Comments regarding arguments against BJJ

[shamster]

I am new to BJJ, but have been a "fight fan" for many years. So naturally, I have collected many thoughts relating to the topic. After reading many posts here about why BJJ isn't good as people say it is, I have a few thoughts I'd like to share. This isn't a slam against anyone or any style...just my opinions and I'm open to a friendly discussion.

I believe that BJJ is the best overall MA. Yes, cross training is important and it's important to be versatile, but I think that bjj is where I'd want to devote most of my time in training. Basically, if people could only train in one style, I would pick BJJ hands down.

No style is perfect and "complete" on it's own. But I think the benefits of bjj far outweigh its weaknesses. Here are some "weaknesses" of bjj that I don't think are as weak as some people believe:

1. "BJJ is not effective against multiple attackers"
This is partly true. BJJ does have some techniques to deal with standing positions, which I think some people forget about. If you are on the ground and your opponent has friends that are backing him up, you are pretty much screwed. But then again, I don't believe any style is truly effective against multiple attackers. I don't believe a long spin kick taking out 2-3 attackers in one motion is something that can happen in real life. Taking care of multiple attackers in a controlled sparring session (which is often choreographed to begin with) is completely different than street scenarios. Yes, Bruce Lee was lightning fast, but I don't think even he is fast enough to take out multiple opponents quickly. At least, not of those attackers were somewhat competent and physically able. Worried about multiple attackers? Carry a gun then.

2. "Being on the ground is the last place you'd want to be in a street fight"
Not necessarily. It is if you have multiple attackers, but that's another problem (see my last point). I think against one opponent, the stand up game is more dangerous for many people. Punching is very reliant on strength and speed. Not to mention, pure bare knuckle punching is not safe for you to do either. Most parts of the human skull are harder than your hand. Chances are if you punch someone hard enough to hurt him, you are likely going to hurt your own hand as well. Kicking doesn't work as well as it does in the movies. They tend to be slower in general, and a kick can knock you off balance easily. Also, standing up against a big guy puts you at risk of being slammed to the pavement. And I agree, most fights do end up on the ground, whether it's intentional or not. It's just reality. It's much easier for a person to fall or be taken down than it is to remain standing. Since you're most likely going to end up on the ground anyway, why not learn to fight from the ground? Assuming a person is trained, it is much safer for them to shoot in and bring the opponent to the ground than to stand up against him and risk being punched, kicked, or body slammed. And to repeat, going to the ground is probably going to happen anyway. Pro boxers end up getting in a clinch much more often than they do landing actually landing effective punches. I think the only thing keeping boxers on their feet are ropes and the ref pulling them apart.

3. "BJJ is too slow for ending a street fight"
Not true either. I don't believe any style can claim to be the fastest. I know people believe that it's better to go for a quick knock out. However, this just isn't realistic for most people. Hitting a moving opponent in a vital spot with enough force to knock him out is very hard to do, especially if you are under stress yourself. Many will say Bruce Lee could do this, but I have to ask, has Bruce Lee even really done this himself? At least, against a formidable opponent? I know he was fast as hell, but what he does in movies is not what would necessarily happen in a real life situation. Also, how many people are as fast as him? Probably not many, so I think it's dangerous for most people to think they can strike that fast, powerfully, and accurately. Again, if you want count on all confrontations to end quickly, carry a gun (and even a gun isn't as quick as many people believe).

Again, I'm not discrediting other styles. I do believe that one should cross train if possible. You just never know what you'll have to come against, and it is true that almost all fights start standing up, so you have to at least know how to deal with strikes at a basic level. But my beliefs are that fights almost always go to the ground. And ground fighting (assuming the person is trained) is a much better equalizer than fast striking.

[medic06]

You need to add a few classic things to your arguement.

1. Weapons

2. Environmental factors

3. Training issues


Glad to see someone with so much faith in their art. Continue training hard.

[CKD]

Here are the magor weaknesses of BJJ.
1.Takedowns
2.No striking on ground or standing
3.Needs more no gi training
4.More training in illegal in sport bjj subs
I believe bjj is a good art but if a person wanted to learn street defense I think the best arts probaly old style catch wrestling and pre-Jack Broughtin boxing.

[IPON]

Shamster - I would say if you are interested in discussing weaknesses of your style for your self improvement that fine. However, there is no point justifying your fighting style or philosophy....its simple - if it works for you fine. If you are wrong I hope you don't find out the hard way.

Train hard and stay a warrior!!

[shamster]

I didn't start this discussion just for the sake of advertising or argument. I posted it because I read these various points brought up by people. Rather than replying to very old threads, I figure I'd present my points here, and to see if there is anything I may have missed in my thinking. After all, part of learning about your art is also to get other perspectives too.

As far the other weaknesses presented, I do agree that some things could be added to bjj to make it more complete, such as more takedown techniques, and including sport-illegal subs. The 2nd point can vary based on instructors though. I think an instructor can teach techniques applicable for real world scenarios along with what is used for sport.

As far as weapons, are you referring to how to use specific weapons? If so, I agree that other arts are better for weapons.

