Why is there a misconception....

[NateTx4112]

That war path/death metal head are actually legitimate posters when they are clearly trolls?

 

[bnosam]

That war path/death metal head are actually legitimate posters when they are clearly trolls?

People actually thought they were legit posters? Wow.

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

Straw man. There is no such misconception, just like there is no generally held misconception that any grappling art is more technical than another.

 

[bnosam]

Straw man. There is no such misconception, just like there is no generally held misconception that any grappling art is more technical than another.

According to Mr. War Path wrestling is way more technical and harder than bjj

 

[lechien]

Straw man. There is no such misconception, just like there is no generally held misconception that any grappling art is more technical than another.

Can I troll a little bit?

BJJ is more technical because it includes almost every known working techniques of the grappling world. The Gracies included wrestling, CACC, Judo, Kosen Judo etc....

More techniques = more technical.

end of the thread!

 

[war path]

till the day i die i will believe that wrestling is more technical than bjj or just as and you can believe otherwise. let us just agree to disagree.

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

Can I troll a little bit?

BJJ is more technical because it includes almost every know working techniques of the grappling world. The Gracies included wrestling, CACC, Judo, Kosen Judo etc....

More techniques = more technical.

end of the thread!

I like it.

That being said, I'd never say that BJJ is more technical than wrestling or judo or bass fishing.

The highest level people in any sport or endeavor dig so much deeper than the rest. When you get to that point, there is an endless supply of technique in anything.

 

[lechien]

I like it.

That being said, I'd never say that BJJ is more technical than wrestling or judo or bass fishing.

The highest level people in any sport or endeavor dig so much deeper than the rest. When you get to that point, there is an endless supply of technique in anything.

When I studied the migration of Pacific Islanders, there were not much information available to define which Islands were populated first and which wave and how often were the wave of migrations.

So they classify each native languages and count how many words and similar words they had in each native languages to be able to trace the waves of migration.

My point:

Saying that one art (which has less number of techniques to another art) is more technical than another is just not based on the principles of using quantifiable measures i.e science.

 

[korleone1911]

When I studied the migration of Pacific Islanders, there were not much information available to define which Islands were populated first and which wave and how often were the wave of migrations.

So they classify each native languages and count how many words and similar words they had in each native languages to be able to trace the waves of migration.

My point:

Saying that one art (which has less number of techniques to another art) is more technical than another is just not based on the principles of using quantifiable measures i.e science.

*gives sincere applause* for the answer! thank u sir

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

When I studied the migration of Pacific Islanders, there were not much information available to define which Islands were populated first and which wave and how often were the wave of migrations.

So they classify each native languages and count how many words and similar words they had in each native languages to be able to trace the waves of migration.

My point:

Saying that one art (which has less number of techniques to another art) is more technical than another is just not based on the principles of using quantifiable measures i.e science.

I'm just trying to be neutral rather than a fan boy.

I'd agree that if an art is merely a collection of many arts, then it can be said to have more techniques, but does it necessarily achieve the depths of technical understand of any of those various techniques?

I'd venture to say that it does not. At some point, specialization happens and while mere familiarity may be there, no true technical understanding is possible.

 

[lechien]

I'm just trying to be neutral rather than a fan boy.

I'd agree that if an art is merely a collection of many arts, then it can be said to have more techniques, but does it necessarily achieve the depths of technical understand of any of those various techniques?

I'd venture to say that it does not. At some point, specialization happens and while mere familiarity may be there, no true technical understanding is possible.

I agree, pointing out as at the fact that one art has more techniques does not make it more technical.

While one can define technical as being the most proficient at using a particular technique.

One person is considered also technical due to his vast array of techniques.

But I think in order to gauge the proficiency in the usage of a technique, you have to rely on qualifiable data and not quantitifiable data.

I still think counting the numbers is better.

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

I agree, pointing out as at the fact that one art has more techniques does not make it more technical.

While one can define technical as being the most proficient at using a particular technique.

One person is considered also technical due to his vast array of techniques.

But I think in order to gauge the proficiency in the usage of a technique, you have to rely on qualifiable data and not quantitifiable data.

I still think counting the numbers is better.

