Oh boy.. Where to start? Firstly, as far as I know, the argument being now is not as you portray it. Generally grapplers say that grappling is a necessity, while strikers misconstrue this as them saying striking doesn't work. The argument is that - if a possible opponent is well versed in grappling, the only real defense apparent from a weapon, is learning how to grapple as well. This is because clinches neutralize striking for the most part, but striking does nothing to address clinching by itself. Telling a person "don't go to the ground" as a means of preparing them for how to deal with grappling, is like telling a soldier "don't get shot" as a means of dealing with firearm threats. It's completely useless. The purpose of grappling, is to help the underdog either get back to his feet, or take out an opponent that is bigger, physically stronger, and has tackled you. In your own example - imagine one warrior attempting to hold you in place as another goes in foe the kill - if you know how to grapple, you have a room for escape, if you don't you're dead. Grappling arts, unlike striking arts, exist universally in cultures around the world, related to warfare(even if minor compared to weapon arts), because it's the only viable tool for dealing with an armed opponent if you've lost all your weapons. You can't hit a guy in armour into submission. A choke, or a break on the other hand, works regardless. Furthermore, many weapon arts incorporate grappling, because most weapons like swords and spears are often used in such a way as to allow for clinching. Imagine if somebody grabs your spear, or when two swords are linked at an impasse between blows and one grabs the hand of the other. These situations lead to clinches, which leads to situations where grappling is a necessity. You can't cut well if you're clinching and the opponent is locking your hands. If you let go with one hand to reach your dagger, your opponent will overpower you and cut you down. How do you solve that problem? With a throw perhaps? Who knows. Point in case is that grappling has a space in all serious martial artists and warriors toolbox. There is no excuse or good reason not to learn it. As for BJJ, it's a developed form of judo, with a shift in focus from takedowns to ground work. Judo is a combination of throws, locks and chokes from several schools of koryu, which were deemed to be the moat useful in one on one encounters, in a contemporary setting, based on sparring result. Many koryu schools have grappling in them - the yagyu shinkage ryu, and Katori Shinto ryu are two good examples of primary weapon schools that also have grappling techniques in their curriculum. Is it dumb to run around on a battlefield trying to grapple people? Yes, but then again, everybody already knows that. Is it dumb to dismiss grappling because the above doesn't work? Yes it is, because that is not an argument against the specific context where grappling does work, and where nothing else is likely to help you. As a person who studies both traditional arts, and BJJ/shoot in Japan, I would recommend people to do both. Ground arts provide a necessary supplement to your general training, both in form of a new skillset that no other arts adequately teach you, and in terms of full-contact resistance, which adds to your physique, your stress-endurance, your reaction time, your understanding of timing and spacing, your mental toughness and many other factors that you're not likely to develop all that much in many other arts. It also teaches humility - because nothing teaches that better than being tapped out 1000 of times, over and over, by people of all sizes, ages and creeds. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything, you'll know that the 50 years old salaryman standing in front of you, can kill you if he wants to, just as he throw you over his shoulder and trapped you in a collar choke, minutes earlier, while you were doing your very best to do the exact same thing. Is grappling everything you need to know to fight in any given circumstance? As I said, no it isn't. Not even close. The argument is whether it has a use, whether it's necessary, and whether it's one of the best tools in one on one, unarmed combat. To that I'd say yes. If that isn't good enough reason to study it, at least, part time next to whatever else you're doing - I don't know what is...
nobody dissed the value of a throw or the knowledge of getting out of a grip. I think the type of grappling anthony was referring to was the type of grappling with the intent to submit someone on the floor. Which in case of a large melee brawl medieval style was deadly. when you are on the ground, you pin yourself on the ground with the person you are pinning or grappling. Meaning you are very vulnerable to anyone around you to kick/stab/whatever you. + while you are on the ground in the midst of a large melee battle, you simply have no sight or knowledge of what is going on around you. Which was probably key to medieval melee warfare. your companions that were with you attacking might have slowly been pushed back and now while you are in the midst of trying grapple and choke a guy out, you find yourself surrounded by enemy militants.
