Before the trolls arrive

@ Dutch Budo,

I am taking the chance to have a sensible conversation about BJJ/Judo Ne Waza before the trolls find us

I saw your vid on the old jf and found it (apart from a couple of techniques) very similar to the way I teach judo ne waza, i.e. I teach individiual techniques and then as the student advances we go onto recognising opportunities and transitioning from one technique to the next, always based on the opportunity what is presented and keeping it simple as opposed to drilling specific sequences like step one, step two, step three ... etc....

One of the things that was being pushed (by some) on the old forum about bjj was the complexity and number of moves/techniques being strung together in the drills. So my question is it true and your method of teaching is strongly influenced by your judo background or were the others talking BS regarding bjj.

atb

sodo lite

welcome aboard sodo! I was actually trying to get into my messenger on the other forum to tell you about this one.

genetic judoka wrote:welcome aboard sodo! I was actually trying to get into my messenger on the other forum to tell you about this one.

and there was me thinking you boys were deliberately keeping secrets from me

atb

!*&$^!!! - Who the !*&% told him ???? Only kidding welcome on board.

Welcome aboard Sodo. The video you are refering to is this one I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExasOaC92f4&feature=share&list=UUn9et-2QPY1vkb7DOe8Xtgw

Ive been doing judo since I was six, so obviously my way of teaching has been very much influenced by judo. I dont think there is need for explanation how and why. Of course Ive been doing a lot of other sports as well and theyve changed my view on grappling a bit. But going through all the layers of the grappling arts, I found many similarities. There are layers of complexity, at first there is basic body movement, then there is the basic principles of positions, then there is using those principles to apply techniques against a compliant uke, then there is the situational drill where we put the techniques into a context, then the randori and finally the competition.

Its very easy to go straight to the third layer and just show a bunch of techniques and then let the guys randori and see if they can use it. This is in my opinion wrong. The technique I show is preceded by many hours of doing ebis and studying the mount position. The reason I made this video was to show an opening to sequence a few techniques on. By pushing on the arm there is going to be a reaction (based on the body movement of uke and the pricinples of defense).

Usually after showing a series like this, and having the guys train this for a while, I let them do it against a resisting uke by creating a situational drill. A kind of randori but with very specific rules. For instance, the guy on top has to submitt the guy on bottom, the guy on bottom can only defend, not counter. By doing this the guys get the most effeciency out of using the newly learnt techniques.

In judo I really loved the structure of the classes and the way techniques are slowly transformed into useful pieces against resisting opponents. So randori and competition being in generally quite chaotic, by applying certain techniques and creating reflexes, you can go into a more regulated state of fighting. I dont believe in learning tricks against unresisting ukes and going straight into the most complex layers of grappling. I believe in simple openings, where techniques will flow from automatically, based on muscle memory and principle movements.

Does this answer any of your questions?

Dutch Budo wrote:Welcome aboard Sodo. The video you are refering to is this one I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExasOaC92f4&feature=share&list=UUn9et-2QPY1vkb7DOe8Xtgw

Ive been doing judo since I was six, so obviously my way of teaching has been very much influenced by judo. I dont think there is need for explanation how and why. Of course Ive been doing a lot of other sports as well and theyve changed my view on grappling a bit. But going through all the layers of the grappling arts, I found many similarities. There are layers of complexity, at first there is basic body movement, then there is the basic principles of positions, then there is using those principles to apply techniques against a compliant uke, then there is the situational drill where we put the techniques into a context, then the randori and finally the competition.

Its very easy to go straight to the third layer and just show a bunch of techniques and then let the guys randori and see if they can use it. This is in my opinion wrong. The technique I show is preceded by many hours of doing ebis and studying the mount position. The reason I made this video was to show an opening to sequence a few techniques on. By pushing on the arm there is going to be a reaction (based on the body movement of uke and the pricinples of defense).

Usually after showing a series like this, and having the guys train this for a while, I let them do it against a resisting uke by creating a situational drill. A kind of randori but with very specific rules. For instance, the guy on top has to submitt the guy on bottom, the guy on bottom can only defend, not counter. By doing this the guys get the most effeciency out of using the newly learnt techniques.

