3 ms·
> "Then Gracie jujitsu decided to re-brutalize judo." This isn't particularly true. I think the poster was thinking closer to Vale Tudo (and, of course, MMA),
by metamet 11y ago
> "Then Gracie jujitsu decided to re-brutalize judo."
This isn't particularly true. I think the poster was thinking closer to Vale Tudo (and, of course, MMA), which BJJ has close roots with.
BJJ is a descendant of Judo in that it essentially takes Judo to its logical conclusion. Judo (and BJJ) begin standing. But Judo ends with a simple series of points (take down into, maybe, a submission).
BJJ goes until someone taps. That is, you start the roll standing (or kneeling, which is more lax) and continue sparring until a submission is performed. Judo would stop after the take down and quick sub attempt.
The Gracies, however, did initially use BJJ as a form of self defense. It's still very much an aspect of rolling to go for position over submission. While you can submit from traditionally vulnerable spots, you can also nullify your opponent's offense, such as in guard.
Ultimately, however, you want to mount them or take their back. In a street fight, this dominate position would let you strike and choke with ease.
In fact, a lot of early BJJ schools would have people from other martial arts who would dojo storm. There's a pretty well known story where one BJJ teacher (I forget who off hand) told his students to not strike with fist. Only slap.
So they would mount the opponent and slap at them until they could choke them.
I enjoy doing BJJ because I can train and spar at whatever intensity (light, medium, hard), and even go compete at tournaments, without injury. You learn your limits and tap early and often.
- peatmoss 11y ago> This isn't particularly true. We may be disagreeing on what constitutes more or less brutal. And I freely admit that my experience with BJJ is limited. Quoting: > one BJJ teacher (I forget who off hand) told his students to not strike with fist. Only slap. This suggests to me that this was in contrast to the norm, which would be to mount and then strike with the fist. However, in judo, I know of no competition in which atemi waza (striking techniques) are permitted. To me the application of strikes to a controlled opponent is more brutal / violent than judo, where those things do not occur. Actually, I've only ever seen atemi practiced in judo as part of kata.
- metamet 11y agoThere is no striking in BJJ, just like there is no striking in Judo. End of story. > This suggests to me that this was in contrast to the norm, which would be to mount and then strike with the fist. This was a dojo raid situation, which, believe it or not, used to happen quite a bit. A gym (of whatever martial art) shows up and challenges your gym because they say their art is better. So a lot of times schools would accept for whatever reason, and they'd have a fight. A different era, etc. Say what you want about whether or not you agree with the challenge fighting, but schools would fight schools--Judo schools included. The point of my story was that they were able to defeat the school without striking. On to a another point: if you are defending yourself on the street, you'd be an idiot to restrict yourself from striking if the situation is truly dangerous.
- bmelton 11y ago"if you are defending yourself on the street, you'd be an idiot to restrict yourself from striking if the situation is truly dangerous" Not necessarily. If you're a 100 pound woman being attacked by a 180 pound man, there's really very little point in striking if you aren't able to kick or knee genitals. And before it comes up, BJJ and judo techniques, even without striking, work pretty well on street combat situations, at least in buying you time to get away from the danger.