mr.lleuwelyn That's a mindset, not a skill-set though. The grappling Antony refers to is the skill-set you'll need to have to be able to defend yourself at all, if you end up on the ground unarmed in either case. Point many people also forget to raise, is that being at the bottom on the ground, very rarely lends itself to other attackers being able to strike cleanly at you. This will be an anecdote, and you're therefore welcome to take it with a grain of salt. But, when I was younger I used to hang out with a rather unpleasant crowd. At one point, me and two friends got pulled into a fight involving several other individuals armed with telescopic batons. One of my friends got hit to the face and broke his nose, but he managed to pull his closest attacker down on top of him. Not only did this prevent the attacker from being able to hit him efficiently anymore, it also prevented the other attackers from reaching him. Finally, we were broken up by security personnel at the place. Furthermore, the techniques used in Judo and BJJ are arguable the most time-efficient techniques for putting down an attacker on the ground. In a serious encounter, non-one is looking for submissions. Submissions simply mean holding the technique to allow the opponent to give up. Non of those techniques have to be held in that manner. Chokes applied with full force, and no restraint put people to sleep in a manner of seconds, and arm-bars and other similar joint-locks break the bones even quicker under the same circumstance. Here's a question: If you're already on the floor becomes some aggressive guy just ran you down, and you've lost your weapon, why would you sweep him and stand-up immediately, if you could make him useless from the position you're already in, and then stand up? The only real concern you've mentioned is time. Unfortunately, if you don't spend time learning grappling, you probably won't be able to stand up at all, much less quickly, so grappling is a necessary component in either case. But, even if we accept the premise that if you spend even an extra couple of seconds dealing with the one who's one the floor with you is going to put you in danger of secondary opponents, I'd argue that not dealing with the opponent closest to you first, is going to pose a severe problem. You stand up without putting down the opponent at your feet, to deal with the incoming attackers, and then he grabs hold of your feet and pulls you down again. Now you're just as bad off as you were before, except now you've lost additional time as well. Grappling is important. Most people should just face that and spend some time learning it. Usually I get the impression that a lot of the nay-sayers when it comes to grappling are simply lazy and afraid. Lazy because they can't be bothered to practice more than they already do(if at all), and afraid because they feel threatened by the idea that despite what they do practice, they might find themselves losing to someone with grappling experience. It's much easier to try to rationalize why we wouldn't need grappling, than to go to a dojo/gym and spend a few years learning grappling. At the end of the day though, traditional Ju-jutsu had ground-fighting techniques. The mongols practiced grappling, and so did the greeks and romans. Almost all successful armies of history, including our modern ones have grappling and ground-fighting techniques in their unarmed combat regiments. At that point, what is left to say on the topic?
again: nobody really dissed grappling on its own and anthony said it was also practiced in the video. Just it wasnt seen with the choking out for the example you have. well ok if you lost your weapon somehow of course you would need to defend yourself mano a mano, be it grappling or striking or whatever. That is just common sense. But i think you also dont look at something else. most wrestlers you see now are barely clothed or wear body suits. Now take in the case of medieval warfare you have to count in armor. would it really be that easy to do the same chokes and grapples on a armored man? take in account that also your own armor might hinder you in your own movement? the terrain in which many medieval battles were fought quickly became muddy and bloodsoaked also. So take on the added weight of your armor and wet clothing. Would you really be so fast back up your feet and ready to react to whatever is coming at you? take in mind also that the armor of back then is not the modern and lighter and body adapted armor you would see in use by modern military. +grappling does not help you push the enemy ranks. Again: nobody underestimates the values of grappling or wrestling. But i can imagine in medieval warfare ppl would tend to avoid it and only do it when really necessary. When you mentioned weaponed martial arts like with swords/daggers it mostly results in a quick throw to the ground and finish off with a stab instead of the intresic rolling around we see in grappling matches.
In Medieval European warfare being on the ground was also considered VERY dangerous and period texts talk about doing their best to rescue guys who are on the ground...
