Would your style be able to compete with Ju Jitsu?

Well given that any time anyone learning a striking art mentions that they incorporate some grappling into their training you immediately label them as inferior grapplers and tend to suggest that they are just messing around with grappling surely the reverse holds true? Oh no wait I forgot grapplers are the purest and most honorable fighters in the land when they train they train hard, unlike all the other sissys! So off course they probably even end up better at striking than all the 'pure' strikers who are probably busy prancing around doing point sparring...

 

Proof ..please supply. ..must have proof.

 

-In it's original form as Okinawan/Ryukyu Kempo (pre-Itosu's school children's art), karate was composed equally of striking (kyusho-jitsu) and grappling (tuite-jitsu). Some have always practiced it in this form and many have revived this part of the practice. Being a "pure grappler" or "pure striker" is merely bragging about how incomplete a fighter you are IMO. But UFC/Vale Tudo is a limited source to judge from. Even more important than rules is the intent of the fighters. Grapplers can attack joints and neck and other vital targets for submission, whereas a strike there would maim or kill. Not appropriate for a sporting event.
-Another factor that some of the grappling contingent is ignoring is that there is quite a bit of ground striking, just as there is considerable stand up grappling. Both IMO are as effective and neccesary as their more popular counterparts to be a complete fighter.
-I really have to disagree with the stance taken by Hedge on a pure striker being outmatched by a pure grappler. I teach submission grappling and jujitsu (Small circle and BJJ) in our cirriculum, as well as arts known for their striking such as TKD, Muay Thai and Kenpo. From both my own experience and watching students as they progress, any domination by grapplers is mostly occuring because of the element of surprise. In the case of a striker being mentally prepared for the tactics of the grappler (or at least as prepared as the grappler is for the striker's tactics), the edge seems to disappear. In the early NHB competitions, the grapplers were overall on a much higher skill level than the strikers and were much more prepared to face and neutralize the strikers tactics. Other than this, all other factors being even, the only real edge I see a grappler having is a greater resource of target areas (joints, neck, ect) for reasons I've already addressed.

 

Good Posts

When I first posted this thread I was hoping it wouldn't turn into a name calling contest, and I thank you guys for not making it one.

As to my question, I wanted to see peoples opinion of Ju Jitsu VS. Karate application and which was the better style when they go head to head against one another, and I liked alot of the answers I got, but one thing that I constantly see in people's comparisons, as with my Ju Jitsu friends at work is that they usually do comparisons from UFC events or other simular events, and not street fighting, because as far as sport goes i think Ju Jitsu has the advantage and here's why.

I really feel that these events take away alot from the Art that the karateka learn, because alot of what we practice can't be used in the octagon, I think that you would see a greater percentage of wins for the Karate practicioner against the grappler on real street corners if the karate students were stabbing fingers into eye sockets, biting, groin kicking , using throws and things that we learn as part of our art that we cannot use in these competition. I just really feel that these pay per view tournaments are set up rule wise to the advantage of grapplers.

I agree with one persons idea, that in head to head competition it really is more about the skill of the two people fighting than the styles. Thanks, and keep them coming

 

Come to my gym. Cmon, it's tkd, that's not farfetched at all.

 

1: See the entire early careers of royce gracie and dan severn.

2: Crocop is not a pure striker. See his highlight video and his fight with silva to see him grapple.

 

Umm...that's perfectly legal in vale tudo.

Ever heard of ground and pound?

Hell, theoretically you're correct. I don't know WHY it happens that way, but every time we see a pure grappler vs pure striker it's always the grappler that wins.

By the way, which gracie or machado are you under?

 

BS. It's never happened. The kung fu guy who challenged john marsh tried and failed. The shotokan guy in that tape tried and failed. Gerard Gordeau tried TWICE and failed both times.

You forget that in the early days of the ufc there truly were no rules, and in vale tudo in brazil and russia there are still few to none.

The grappler is better eqquiped to bite. WE can choose when and where to bite because we have superior position and can control your head. If you try to bite from underneath mount you will get your face pounded in.

Biting is not a learned technique (unless you do kinu mutai).

Anyway, by the time you're biting you're already in grappling range.

Throws? THROWS?! Are you saying you're better at throwing than an experienced grappler?

Excuses excuses. You know, when I learned shotokan we pretty much only did punching and kicking. So why is okinawan karate suddenly dracula-do?

We can do all those dirty tactics too.

Wrong. The rounds and referee interventions are there to favor STRIKERS. The general public finds grappling contests boring, which is why those were introduced.

 

The point is Hedgehogy, is that to win a fight quickly with a strike requires a knock-out - dangerous techniques which are often banned in contests.

To win a fight with a grapple?
Once you've got them in a decent lock then it's over, and you don't have to cause any serious damage to beat them.


In the street, the striker has no holding back in what techniques to use so could deliver a devastating blow in one go, the sort used to break with.
The grappler would fight the same way, the only difference is that once they had the lock, they might require more force than a submission.

See the difference?


Anyway, if a Striker know's how a grappler is going to attack him, he can be ready to strike before he gets a good grip and use pushing attacks to keep the distance.
The example you showed us had a blackbelt who'd NEVER fought a proper grappler before, that much was clear.

But yeah, a true fighter wants both.

I'm learning Aikido because I want to be able to defeat an opponent without rendering them unconscious, breaking a linb, drawing blood or leaving heavy bruising at the least! ;-D

 

Umm...where in the ufc does it say knockouts are illegal? KNOCKOUTS ARE ENCOURAGED.

But you could if you wanted to.

Let's see these dangerous techniques in true vale tudo. Better yet, go challenge a grappler to a no rules fight.

No. This "deadly techniques" argument is fallacious and dead.

ARGH.
First of all, grapplers are much better at pushing than strikers.

Second of all, again, look at the early days of the UFC. The strikers knew what was going to happen. They still couldn't prevent it.
That's what a good grappler will do to you. He'll call out the technique he's going to use beforehand. And there won't be a damn thing you can do to prevent it.

How is that relevant? Do we have any evidence the grappler had ever fought a striker before either?

But yeah, a true fighter wants both.

That doesn't leave a lot of options...

 

Firstly I would like to say that all this talk about pure strikers/grapplers is a non starter for me, because there is no such thing.

What I want to know is are we talking about sports or streets?

Grappling and striking can prepare you for a lot of situations but if you've not got the bottle outside the training hall then you'll be screwed either way.

Also don't tell me that grappling or striking arts suddenly gives every practioner of their art whether it be MMA or TMA a secret formula for having what it takes to take care of themselves where there are no rules.

It seems to me that there is to much emphasis on sporting shows like UFC and Pride being the be all and end all of the fighting game. Do you guys not see that the changes in "RULES" in these sports are trying to even up the grapplers and strikers. Introduction of gloves, shorter rounds and refs making fighters get back to their feet are all designed to balance the sport between grapplers/strikers. Fair enough if they did away with rules altogether we might see a truer reflection of a street fight

 

Or we might have ufc 1-3 all over again.

 

No it would nt be UFC 1 - 2 at all.

Come on the first UFC's had loads of rules. No attacks to the eyes, throat groin, hair pulling, jumping on opponents throat/head, jumping after the REF has stopped it .

In the UFC's Grapplers can pace themselves over the course of a fight to conserve energy in the safety that they are protected by RULES and no repercussions. Fighting on the street is not always like a UFC bout, it can look like it but its a different beast altogether.

 

To save time;

[insert usual response]if you can't fight in a cage, what makes you think you can fight on the street?[/insert usual response]

 

Man I need to find out where that button is.

My answer to that would be

[insert usual response]if you can't fight on the street, what makes you think you can fight in a cage?[/insert usual response][/QUOTE]

 

That's straight BS. The first few UFCs had NO rules. Gerard gordeau tried to eye gouge royce.

You would know that if you'd watched them.

Stomping on the head is actually a common strategy in mma. See vanderlei silva's fights.

 

hahaha

come on tyson bit off part of holyfields ear does that mean its legal.

Have you ever seen someone bite someones nose off in the UFC. Get a life and grow up. If you think MMA's are truely NHB like on the street you seriously need to think about what you are saying.

Sure there were less rules back then but there were rules

 

This is where you go on to tell us how many fights you've had in cage and on street Hedge!

 

Um just for your own benefit hedgehogey I think if you reread the post you'll notice it states "after the REF has stopped it". I think his point wasn't that such things arent banned in the UFC (though a couple are now) but that in a street fight you dont usually have a referee to stop the fight...

For another example what about that UFC/Pride fight that ended after like 1 minute because the guys eye got hit- scratched cornea or something if I remember right? Isnt that a good example that things can just go wrong? As far as I recall there was no grappling in that bout just one or two punches traded and then the match was stopped...

 

10 on teh str33t.

0 in teh c4ge.

4 in submission grappling

2 in sport jiujitsu (with strikes)

Yep. And on Teh str33t, I don't stop the lock when you tap.

The only vale tudo fight where that happened that I remember was gordeau vs nakai. Gordeau gouged nakai's eye with his thumb. The fight was not stopped. Gordeau still lost.

Or possibly you mean the several fights were the bones around fighters eyes were broken by hard strikes.