In judo I really loved the structure of the classes and the way techniques are slowly transformed into useful pieces against resisting opponents. So randori and competition being in generally quite chaotic, by applying certain techniques and creating reflexes, you can go into a more regulated state of fighting. I dont believe in learning tricks against unresisting ukes and going straight into the most complex layers of grappling. I believe in simple openings, where techniques will flow from automatically, based on muscle memory and principle movements.

Does this answer any of your questions?

Hi Brian,

I understand how you build up your classes, I more or less the same but what I wanted to know is how it is generally done in BJJ. One of the big aguements for bjjs "superiority" in ne waza were claims that the drills were much more complicated and strung upto 16 moves together, admittedly these claims were from posters that I would not 100% rely on to know what they were talking about so I though I would ask somebody whose judgement I trust

I personaly would think that if these claims were true then it would be more of a weakness than a strength since we rely on the KISS system at out dojo

atb

sodo

sodo lite wrote:

Dutch Budo wrote:Welcome aboard Sodo. The video you are refering to is this one I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExasOaC92f4&feature=share&list=UUn9et-2QPY1vkb7DOe8Xtgw

Ive been doing judo since I was six, so obviously my way of teaching has been very much influenced by judo. I dont think there is need for explanation how and why. Of course Ive been doing a lot of other sports as well and theyve changed my view on grappling a bit. But going through all the layers of the grappling arts, I found many similarities. There are layers of complexity, at first there is basic body movement, then there is the basic principles of positions, then there is using those principles to apply techniques against a compliant uke, then there is the situational drill where we put the techniques into a context, then the randori and finally the competition.

Its very easy to go straight to the third layer and just show a bunch of techniques and then let the guys randori and see if they can use it. This is in my opinion wrong. The technique I show is preceded by many hours of doing ebis and studying the mount position. The reason I made this video was to show an opening to sequence a few techniques on. By pushing on the arm there is going to be a reaction (based on the body movement of uke and the pricinples of defense).

Usually after showing a series like this, and having the guys train this for a while, I let them do it against a resisting uke by creating a situational drill. A kind of randori but with very specific rules. For instance, the guy on top has to submitt the guy on bottom, the guy on bottom can only defend, not counter. By doing this the guys get the most effeciency out of using the newly learnt techniques.

In judo I really loved the structure of the classes and the way techniques are slowly transformed into useful pieces against resisting opponents. So randori and competition being in generally quite chaotic, by applying certain techniques and creating reflexes, you can go into a more regulated state of fighting. I dont believe in learning tricks against unresisting ukes and going straight into the most complex layers of grappling. I believe in simple openings, where techniques will flow from automatically, based on muscle memory and principle movements.

Does this answer any of your questions?

Hi Brian,

I understand how you build up your classes, I more or less the same but what I wanted to know is how it is generally done in BJJ. One of the big aguements for bjjs "superiority" in ne waza were claims that the drills were much more complicated and strung upto 16 moves together, admittedly these claims were from posters that I would not 100% rely on to know what they were talking about so I though I would ask somebody whose judgement I trust

I personaly would think that if these claims were true then it would be more of a weakness than a strength since we rely on the KISS system at out dojo

atb

sodo

The way my teacher (little to no experience in Judo) teaches BJJ is similar to mine. Also Ive trained at various different places abroad with some of the bigger names in BJJ and all of them seemed to have pretty much the same opinion as me. Or I had the same opinion as them, I dont know. Because more training time is spent on the ground, you have more time to figure out defenses against techniques and counters to those defenses etc etc, thats when it gets more complex. Like I mentioned, that level of thinking can only be achieved if you are proficient at the first layers I described.

The differences in techniques are usually caused by the differences in strategy. For instance when you are in turtle in BJJ you dont have to worry so much about being turnt over, but you have to prevent getting backmounted, in judo this would be the opposite. With this information in mind you add somewhat different techniques to your game.

Im glad to see you are a fan of the KISS system as well. Its not so much a suprise if you have any clue about how people learn and behave under the pressure of competition or self defense even.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the info, it is pretty much what I expected and just goes to show how little some of the posters on the old jf actually know about bjj despite all there claims.
When it comes down to it there is basically only one way to teach a combatative sport properly.

atb

sodo lite

Which twits were claiming BJJ is taught as a series of umpteen "lock flows"?

"Teaching by encyclopaedia" is just about worthless.

