3 ms·

> Why did it take until the late 20th century for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to develop [...] every major country has long lineages of specialized competitive martial

> Why did it take until the late 20th century for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to develop [...] every major country has long lineages of specialized competitive martial arts and tremendous incentive to find martial arts which worked and quick feedback loops? Well, do societies have a tremendous incentive to find unarmed martial arts which work? If my tribe faces an existential threat from the next tribe over, wouldn't I pick up a stick?

nerpderp82 4y ago
Martial arts in Brazil have had to have a notion of "cover", the other big one pretends to be a dance, because it was outlawed to practice martial arts. https://www.abada.org/capoeira-history/ https://www.abada.org/capoeira-history/ I think rather than look at the results, it is interesting to look at the forcing functions the results operated under.
83457 4y ago
It is really a combination of factors. No holds barred fighting in Brazil was very important. Not emphasizing standup wrestling / grappling and focusing on finishing a fight as part of a sport was not common. Judo/jujitsu had all the components of BJJ and even practitioners focusing on ground (ie Judoka that taught the Gracies). However, the agreed on rules of Judo focused more and more on standing techniques with rules ending a fight on throw to back, resulting in leaving behind many aspects of the ground game in Japan from years past.
- gamegoblin 4y ago
  Having trained BJJ and some Judo, I have come to appreciate the idea that if you land a proper judo throw on someone in a street fight, i.e. on concrete, and you put someone down hard on concrete, the fight is almost certainly over. The same applies for wrestling high-crotch or blast double. If you put someone down hard on the nearest solid object or concrete, there's a good chance the fight is immediately over. That said, in a real scrappy fight, landing a proper judo through is a tall order. I've seen high level black belts fail to land clean throws on spazzy white belts. They get them down and technically win, but not cleanly, and not with the force needed to end the fight. Newaza (ground techniques, i.e. BJJ) comes in there to help finish. Pure BJJ is great if you are fighting on dirt, and great to know defensively if you do find yourself ambushed or otherwise on the ground in an altercation. But in a real fight you should do your best to put the other guy down hard, get on top, and stay on top. Modern BJJ in particular is far too willing to concede top position, though modern MMA is thankfully pushing back on this some.
adastra22 4y ago
For the record, BJJ doesn’t “work” in a context of general fighting. BJJ has a strong focus on going to the ground and fighting within the rules of BJJ/MMA competitions. You do that in real life or death environment and you’re dead. BJJ didn’t develop until the 20th century because the competitive rules in which that style of mock fighting is most effective didn’t solidify until the 20th century.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  Is this true generally? I could see that being the case in a 1 vs many situation, but one on one my gut says probably not.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    1:1 fighting is extremely exceptional from a real world perspective. All real world fighting will be either many:many, or 1:many, or you should assume so as you never know that your assailant doesn’t have a friend somewhere nearby. If you engages in BJJ like ground fighting techniques, it’d be like that scene in Indiana Jones where the crazy swordsman final boss shows up, and Indy just shoots the guy. Some other guy would come over and step on your neck, stab you, or just shoot you while you’re down, or your opponent will gouge your eyes out, because that’s the real world response. Historical fighting manuals are pretty explicit: never, ever get caught on the ground or you’re dead. It’s just that most of the ways in which a standing person would attack a nearby person on the ground are so dangerous that they are outlawed from sport competition, and so ironically even the notoriously “everything goes” MMA ends up favoring ground game and devolve into wrestling matches.
  - Spinnaker_ 4y ago
    MMA fighters are often asked in interviews about techniques for real street fights. The answer is always to sucker puck then gouge the eyes and throat. BJJ is well suited for the octagon. Allow small joint manipulation and most of the technique goes out the window.
  - stonemetal12 4y ago
    Yes, sport fighting is not like survival fighting because anything that would cause permanent damage is against the rules. Against the rules doesn't get trained or practiced.
aidenn0 4y ago
Gwern is wrong about this. Around 1900 catch wrestling was well established in Europe, and had many similar techniques to BJJ. I consider this an existence proof for him being wrong; it seems unlikely that these were the only two points where it developed. Catch wrestling split in two ways. On one side, it had submissions banned and became Olympic freestyle wrestling. On the other, they played up the drama and it became modern professional wrestling.
yencabulator 4y ago
Two things: 1. Many martial arts consider armed/unarmed just variations of a theme, and practicing unarmed is often safer, and used as "phase 1". 2. A lot of the modern day stuff can be traced back to Japan at a time when the government funded "civilized sports that help you grow", and then the Olympics got involved... we're pretty far distanced from "defend the village" at that point.

nerpderp82 4y ago

Martial arts in Brazil have had to have a notion of "cover", the other big one pretends to be a dance, because it was outlawed to practice martial arts. https://www.abada.org/capoeira-history/ https://www.abada.org/capoeira-history/ I think rather than look at the results, it is interesting to look at the forcing functions the results operated under.