Better. I think you really mean easier. I don't think that's a better way to determine anything, necessarily.

 

[lechien]

Hum, I have to think about it.

A white belt is less technical that a purple because he knows less techniques and does not apply the techniques he knows well.

A purple belt is less technical that a BB. He might know the same amount of techniques that a BB but he does not apply them as well as a BB.

But I know a BB that is not very technical, however he just apply his bread and butter moves very well!

that what you get when training in broken english!

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

Hum, I have to think about it.

A white belt is less technical that a purple because he knows less techniques and does not apply the techniques he knows well.

A purple belt is less technical that a BB. He might know the same amount of techniques that a BB but he does not apply them as well as a BB.

But I know a BB that is not very technical, however he just apply his bread and butter moves very well!

that what you get when training in broken english!

HAHA.

I was just being difficult there, I think. There is certainly some correlation between the number of techniques and that person's technical ability, but you've also touched on my other point here, being the depth of understand of any particular technique.

 

[lechien]

HAHA.

I was just being difficult there, I think. There is certainly some correlation between the number of techniques and that person's technical ability, but you've also touched on my other point here, being the depth of understand of any particular technique.

TBH most time I hear the term technical on the mats, it is about describing someone that rely on a vast array techniques instead of strengh.

Someone could just use one technique and rely on strengh to complete the move and he would not be considered technical.

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

TBH most time I hear the term technical on the mats, it is about describing someone that rely on a vast array techniques instead of strengh.

Someone could just use one technique and rely on strengh to complete the move and he would not be considered technical.

Oh sure. I think the ease with which black belts do techniques on lower ranks is in part due to their vast lexicon of techniques that they can rely on.

I think though that it can be equally true that part of it is the depth that they know many of those techniques too. It's why a black belt can still arm bar a black belt from guard.....the depth of understanding.

When I think of a technical roller, it is someone that does use strength because they know many techniques, but they also know them so well that the fully understand the exact time to use them requiring the least effort.

 

[judogido]

Looking from the outside in, a sport/art can look pretty easy.

Cricket, for example. All you have to do is smack the little red ball. Well ... yeah, great - but do you know how hard that actually is?

I had the same with boxing. I had NO idea how technical it was. It goes beyond the mastery of jab-cross-hook, thre are a myriad of small details that only deepen the further in you get.

With judo, I can watch a top level match and appreciate how technical even small things can be. Just getting a grip on your opponent is something that needs to be learned.

Same with BJJ. Looking at it from the outside you might think it is easy. You look at a few UFCs and you think "Sh*t, I can do that" buuuut - it is phenomenally complex and difficult to learn once you really get into the meat of it.

To me - wrestling looks pretty basic. Shoot and sprawl, that's all there is right? Except from my experience with BJJ, boxing, MMA and BJJ - I KNOW it is not as easy as it looks.

 

[bnosam]

Looking from the outside in, a sport/art can look pretty easy.

Cricket, for example. All you have to do is smack the little red ball. Well ... yeah, great - but do you know how hard that actually is?

I had the same with boxing. I had NO idea how technical it was. It goes beyond the mastery of jab-cross-hook, thre are a myriad of small details that only deepen the further in you get.

With judo, I can watch a top level match and appreciate how technical even small things can be. Just getting a grip on your opponent is something that needs to be learned.

Same with BJJ. Looking at it from the outside you might think it is easy. You look at a few UFCs and you think "Sh*t, I can do that" buuuut - it is phenomenally complex and difficult to learn once you really get into the meat of it.

To me - wrestling looks pretty basic. Shoot and sprawl, that's all there is right? Except from my experience with BJJ, boxing, MMA and BJJ - I KNOW it is not as easy as it looks.

Dude even doing something like tricks with a yo-yo looks easy but it's difficult and takes a lot of practise

 

[DeathMetalHead]

Can I troll a little bit?

BJJ is more technical because it includes almost every known working techniques of the grappling world. The Gracies included wrestling, CACC, Judo, Kosen Judo etc....

More techniques = more technical.

end of the thread!

Does it?

I haven't see any back exposure or pinning techniques in BJJ.

 

[bnosam]

I'm practically a child molestor

Hi, I'm Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC....