*Sigh* I am trying to have an objective and intelligent discussion. This is counter productive. If you asked people what BJJ does, they'd most certainly mention submissions, not stall for points. BJJ is about submissions and submissions destroy limbs.
Submissions IN the ground.
I am simplifying things a bit, but if you're going to attempt to argue that the foundation/specialty of BJJ is not submissions we are going to be deadlocked. The fact that I agree with you re: Karelin and you accuse me of drinking the proverbial kool-aid regarding street fighting shows either a lack in reading comprehension or a deficiency in maturity. I don't think it's even debatable that BJJ brings submissions to the mix, submissions cripple; wrestling does NOT bring submissions to the table and slams/throws while more than capable of ending a match are not engineered to destroy things.
Sorry but takedowns were designed to kill people, if you are down in a battlefield you get trampled or killed, that's why there was so much emphasiz in wrestling in all militaries, locks and chokes came more from the sportive side like the ancient olympics or in japan where there was dueling.
I'm of the opinion that in the abstract, the guys with subs are at an advantage over guys without them; and the BJJ guys, after devoting their lives to submission mastery, are probably the best submission guys. However, this does NOT incorporate the rest of what goes into a grappling match. Therefore blindly dismissing non-BJJ arts is foolish, and I'm not committing such a faux pas.
And im of the opinion that i rather have 10 men here than 10,000 abroad, meaning that it doesnt matter how much you are subbing guys IN the ground, if you cant take the fight there you are useless.
Likewise letting Roger ensnare your arm, Igor Yakimov (only famous Sambist I know) leg-lace you or Riner throw you (on hardwood) and you're done. This is somewhat pointless since it can be distilled to "let specialist X do his specialty to you and you'll lose, especially if other variables are set to amplify damage".
No, its not pointless because ALL fights everywhere, start standing, that's the problem with modern BJJ and that's why i consider it a watered down art, just like judo.
Originally BJJ had emphasis in throws too, because they were used to fight valetudo matches, and they had to take people down to work, nowadays its assumed that all fights will end there, so training that aspect is pointless.
Regarding the hardwood floor; that might be how things once were done, but now everybody uses a mat (cue someone throwing an exception) and I doubt you'd have many eager participants signing up for a world grappling tournament on wooden floors regardless of specialty.
We are trying to point out a "fair" ruleset, i dont think its possible, but you are the one that brought the argument that since BJJ is for crippling and judo and wrestling is for play, then BJJ accomplishments should be more important
Also, I am not positive but I think that Judo on hardwood thing was an urban legend and not actually how they practiced.
Yes we all know that Zebra mats was official sponsor of the kodokan, judo was practiced in rice mats, which were hard but not hardwood.
I was talking about tournaments, the first tokyo police tournament was done in a hall of wooden floor.
However, I'll also allow myself one asinine comment here and say that if the match was on hardwoods, what stops the BJJ representative from just sitting down a la Marcelo Garcia? That negates the power of takedowns/slams/throws for the most part.
Nothing, thats why in the second tournament it was won by representatives of Fusen ryu by laying on their backs with their legs open (butt scooting).
I proposed this be given weight, as should rules, venue, respective athleticism and preparation for the hypothetical tournament, hence I have Karelin as my number one pick, however it won't be a walk in the park, in my opinion. For all we know there is a Turkish Oil Wrestler that would mop the floor with all of these guys on that given day, 100% certainty is impossible as there's just too many variables. When I say Karelin is my favorite pick, I'm talking like 55:45 maybe 60:40 tops, you make it sound like he'd be 98:2.
No, im just saying that the achievements of Karelin in greco beats the achievements of anybody in their respective art.
I dont think there is any possible fair comparison, or an hypotethical tournament that would be fair, im simply denying your point that "BJJ is fo real".
I'd argue that hardwood is unfair as it gives throwers and slammers an edge over submission guys, it also creates an injury risk that I'm sure most of these guys would deem excessive. Also referencing the old UFCs to try to prove that BJJ is weak is kind of ironic, just wanted to point that out. See: Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn.
You are the one who said that takedowns are for play, im just pointing out why wrestling and judo give emphasis to throwing/pinning, its because of the martial art origin of the arts.
I'm faily confident the hardwood scenario would get shot down by the vast majority of participants but lets say it is used;
So if a BJJ guy refuses to partake into a grappling match without soft pads its because its barbaric but if a wrestler refuses to partake into a match where you can break limbs he is a wuss? talk about double standards, takedowns were used to kill or defeat people, the reason they dont is because they are sport now and you cant tap to gravity so we have soft mats now.
Thats like saying that if rules allowed for submissions but breaking a limb was made illegal, then people wouldnt tap, and since breaking is illegal submissions would be useless.
BJJ representative sits guard the second the match begins, what happens next? They stare at each other? Oh and before you say "Karelin just does his lift and wins via epic KO" the lift was facilitated by par terre AND his opponents' efforts to keep their backs and shoulders off the mat. Sure he's strong as hell, but there is no par terre here to let him get that nice body lock.
Nothing, either the wrestler engages and gets tangled or he doesnt
This is a red herring, you can't win in MMA without training BJJ so there are no pure wrestlers having all of this success you speak of.
Training how to defend against something = training something. You can win MMA without learning a single submission. In that case then Mirko Crocop is a wrestler because he sprawls.
Also, to use your own logic against you, the rules of MMA favor wrestlers. No grounded strikes and double-dipping on points for take downs make wrestling much more successful in the cage than it would normally be (the scoring is subjective but the fact that you can't sprawl and knee/soccer kick a failed shooter definitely removes risk from shooting and reshooting until you finally get the TD).
So if you sprawl then you are wrestling and therefore you are a wrestler isnt?
Also while wrestler need to learn submissions defense they dont need to learn submission offense, they dont need to learn really anything past the guard game, they already know how to attain positions, they just need to know the submissions to avoid getting caught with "tricks".
On the other hand the BJJ guy needs to learn wrestling ENTIRELY because they need to take the fight to the ground that means learning takedowns.
I'd also like to poit out Sonnen and Lesnar's recent losses as evidence that pure wrestling does not, in fact, guarantee success.
Lesnar lost against a wrestler and Sonnen is afraid of training bjj.