FWIW, my experience has been that the (average) instructor will show two or three techniques (and if you're extra lucky, they may be addressing a set scenario). The better instructors will use the 3I method. The best use something like this -
http://caneprevost.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/drilling-in-bjj/

Hi Creamy,

so you also agree that the majority of bjj instructors teach the sameway that judo ne waza should be taught.
So now the big question, why bs on jf that somehow bjj instruction was supposed to be more complex and superior to judo ne waza instruction. Admittidly this claim came from a few young trolls but it was repeated so often that it was beginning to be taken as gospel.

From what I understand from talking to knowledgeably bjj/judoka is that the training is basically the same just that in bjj you spend more time in ne waza, that there are a couple of techniques in bjj that are not (or no longer) part of judo and the rule differences/scoring mean that different strategies are followed making the two sports/art in regard to effectivity incomparable.
Is this correct? if so this is the definitive thread on the judo vs bjj argument and should be closed and stickied and a filter installed to close all other BJJ vs judo threads immediately

atb

sodo lite

it's been my limited experience that in BJJ the groundwork instruction is more in depth, but with a caveat.

it's more in depth because they add more steps, and those steps do indeed make the techniques more reliable.

in judo the same lock will have fewer steps, not because we are incapable of making a complex attack, but because we don't have time to do so. as such the longer the process of getting into a submission the less likely it is to work in judo where the ref stands you up.

that can to some be seen as judo's newaza being inferior to BJJ. that's not true though, it's just different. in reality it's just that judo newaza instruction is designed to be as effective as possible given the constraints we have on time to apply things.

I don't have any bjj experience outside the bjj guys who come to my judo school. But I hang out at a very popular MMA forum whereas you can guess a large majority do bjj.

From the instructional videos they post and technique descriptions and details that they write, it is my view that they have a highly pedantic approach to newaza instruction. Any little detail that can be spelt out, they will spell out. Everything including relative body positioning, where the hands should be, the legs should be, head should be etc. at every step of the skill being taught. On a relative basis, it is my opinion, that this level of meticulousness is even more than that compared to judo’s general tachiwaza instruction. I say this having received judo stand up instruction in many clubs and countries. In my view, it is the level of detail that is usually only approached at a kata seminar where people are figuratively measuring every step and move (I don’t mean pejoratively but to imply the nature of detail we are talking about).

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of this approach. I am more of a give the man the meat and let him figure out how much gravy he needs kind of guy.

nomoremondays wrote:I don't have any bjj experience outside the bjj guys who come to my judo school. But I hang out at a very popular MMA forum whereas you can guess a large majority do bjj.

From the instructional videos they post and technique descriptions and details that they write, it is my view that they have a highly pedantic approach to newaza instruction. Any little detail that can be spelt out, they will spell out. Everything including relative body positioning, where the hands should be, the legs should be, head should be etc. at every step of the skill being taught. On a relative basis, it is my opinion, that this level of meticulousness is even more than that compared to judo’s general tachiwaza instruction. I say this having received judo stand up instruction in many clubs and countries. In my view, it is the level of detail that is usually only approached at a kata seminar where people are figuratively measuring every step and move (I don’t mean pejoratively but to imply the nature of detail we are talking about).

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of this approach. I am more of a give the man the meat and let him figure out how much gravy he needs kind of guy.

I think the reason a lot of tachiwaza instruction is less detailed is simply that a lot of instructors, entire regions just dont have the knowledge so they adopt strength instead of technique - or you get clubs that make out they are more technical but dont have a high degree of real technical knowledge so they have neither technique or conditioning. You want pedantic, complex nuanced and fully functional tachiwaza technique get a serious Japanese teacher, someone who was trained by the Japanese or ideally go to Japan. Complex technique once it becomes second nature need not be slow. Then the techniques are bottomless - you learn more and more. My current teacher is Brazilian national gold medalist who was taught by Japanese immigrants from the age of 5. Its like been thrown by a feather. He teaches BJJ and MMA too - there is no less depth in his Judo or his BJJ instruction .

Dew wrote:

nomoremondays wrote:I don't have any bjj experience outside the bjj guys who come to my judo school. But I hang out at a very popular MMA forum whereas you can guess a large majority do bjj.

