I was a sophmore in high school when the first UFC available was aired on TV. I think the first one that my cable provider (Jones Intercable) even carried was UFC 3. Where I lived you just couldn't get the earlier ones on PPV. I used to wrestle. Wrestled in grade school, middle school, and high school. I would watch the UFC with a bunch of other friends, some who also wrestled, and back then we always thought that the BJJ takedowns were so flimsy. From my perspective back then it looked like the bjj guy would just form up against his opponent and then try to drop to his back to get him stuck in the guard. I just couldn't see a good wrestler even struggling to avoid that. And when they did shoot for a leg, the shoots looks so clumsy. Then I started college in 1996 and there were a few guys who had gotten into bjj because of those early UFCs. The typical "bjjer would beat a wrestler" would come up alot. We'd mess around not seriously fighting each other. But again, when these guys would try a take down it would be so flimsy. If I or another wrestler just wanted to keep it standing I'd say the chances were certainly great that the bjjer would not be able to take down the wrestler. Cross training was already happening in 96 with many MMA fighters. But even before that it seemed like such an easy combination: wrestling and boxing or wrestling and kickboxing.... and there's no way a bjjer would win with that tool alone. So i guess my question: early on did bjj schools not teach solid take downs? Like wrestling take downs. Just assuming "well, if you're fighting a wrestler they'll want to take you down regardless, voila" Or did that element of bjj develop over the years?