Judo is respected by many people as being one of the "proper" grappling styles, i.e. everything is done against a resisting opponent. However, it often seems to be considered the worst of the good styles when compared to stuff like Greco-Roman and BJJ, and I personally feel it gets some stick it doesn't deserve - even from judoka themselves! The aim of this thread isn't to pretend that judo is flawless, but to address some of the criticisms and evaluate how much impact they really have. Here's my take: 1) Judo relies too much on the gi for its moves. In real life, gi-reliant moves won't work unless your opponent is wearing a thick jacket. As I said, this is something that can be problematic. However, I don't think gi-grappling is as irrelevant as people make it out to be. In many fights that I've either been in or seen, it's extremely common for one bloke to grab the other by whatever he's wearing and then a crappy version of judo grip-fighting ensues. People do actually wear jackets on many occasions, and I feel this is one of those small aspects of self defence that is present on "the street" but not in MMA, which is where I feel a lot of the criticism comes from. As such I actually think it would be beneficial for non-gi grapplers to cross-train in gi-grappling for this reason. When I started MMA recently, I had a little judo experience, and though I didn't beat anyone as I'm still a novice even at judo, I did manage to pull off some good stuff (their words, not mine) and I put this down to the little bit of judo experience I've had, despite the fact that I was now grappling without a gi. 2) Judo contains no striking and this also means that judoka don't learn how to defend against it well. Again, this is a relevant criticism, however it's easily covered simply by taking a little boxing in your spare time, if you don't do a striking art already. All you need is enough to let you survive until you get into clinch range. 3) Judo doesn't contain leg locks. This is only a weakness when compared to other grappling arts like BJJ. Good judoka are still more than capable on the ground and - although one shouldn't always settle for second best - it's far far far better than not learning any groundwork at all. IMHO, judo newaza would still RUIN someone on the ground if they didn't know grappling at all. Plus, even when leg locks etc are allowed, they are still not all that common - most submission victories as far as I can tell come from chokes and armlocks, which are still present in judo. 4) Judo contains pins. This is the final and I believe the weakest anti-judo argument I've come across. Whilst pins may not be as satisfying as submissions from an MMA perspective, they do still have a justified place in a martial art from a self defence point of view, allowing you to restrain your attacker for at least a few seconds until a policeman/bouncer/friend/stranger intervenes to break up the fight. It's easy when talking about MMA, especially on internet discussion forums where we can easily go into detailed analysis, to exaggerate the shortcomings of one style or another. This is what I feel is happening here; what's required is a step back to look at the bigger picture. Yes, judo has its weak points compared to other grappling styles. But they aren't weaknesses that cripple it completely. It's still effective. Whilst I do train for effectiveness, fun is more important to me as long as the art is at least "good" if not "perfect". It's possible to worry so much about perceived weaknesses in a style that you spend your MA-related life obsessing over becoming the hardest bloke you can in case you get jumped, and as well as being a bit sad, it's the roots of McDojoism - loads of people spending huge amounts of money for someone to cure their insecurities. At least, that's my take. Any other views?