Regarding striking, again, I'm not a big believer in striking overall. At least not with traditional punching. To me, striking is too reliant on strength, which not everyone will have. And also precision, which is not easy to execute in a stressful situation. Not to mention, striking can potentially harm you as well. I bet if gloves were prohibited in NHB competitions, you would see a lot less striking. At least, a lot less successful uses of punching.

As I said, no art is totally complete. Every style can always benefit from at least a few more techniques added in. But among all the styles I've looked into, bjj is more complete to me than any other. And yes, I believe quality of training is very important too. Lousy training in bjj will make a lousy bjj fighter.

[EmptyneSs]

Regarding striking, again, I'm not a big believer in striking overall. At least not with traditional punching. To me, striking is too reliant on strength, which not everyone will have. And also precision, which is not easy to execute in a stressful situation. Not to mention, striking can potentially harm you as well. I bet if gloves were prohibited in NHB competitions, you would see a lot less striking. At least, a lot less successful uses of punching.

no offence, but u obviously dont know too much about striking.

striking is not reliant on strength. its reliant on technique and skill.

precision is easy to execute in stressful situations if u are experienced and well trained. thats why u spar and train, to get used to being efficient and calm under pressure.

in nhb, those gloves really make no difference at all.

tell vanderlei silva, or vitor belfort, or chuck lidel that striking isnt that great.

[EmptyneSs]

btw, how is bjj more complete than most arts when its in fact very 1 dimensional in that its main focus is only 1 range of fighting, wich is the ground?

bjj is a great art, however i dont think ur perspective of it is realistic.

[medic06]

no offence, but u obviously dont know too much about striking.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. . . . .

[medic06]

As far as weapons, are you referring to how to use specific weapons? If so, I agree that other arts are better for weapons.

Weapons, as in a scenario where you clinch and take down your opponent. As you are working on a submission from the mount, he wiggles one hand free, pulls out a knife and sticks it in between your ribs.

Shooting in on someone with a blade in their hand is not the safest thing either.

[shamster]

Actually, gloves make a huge difference. To say it makes no difference is medically ignorant. Direct fist to skull contact at full force will likely hurt the puncher. Even a thin glove makes a difference. I can assure you that those strikers you listed won't be striking as much (or as long) if not for the gloves they use.

Ok, so maybe some strikers who are well trained can perform under pressure. But I still think that striking involves too many factors to count on. Not to mention the danger of punching without padded gloves. Also, you notice how there are very few fighters out there that can dominate based on superior striking? Perhaps these people are talented and extremely well trained. My point is that one would need to be one hell of a striker to be able to count on it alone, and that it at equal levels, I feel that grappling is the better way to go. Striking has it's benefits for sure...any nhb fighter should learn to strike. But I feel that striking has far greater limitations than grappling.

The reason I think bjj is better as a whole compared to other arts is that it acknowledges that fights are more likely to end up on the ground. I feel that many other arts rely on staying on your feet.

I agree that someone pulling a knife on you is a dangerous thing. However, I don't believe that any art deals with weapons effectively. Even expert knife fighters know that one thing is for sure during a knife fight. Whether you get through it or not, you WILL be cut. Again, the best way to deal with weapons is avoidance, or if that doesn't work, have a better weapon of your own.

All in all, I think we can all agree that cross training is the way to go to ultimate fighter. My original intention was that I feel some of the "weakensses" in bjj that have constantly been mentioned are not really weaknesses, or at least, not weaknesses found only in bjj.

[medic06]

there is a difference between being cut and fatally wounded. The best defense, physically speaking, against a knife is distance. It's hard to make distance when you are rolling around with someone on the ground.

I have to reiterate that it sounds like you don't know much about striking. Punching is just one form of striking and a smart fighter won't punch to the head with a closed fist. to the body though

It sounds like your mind is already made up, what is you motivation for posting here??

[Ronson]

BJJ is more than adequate for street defence. I mean come on, what are the chances that you're gonna square off against a "Belfort", "Tyson," or "Liddell" type fighter on the street. Most people off the street are not even the caliber of fighters from even the first couple of UFC's. Most people off the street are BUMS in terms of fighting ability and a firm grasp of BJJ is more than adequate (high level White or Blue belt would smoke most black belt TMA'ers even).

But if you want to be an almost sure fire badass on the street and in the ring - MMA training all the way!

[JaredExtreme]

Most people off the street are BUMS in terms of fighting ability and a firm grasp of BJJ is more than adequate (high level White or Blue belt would smoke most black belt TMA'ers even).

What's more dangerous though, a bum or a black belt TMA?






The bum.

[medic06]

Alas, and yet another thread degenerates into a TMA sucks tirade. . . . .

[koto_ryu]

The reason I think bjj is better as a whole compared to other arts is that it acknowledges that fights are more likely to end up on the ground. I feel that many other arts rely on staying on your feet.

You should read the Violence Report I posted, hes researched over 1000+ fights in his area and found only 38% involved ANY kind of grappling, virtually all between two or more drunk men. The rest were resolved by striking.