Discussion in 'Grappling Technique' started by Spazzmaster, Sep 17, 2013.
Royce Gracie criticizes new generation of the family
ignorance is bliss i guess
Okay, I have a lot of respect for Royce. Many of us would not be training BJJ if not for his place in MMA history. Myself included. But I could not disagree with him more in this article.
It is like he is stuck in 1993. It is like he is disregarding 20 years of evolution and progress.
In my opinion, to succeed in modern MMA, jiu-jitsu is NOT enough. Anyone who is truly training MIXED martial arts should be cross training.
What do you think, f12
Royce is saying that the new guys want to complement their game with other skills instead of supplement it. "I've trained boxing in the past to learn the distance, trained wrestling to understand how he would take me down". He's saying that's fine, but trying to become a legit striker separate from your jiu-jitsu base is not. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to clarify his statement.
I think he's right, I've seen a lot of newer fights and if there is a common pattern, it seems that many fighter nowadays try to be an expert in everything. I would love to see a Rickson type of fighter combined with Wanderlei Silva's aggression come out without anything to lose. Rickson Gracie have a lot to lose due to his reputation so he might be choosy about his fights. Someone who is not afraid to lose, I would like to see how an aggressive "pure jiu jitsu" do. When I say jiu jitsu by the way, I include JJJ and Judo (Kodokan and otherwise). So pure grappling if you really want to push the envelope. In history, the old days, Jiu Jitsu was supposed to be a complete fighting system which taught striking and grappling.
Was JJJ really supposed to be complete though? Sure it taught striking and grappling, but it was really a means of survival, a backup plan if you will.
My understanding is that traditional jiujitsu taught both striking and grappling, but it was designed in the way that TMA that many here dislike were.
That's why Kano Jigoro designed judo, because he felt that the jiujitsu he learned was lacking something, and from that came the grappling version, most popularized with BJJ.
I'd guess traditional jiujitsu taught striking in the way karate did? I really have no idea on this part.
In MMA, BJJ is very incomplete when viewing the sport in its totality. That's not even knocking it. Just a fact.
I might be way off, there are people here that can explain better than me. But my understanding is that, yes JJJ used both striking, grappling and weapons, but it wasn't intended to be a complete art in the way I think of it. Rather it was for the battlefield when you had no other options/lost equipment.
It did contain techniques from various ranges though, so if that's the definition of complete, I guess it was complete.
Well, a lot of the most basic throws are designed in that manner if you think about it.
The entire point of judo throws, heck all throws and grappling techniques in general, is to gain dominance over your opponent. I never quite understood why some people are so fixated with "killer" throws for that reason.
That's also why the Europeans developed a similar grappling art that everyone ignores.
Yes, a hard seoinage onto concrete, or a grass-field for that matter, will probably break something, but the point is to be in a position where you can immediately stab the guy or do something wherein his armor and weapon are no longer in any way effective.
But seeing as how the JJJ Kano Jigoro must have learned wasn't used in any serious combat for centuries, one can only imagine that it would have been watered down too, as with most other combat arts that go throughout the ages without being seriously tested.
I started reading a lot of books (history and philosophy) on Jiu Jitsu before I actually trained. The one common theme is that there were many masters (masters being instructors, fighters, soldiers) over the course of history in China (sanshou, shui jiao, praying mantis, monkey style, etc) and Japan fought in wars after raising an army. The best trained army won, obviously.
The idea and history behind Jiu Jitsu is immense. It is constantly evolving. There are more than 2,000 different styles of Jiu Jitsu, just like there are more than 400 martial art in "Chinese Kung Fu" (source is Fight Science).
People only seem to think "Japanese Jiu Jitsu" vs "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu" but forget that there are more than just Gracie Jiu Jitsu or Japanese Jiu Jitsu. It's basically the same thing as grouping all of the Chinese language into one (there are hundreds if not thousands of Chinese language, with Mandarin being the official one). So when people say that, it's akin to saying "Chinese language". A Mandarin speaker would not understand a Cantonese speaker despite both persons being Chinese.
Same here - Jiu Jitsu had training in swordplay, daggers, assassination, etc. It was supposed to be a complete system as ryu combined in history.
One could say that one form of Jiu Jitsu was that samurai trained in unarmed combat when they had no other means but that's just one form. What about Jiu Jitsu ryu that focused on poisons? Fireworks?
The thing is that, like all things that involve money, people look to bank on suckers. "True" Jiu Jitsu cannot be taught because there is none. It's seen as a grappling art. Nobody go around carrying swords (or poison for that matter).
You're asking to become a samurai or a ninja, not going to happen in the modern world. You might as well join the military for that kind of thing (may as well, since you won't do well in modern warfare if all you did was trying to learn what the samurais learned - bladed spear, throwing pins, etc).
The point I'm making is that Jiu Jitsu is an umbrella term for so many different thing. So it's best to be specific.