From the instructional videos they post and technique descriptions and details that they write, it is my view that they have a highly pedantic approach to newaza instruction. Any little detail that can be spelt out, they will spell out. Everything including relative body positioning, where the hands should be, the legs should be, head should be etc. at every step of the skill being taught. On a relative basis, it is my opinion, that this level of meticulousness is even more than that compared to judo’s general tachiwaza instruction. I say this having received judo stand up instruction in many clubs and countries. In my view, it is the level of detail that is usually only approached at a kata seminar where people are figuratively measuring every step and move (I don’t mean pejoratively but to imply the nature of detail we are talking about).

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of this approach. I am more of a give the man the meat and let him figure out how much gravy he needs kind of guy.

I think the reason a lot of tachiwaza instruction is less detailed is simply that a lot of instructors, entire regions just dont have the knowledge so they adopt strength instead of technique - or you get clubs that make out they are more technical but dont have a high degree of real technical knowledge so they have neither technique or conditioning. You want pedantic, complex nuanced and fully functional tachiwaza technique get a serious Japanese teacher, someone who was trained by the Japanese or ideally go to Japan. Complex technique once it becomes second nature need not be slow. Then the techniques are bottomless - you learn more and more. My current teacher is Brazilian national gold medalist who was taught by Japanese immigrants from the age of 5. Its like been thrown by a feather. He teaches BJJ and MMA too - there is no less depth in his Judo or his BJJ instruction .

I lost another post. I think its a good thing because on second reflection I think I was just digging a hole for myself since i dont do the jits. Please ignore my statement on it above.

However as regards to judo, my perception of instruction is based on travels to many countries including japan ( i am no world class fella, just somebody who travels with a gi in his backpack a lot). We can discuss it at another moment since it will probably cause a derail of this topic.

Thanks for the infoc, so it is true that some bjj instructors teach ne waza like a recipe step1, step2 ....

Personally I do not find this a strength but a weakness. It is okay teaching raw beginners like this but after a few months the should move on to think things through on teir own, they need to develope a feel for their opponent/partner, realise how the bodies react. This is the same for Tachi Waza as well, a good instructor should teach the principles of a technique and how to recognise and exploit opportunites.

atb

sodo lite

sodo lite wrote:Hi Creamy,

so you also agree that the majority of bjj instructors teach the sameway that judo ne waza should be taught.

Yes

So now the big question, why bs on jf that somehow bjj instruction was supposed to be more complex and superior to judo ne waza instruction. Admittidly this claim came from a few young trolls but it was repeated so often that it was beginning to be taken as gospel.

I can't speak for over-enthusiastic young trolls, but isn't that kinda like marrying the first girl you shag? Ie, they don't know any better?

From what I understand from talking to knowledgeably bjj/judoka is that the training is basically the same just that in bjj you spend more time in ne waza, that there are a couple of techniques in bjj that are not (or no longer) part of judo and the rule differences/scoring mean that different strategies are followed making the two sports/art in regard to effectivity incomparable.

More or less. The thing is, the longer you spend doing something, the better you become at it; and certainly, some teachers of BJJ are sublime. Arguably, there are more 'good at groundwork' bjj teachers then there are 'good at groundwork' judo teachers - or at least, they are more publicly visible.

There are of course differences: a judoka looks to followup from a throw. A bjj'er looks to follow up / get into a position to punch the other fellow. A minor difference with some obvious effects on ground positioning etc.

Is this correct? if so this is the definitive thread on the judo vs bjj argument and should be closed and stickied and a filter installed to close all other BJJ vs judo threads immediately

atb

sodo lite

Between you and me, this judo vs bjj thing is a net phenomena. Out here IRL no one gives a flying f*ck.

Between you and me, this judo vs bjj thing is a net phenomena. Out here IRL no one gives a flying f*ck.

It doesn't interest me either, what possibly does are the teaching methods and that is the point of this thread. It would be good if a COMPETENT bjj instructor that uses the recipe method could explain why, how and the advantages/dissadvantages of this method.

atb

sodo lite

@ Sodo and Creamy... I gave both of you stars (or sort of) (I broke Sodo's virginity...)

Awesome discussion about BJJ/Judo, without the usual crap. It would be great if a well respected BBJ coach could add his 2 cents as suggested. I am very interested in this and have also trained with BJJ guys and we all agreed the two "styles" are very different even if the eventual submission outcome is achieved. It is the means to the end that is very different...

