PDA

View Full Version : Not so deadly



Falcor
10-29-2003, 11:10 AM
Just read a very good book by (I think) Renzo Gracie called Mastering Jiujutsu. Lot's of interesting things in there - but one thing that struck me was something he said about training methodologies. He said that the reason Judo and by extension of method, BJJ, produces many fine fighters is the emphasis on resistive training. Makes sense. He says that this is only possible because of the omission or de-emphasis on the more "deadly" techniques of Jujutsu, and becasue of these techniques are able to be practiced full out without danger to the practitioners. By deadly, I assume techniques that are either either not done, or it's very dangerous, and few if any shades of gray in between. Again, this assertion has some logic to it. My question would be [1] what do you guys think of this, and [2] how do _you_ personally train the more supposedly deadly techniques? Do you even keep them anymore? So if we drop them now and focus our attention more on techniques than has a wider range of gray to their application, are we throwing away generations of information that our predecessors accumulated (where I'd guess in their time such techniques may have been necessary and oft used), or are we simply blending with the times where the deadly techniques can be categorized as 9mm or 45 caliber?

Water Dragon
10-29-2003, 11:14 AM
Do a search on this site for Black Hands

Black Jack
10-29-2003, 12:00 PM
Just wanted to point out that many of the top close "kill or get killed" military combat instructors of the ww1 and ww2 era, men like Captian Smith, Wesley Brown, Fairbairn, Sykes, Underwood, Cosneck, Dermont O' Neil, Nelson, Applegate, Styers had one thing in common.

They all had deep functional backgrounds in what is now termed combative sports. Old time kodokan judo, boxing and catch wrestling.