83457 4y ago

It is really a combination of factors. No holds barred fighting in Brazil was very important. Not emphasizing standup wrestling / grappling and focusing on finishing a fight as part of a sport was not common. Judo/jujitsu had all the components of BJJ and even practitioners focusing on ground (ie Judoka that taught the Gracies). However, the agreed on rules of Judo focused more and more on standing techniques with rules ending a fight on throw to back, resulting in leaving behind many aspects of the ground game in Japan from years past.

gamegoblin 4y ago
Having trained BJJ and some Judo, I have come to appreciate the idea that if you land a proper judo throw on someone in a street fight, i.e. on concrete, and you put someone down hard on concrete, the fight is almost certainly over. The same applies for wrestling high-crotch or blast double. If you put someone down hard on the nearest solid object or concrete, there's a good chance the fight is immediately over. That said, in a real scrappy fight, landing a proper judo through is a tall order. I've seen high level black belts fail to land clean throws on spazzy white belts. They get them down and technically win, but not cleanly, and not with the force needed to end the fight. Newaza (ground techniques, i.e. BJJ) comes in there to help finish. Pure BJJ is great if you are fighting on dirt, and great to know defensively if you do find yourself ambushed or otherwise on the ground in an altercation. But in a real fight you should do your best to put the other guy down hard, get on top, and stay on top. Modern BJJ in particular is far too willing to concede top position, though modern MMA is thankfully pushing back on this some.

adastra22 4y ago

For the record, BJJ doesn’t “work” in a context of general fighting. BJJ has a strong focus on going to the ground and fighting within the rules of BJJ/MMA competitions. You do that in real life or death environment and you’re dead. BJJ didn’t develop until the 20th century because the competitive rules in which that style of mock fighting is most effective didn’t solidify until the 20th century.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
Is this true generally? I could see that being the case in a 1 vs many situation, but one on one my gut says probably not.
- adastra22 4y ago
  1:1 fighting is extremely exceptional from a real world perspective. All real world fighting will be either many:many, or 1:many, or you should assume so as you never know that your assailant doesn’t have a friend somewhere nearby. If you engages in BJJ like ground fighting techniques, it’d be like that scene in Indiana Jones where the crazy swordsman final boss shows up, and Indy just shoots the guy. Some other guy would come over and step on your neck, stab you, or just shoot you while you’re down, or your opponent will gouge your eyes out, because that’s the real world response. Historical fighting manuals are pretty explicit: never, ever get caught on the ground or you’re dead. It’s just that most of the ways in which a standing person would attack a nearby person on the ground are so dangerous that they are outlawed from sport competition, and so ironically even the notoriously “everything goes” MMA ends up favoring ground game and devolve into wrestling matches.
- Spinnaker_ 4y ago
  MMA fighters are often asked in interviews about techniques for real street fights. The answer is always to sucker puck then gouge the eyes and throat. BJJ is well suited for the octagon. Allow small joint manipulation and most of the technique goes out the window.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  Yes, sport fighting is not like survival fighting because anything that would cause permanent damage is against the rules. Against the rules doesn't get trained or practiced.

aidenn0 4y ago

Gwern is wrong about this. Around 1900 catch wrestling was well established in Europe, and had many similar techniques to BJJ. I consider this an existence proof for him being wrong; it seems unlikely that these were the only two points where it developed. Catch wrestling split in two ways. On one side, it had submissions banned and became Olympic freestyle wrestling. On the other, they played up the drama and it became modern professional wrestling.

yencabulator 4y ago

Two things: 1. Many martial arts consider armed/unarmed just variations of a theme, and practicing unarmed is often safer, and used as "phase 1". 2. A lot of the modern day stuff can be traced back to Japan at a time when the government funded "civilized sports that help you grow", and then the Olympics got involved... we're pretty far distanced from "defend the village" at that point.