And yes, it does teach striking and grappling but it depends heavily on the ryu's philosophy and instructor. Back in the old days, in order to really learn something, you'd devote your life to it. You didn't train for one hour * three times a week and go home. You would serve your lord (literally) and do whatever your master asked you to do. And you'd train 8 hours a day or more on your skills, be it striking or grappling. It would put 99% of modern martial art schools today out of business.
The way it's taught today, there's a lot of focus on sports; in the old days you were expected to kill, maim, sacrifice your life for your master.
Anyway it's mostly history. Today's Jiu Jitsu is just a shadow of the past glory.
As for Jigoro Kano, he didn't like newaza and he merely renamed Jiu Jitsu to Judo because the public had a bad perception of Jiu Jitsu, especially since Imperial Japan was defeated after World War 2 for being so aggressive (remember, Jiu Jitsu was very, very blood and violent). I should say, that is, more accurately, that the name caught on. It was once called "Kano Jiu Jitsu", believe it or not. Which is why it's not "Brazilian Judo", but "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu".
This doesn't make sense, seeing as how the man died before Imperial Japan went to war against the U.S. and eventually lost.
Heck, at the time of his death, Imperial Japan more or less dominated the entire Pacific and was rivaled only by the U.S.
It was used for centuries, especially since during WW1 and 2, Japan was still in the midst of "modernizing". I use the term loosely as I'm trying to simplify history so it's easier to digest.
Jigoro Kano literally just renamed Jiu Jitsu to Judo - the essence is still the same. It's still Jiu Jitsu. He stripped thousands of dangerous techniques so it's easier to practice (he formulated randori). Pure Jiu Jitsu is literally too aggressive and dangerous.
In fact, if you look up history books, the Japanese soldiers in WW1 and WW2 regularly practice "real" Jiu Jitsu. Again I'm using the term to include all form of Jiu Jitsu. This include warfare (traps, mines, etc). In fact, I remember reading that at one point, the Japanese wanted to include rifle training into Jiu Jitsu, effectively making Jiu Jitsu a form of shooting art too.
There are a lot of derivatives and different style and form of Jiu Jitsu for historical reasons. But a lot of Japanese (as well as Chinese) wanted to unify a martial art. But that's easier said than done (for example, it's hard enough to get a unified opinion on sherdog, let alone a country as big or as diverse as China and Japan).
Let me rephrase - he renamed Jiu Jitsu because the public wanted less war, not more. Here is one such quote on why he renamed Jiu Jitsu to Judo. (By the way, this is why earlier I had posted saying that when I say Jiu Jitsu with quotes, I include everything, from bujitsu to ninjitsu to aikido to etc, I am including everything).
"At the time a few bujitsu (martial arts) experts still existed but bujitsu was almost abandoned by the nation at large. Even if I wanted to teach jujitsu most people had now stopped thinking about it. So I thought it better to teach under a different name principally because my objectives were much wider than jujitsu." - Kano Jigoro
To be fair I am taking that out of context but there is a lot of history that I urge everyone to look into (to correct me and understand the art they are practicing).
You'd have / should read about Japanese history from a Chinese (and Korean) perspective. They have a long history of invading other countries (Unit 731 for starters) and doing the unspeakable.
Martial art was a big thing between multiple nations Asiatic countries.
Obviously, if you're going to learn one martial art that's enough for MMA by itself, it has to be Sinanju, not jiu-jitsu.
Matt Hughes vs. Renzo showed the problem of BJJ only. Renzo couldn't take Matt down to save his life. Even a horrible stand-up fighter like Hughes destroyed Renzo standing. Conversely, Hughes took Royce down directly into side control and made Royce look like a wilted old man, who attempted to remedy that by roiding.
Roger's BJJ is far superior to Royce's but Royce had his career and he has a right to say whatever he wants.
I think Royce and Rickson are making the same point and people are misunderstanding them. If you are a fighter based in grappling, then you should be constantly working to get the fight there. You can learn stand up but don
I think Royce is obviously wrong here. Pure Jiu-Jitsu doesn't cut it any more.
It's one thing to be a ground fighter and it's another to say that you only need to focus on BJJ to succeed at a high level in Mixed Martial Arts. Roger Gracie is seeing his limitations as a fighter even with cross-training. He's awesome when it comes to pure BJJ and he aims to take the fight to the ground when he fights but when he gets in there with high level Mixed Martial Artists he is finding out that he is an average fighter.
You can be a good ground fighter in MMA like Chris Weidman who is super athletic with high level wrestling and BJJ along with decent standup. But that kind of fighter is a complete Mixed Martial Artist not a pure BJJ expert who is only adept at submission grappling. Royce Gracie in his prime would not be in the top 10 in his weight class today.
Oh, leave him alone and let him live in his world. Lots of people from past generations cling to what was once true.
Separate names with a comma.