While we are waiting for a comptent bjj (only) instructor to chip in I have another question for the cross trainers.

One of the things that was claimed that bjj got right and has been a big problem for judo is the standard(isation) of rank,
I am not talking about bjj blue = shodan or any other stupid speculation but are bjj ranks really standardised f.e. is a bjj blue belt in mexico roughly equivilent in skill to a blue belt in Alsaska or in France etc..., this has always been a problem (sofar as you want it to be a problem) in judo, the quality of judo varies not only from country to country or association to association but from club to club and sometimes even within clubs. Have bjj solved this problem and if so how?

atb

sodo lite

Creamy creamy baileys wrote:

sodo lite wrote:Hi Creamy,

so you also agree that the majority of bjj instructors teach the sameway that judo ne waza should be taught.

Creamy - just wanted to congratulate you on your choice of old Greg as your profile picture. The Boosh rules.

[quote="Creamy creamy baileys"]

sodo lite wrote:Hi Creamy,

Between you and me, this judo vs bjj thing is a net phenomena. Out here IRL no one gives a flying f*ck.

+1

sodo lite wrote:While we are waiting for a comptent bjj (only) instructor to chip in I have another question for the cross trainers.

One of the things that was claimed that bjj got right and has been a big problem for judo is the standard(isation) of rank,
I am not talking about bjj blue = shodan or any other stupid speculation but are bjj ranks really standardised f.e. is a bjj blue belt in mexico roughly equivilent in skill to a blue belt in Alsaska or in France etc..., this has always been a problem (sofar as you want it to be a problem) in judo, the quality of judo varies not only from country to country or association to association but from club to club and sometimes even within clubs. Have bjj solved this problem and if so how?

atb

sodo lite

I'll put my 2c in here. I was in Australia's first Bjj comp and competed over the course of some 15 years as it pleased me. I competed in Gi work up to purple, adcc novice to advanced and no-gi up to brown.

Here in my country there was a distinct variation in skill level depending who was the coach at the blue belt level. By purple the gaps were closer and by brown the gaps were negligible excepting that there were some gifted athletes.

So to answer by observational experience, the blue belt rank was highly subjective, purple usually meant you could defeat and outclass most blues from other clubs and brown belt and up was not given away for lesson fees but earned.

I understand now the phenomenon of some coaches "sandbagging" is alive and well in Bjj. This is whereby the coach withholds the belt so the competitor may win the state or national championship at the lower grade. So you get people who should be blue being national champion for white etc

Cheers

We are part of an association (Gracie Barra) and the gradings are overseen by a captain so to say. He has a lot of experience and we an at least say that our blue belts etc are on par with all the other Gracie Barra blue belts etc. In international competitions in all ranks we do reasonably to very well. The gradings arent based on knowing this many techniques but based on how much skill is shown. Even though it sounds quite subjective, in reality its quite accurate. And as we all know in Judo, there are black belts who are awesome and there are black belts who barely know their stuff. But at least you can say a black belt judo has a basic set of skills that is comparable to all other blak belts in the world. Same thing can be said for BJJ, I dont think youll find any brown or black belt out there that hasnt spent many hours on the mat, and therefor will be quite a challenge for anyone. Of course I only know how Gracie Barra deals with the gradings, other associations have different ways of doing it. Rickson Gracie is known for having a self defense curriculum the people have to know and show for their gradings. And generally the belts are much harder earned.

sodo lite wrote:While we are waiting for a comptent bjj (only) instructor to chip in I have another question for the cross trainers.

One of the things that was claimed that bjj got right and has been a big problem for judo is the standard(isation) of rank,
I am not talking about bjj blue = shodan or any other stupid speculation but are bjj ranks really standardised f.e. is a bjj blue belt in mexico roughly equivilent in skill to a blue belt in Alsaska or in France etc..., this has always been a problem (sofar as you want it to be a problem) in judo, the quality of judo varies not only from country to country or association to association but from club to club and sometimes even within clubs. Have bjj solved this problem and if so how?

atb

sodo lite

I dont know how they've done it but BJJ blackbelts are ALWAYS really good. As we all know in Judo ,some black belts aren't that good - and some low grades can be really good especially if they dont grade often. I dont know how they've standardised it though .