questions for grapplers

[lightfoot]

Since starting on this forum i've learnt a lot about many different kinds of martial art. As is usually the case, more knowledge means that I have more questions. Normally any questions I think of are answered by using the search engine but I couldn't find the answer to these.

I've seen many posts here which say that bjj concentrates more on groundwork than on the takedown compared with jjj. But what does this actually mean?
Is the difference in the training or the techniques used?
i.e.
does bjj have the same techniques as jjj but the training emphasises different things?
Or
does bjj have less takedown techniques but more groundwork techniques, (same takedowns, more groundwork, various combinations)?

next but related question:

how does sombo compare to bjj and jjj, (techniques and training wise)?
I thought I saw a thread where someone said that sombo does a lot more work on lower body submissions (?) but the search engine didn't find it.

I realise that this type of question can easily become a slagging match but I'm really only interested in the facts of techniques and training, not why something might be better than something else. So please ignore anyone who trolls on this.

[Water Dragon]

I've seen many posts here which say that bjj concentrates more on groundwork than on the takedown compared with jjj. But what does this actually mean?
Is the difference in the training or the techniques used?
i.e.
does bjj have the same techniques as jjj but the training emphasises different things?

Jujitsu is kinda a "catch all" term. Think of pizza, the Brazillians may have the best peperoni pizza, but they don't even try to make sausage. Jujutsu would be the pizza. Somethhing like 90 % of BJJ comes from one ryuha of JJJ, I don't remember the ryu's name.


does bjj have less takedown techniques but more groundwork techniques, (same takedowns, more groundwork, various combinations)?

Good standup and takedowns are the big hole in BJJ. The philosophy is that if one person wants the fight to go to the ground, it will go there. That's pretty much a true statement, but can be exploited to your advantage if you understand the mentality.



how does sombo compare to bjj and jjj, (techniques and training wise)?
I thought I saw a thread where someone said that sombo does a lot more work on lower body submissions (?) but the search engine didn't find it.

The biggest difference is that BJJ is extremely position oriented. "Position before submission". In comparision, Sambo will shoot for the sub as soon as they see it. BJJ is more methodocal in it's approach. Both arts borrow heavily from one another.

[Merryprankster]

JJJ has some strikes along with its grappling. I don't know how much. I imagine it depends on lineage. It is not practiced as a sport, unlike Judo. There is a greater emphasis on various takedowns than on groundwork. It has more of a "martial art," feel than a martial sport feel... ie, self-defense vice competition sport. I cannot speak to its effectiveness or practicality. Somebody on here is undoubtedly willing to provide you origins and ancient history, but I view anything passed as oral tradition as suspect.

BJJ is focused probably 90% on groundwork. The takedowns are largely secondary. BJJ is known for its particularly well developed matwork, particularly from the guard position. Some people will tell you that "BJJ has strikes too," but if it has strikes it has strikes in the way that TKD has grappling. There is a great emphasis on upper-body submissions and chokes. The art of BJJ is the art of overwhelming a single appendage on an opponent's body with your entire body. Because of this, there is a great focus on ground positioning and control prior to submission attempts. A takedown is worth only 2 points in Sport BJJ, which is the lowest number of points for any move. This has de-emphasized takedowns.

Sambo is a synthesized Russian art which combines Judo and several indigenous Asian wrestling styles. There is both sportive and combat Sambo. I do not know anything about combat Sambos rules or the differences between it and sport sambo.

Sambo was designed to be an unarmed system that a soldier might use. To this end, lower body submissions are trained regularly--a man with a broken leg is out of the engagement (unless it is a static firefight) because he has lost his mobility.

Sport Sambo rules give points for the takedown and submissions only. There is a limited amount of time on the mat which makes the style "fast and furious," when compared to BJJ. You can win in sport Sambo by "total victory," if you throw the opponent with amplitude to their back and remain standing. Sambo does not allow collar chokes.

A good Samboist can often catch a BJJer with an unfamiliar leg lock. Samboists tend to be unfamiliar with the rather highly developed guard of BJJ, and get tangled up in it. They also tend to leave the choke open. I have often found that familiarity with leg lock escapes has enabled me to beat a Samboist, as I simply train on the ground more often, and for greater stretches of time.

This is not meant to disparage Sambo in any way at all. It's a great art. I mean, most BJJers can hand most Judo guys with a similar level of training their ass on the ground but not standing. It's just a different game with different emphases and different expectations.

[lightfoot]

i love this forum!

[truewrestler]

what merryprankster said

[iblis73]

I've recently sought cross training in BJJ/grappling arts. BJJ has some really good standup and takedowns. At a recent Carlos Machado seminar he focused about 2/3 of it on getting in,standup and takedowns. From what I've observed the BJJ approach to standups,clinching and takedowns is more on strategy than specific techniques. BJJ is an AWESOME system and I would HIGHLY recomend it for any martial arts practitioner.

[iblis73]

I've recently sought cross training in BJJ/grappling arts. BJJ has some really good standup and takedowns. At a recent Carlos Machado seminar he focused about 2/3 of it on getting in,standup and takedowns. From what I've observed the BJJ approach to standups,clinching and takedowns is more on strategy than specific techniques. BJJ is an AWESOME system and I would HIGHLY recomend it for any martial arts practitioner.

[Merryprankster]

Water Dragon;

I still stand by my assertion that Maeda was a judoka, not a jujitsuka. I think the reason you'll have a hard time remembering what ryu-ha BJJ comes from is because the Gracies learned Judo...

M. Tripp from the Judo and Sambo forum on MMA.com has done some research on the subject and concludes that BJJ comes from Judo... he actually concludes that BJJ IS Judo, but I don't think I go that far. A BJJ.org review of the Maeda bio indicates that he entered the Kodokan at 18 and has no mention of any jjj ryu-ha.

That said, I really don't think it matters that much. I'll leave matters like this to folks who are more concerned with lineage than I

[fightfan]

Wherever it came from, its BJJ now.
The takedowns are realistic and very effective.

[Water Dragon]

That's true, but you have to go a little ****her back. Kano developed Judo from about 2 or 3 Jujitsu ryu ha. One of them is where most of the throws come from. Another is where most of the matwork comes from. IMO, when the Gracies extracted the groundwork, they basically resurected the Ryu Ha where those techs originally came from.


Fightfan, compared to a wrestler, Judoka, or Shuai Chiao guy, BJJ does not have the best takedowns. Take a pure BJJ man against another grappling art and who do you think is going to control the clinch?

[lightfoot]

LOL - was that far*ther back that was censored! took me a while to figure out what it said