial BJJ/JJJ one

Hope that helps

 

if you can find a registered training centre or a good teacher i would go with Gracie Jiu Jitsu not brazilian jiu jitsu. BJJ is a sport and wouldnt be suitable for use in the street GJJ however is better suited for the street. if you cant find anywhere that teaches GJJ just do BJJ it will work just as well for a police officer =)

 

They are new. I was more about the idea that new stuff is developed all the time. The big difference is that today we all have access to the video.

Almost every "founder" of a system is developing something new. These are not because the movements are something never seen before by anyone, but more about specialization. With specialization comes detailed analysis of movements/techniques in a context. Someone worked a 50/50 guard before it became "codified", but maybe they had no idea what they were doing.

A specialty in 50/50 guard is going to take it to the next level of codifying the movements, counters, and counters to counters, etc.

There is no reason to believe that fifty years ago there wasn't folks that specialized to develop stuff that worked in a specific context. Look at Ali and the rope-a-dope. It wasn't that the idea or movements used in the rope-a-dope were never ever done by anyone before, but it was new to many because it was taken to the next level and actually codified so others could understand and use it too.

Why does it matter? It can matter because new "breakthroughs" are due to specializations and not because of a particular art. Things that are new in BJJ are not new because of BJJ, they are new because folks took the framework/context of BJJ and developed further due to specialization. IMHO.

 

That is marketing hype and absolutely wrong

The only difference between the two is a trademark - everything else is entirely down to the school

 

how is it marketing hype ? BJJ is a sport and is bound by too many rules GJJ isnt a sport and is made for the street.

 

Based on what? The sport is the test environment only - there is zero credibility to the statement, and it was made exclusively by teh Gracies when their dominance over the art was broken

I have trained with a plethora of GJJ and BJJ guys and the only difference is in individual execution - in fact the best I ever trained with was a BJJ guy not a GJJ guy (not that those labels mean a damn thing beyond affiliation)

 

When I first started cross-training in BJJ, I was learning Vale Tudo. My instructor had learned under the Machado brothers. It really depends on who is teaching and the goal of the training, not if labeled BJJ or GJJ.

Years later I had a debate about BJJ having no strikes. I was convinced it had strikes based on my training. Labels often don't tell the whole story. I didn't know I was being taught techniques used in Vale Tudo, I thought it was BJJ.

 

It can be different for law enforcement.

Law enforcement should receive specialized training for their job. Yes, it is true this training can be inadequate, but it is the best training they can take. Sometimes, private lessons with an expert in the field is available and that would be the preferred method of receiving additional training.

In addition to the specialized training for their job/situation, law enforcement personnel might seek a martial art that would be helpful to them. For example they could train in karate or Judo or BJJ, etc. The goal here is not to really specifically help them on their job. It could be more to get away from their job and do something different. They still want benefits from it, including conditioning and developing fundamentals, but specialized stuff that would apply to their job, they might just take it or leave it.

We had one police office training with us who told me he wasn't interested in some of the self-defense techniques we taught but just wanted to train hard and martial arts was a way to do that. A couple things, one is that we weren't as qualified to teach him the kind of stuff he used on the job. It was his trainers that provided that. We just improved on his fundamentals that could make things work better.

The thing about BJJ is that it tends to have very good fundamentals for what it does, these fundamentals are not just drilled but tested against others, and the workouts are exhausting. I could say the same thing about Judo too.
The thing is it will depend on the teacher and the school.

 

That means doodle squat. *Maybe* if you go to the actual Gracie school in Cali can you be assured to follow a street oriented curriculum, otherwise it all comes down to the school. You don't have to do gjj to focus on sd. Chris Haueter emphasizes street vs sport. He's a Rigan Machado guy.

 

No he doesn't, his Jiujitsu minimizes the difference, he emphasizes training sport, thinking street, so as to practice the art.

 

That's not an emphasis. That's his overall approach. When your fundamental rules are Be on top, stay on top, When on bottom have a guard and get back on top and Never forget rule #1 which is forgotten because of the seductive nature of the guard position of sport BJJ; and when you consider you've won a match because you've achieved top position whether or not the other guy ends up winning on points, you're obvious emphasizing street even though you're training sport.

 

Those tactics favour BJJ rules for winning just as much as street fighting.

 

I think were both talking about slightly different things.

When you say he emphasizes "street vs sport."

I take it to mean you think he sees a major difference, and has a street syllabus etc etc
But from the seminars I've been on, and all his students I've trained with, and all the videos he posted that's not true,