Seems like people make this mistake with longsword techniques from historical manuals from Europe. Many false edge cuts seem flashy, but really would have no effect on someone in armor. Conversely, most of the grappling/binding techniques are really only meant for armored opponents; otherwise, its easy to slip out of the holds. Great video!
For me, I would prefer the one on one duel in the Edo period than a team effort during battles in the Sengoku period because in a duel, it's all about your personal skills and talents (finding your self-improvement) while in the team effort, it's all about your teamwork with others and the balance of the strength and weaknesses within team members. In the end, no one can really help you but yourself. That's why Musashi wrote Dokkodo or The Way of Walking Alone.
the outcome of a fight is based on experience, emotional stability, situation, timing, environment, distance,tools, etc....If I get taken to the ground and no one else is kicking me while i struggle with my opponent, , fuck yeah it works. Hell it has worked even with multiple people in a melee. Would I want to go to the ground with someone that i knew would take me quite a bit to take out? If i have the choice, hell no. I want to get the hell outta there. It's a game of chance at times, and at other times an outcome of certainty. No art is superior. No approach fail safe. I just happen to enjoy jiujitsu as well as practice it.
The direct linage of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is not the Fusen-ryu, it's Judo. Fusen-ryu ne-waza(ground fighting) was incorporated into Judo by Jigoro Kano after his students had been defeated by the Fusen-ryu Jujutsu school due to their superior ground fighting techniques. Then Kano student Mitsuyo Maeda traveled to Brazil and taught Judo to the Gracie family under the name "Kano Jiu-Jitsu," from which the Gracies developed Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
No ground fighting wouldn't work on no battlefield sport only, maybe throws/shoves would work for creating distance then use your weapon immediately afterwards. I think that's why traditional arts stress a strong foundation or stances so you won't fall or slip on battlefields to easily
Everyone knows the way to disarm someone is grappling. So yes grappling has always been used in the battlefield with the exception of modern times when the whole fight started to be done with guns (and still if you manage to get close enough grappling is your best chance to survive a gun attack by disarming the enemy)
Ground fighting only works with our modern fighting, where your opponent is not trying to kill you. If your opponent was trying to kill you, and has trained his body, going to the ground would be very dangerous. Hatsumi has shown all the various kinds of samurai weapons, you can find the videos elsewhere on youtube. Almost everything one might have on there person would be a weapon of some sort. If your opponent has several weapons you might not want to get close. Or, is someone has nails like Takamatsu getting close would have been very dangerous.
lol samurai is where jiu jitsu originated. Ground fighting worked then and now. "Getting close would be dangerous" again lmao, thats a fight! You are completely clueless, even Sam Harris trains.
Ok, thanks for the video. It is correct that Jiu-Jitsu is directly related with Bushido (Chivalry) and hence war/battle scenarios. However, I have to correct that BJJ and GJJ do not come from Fusen-ruy Jiu-Jitsu. That is a romanticized story that mostly the Gracie's started and perpetuated. BJJ and GJJ originate directly from Kano's Jiu-jitsu (Kodokan Judo) via Mitsuyo Maeda. Roughly put, Kodokan Judo is an interpretation, compilation and combination of Kito-ryu and mainly Tenjin Shin'yo-ruy Jiu-Jjitsu. It's not even clear if Fusen-ryu has ne-waza as their basis. Later masters of this school who were exceptional good at ne-waza (like many masters of other schools) may have influenced (ever so slightly anyway) Judo and BJJ. But the main point is, although the Gracie's worked hard to promote the myth, BJJ comes straight from the Kodokan, and that shows from studying both disciplines.
+Physical Activity Science I thought it was common knowledge that Mataemon Tanabe (Fusen Ryu master), whose nickname was "Newaza-Tanabe" beat a number of proto-Kodokan Judo exponents and after doing so, was asked to teach at the Kodokan school the newaza techniques for which he was famed - and so Judo became both a grappling and ground fighting art. With means he was directly responsible for the newaza of Kodokan Judo and Brazillian newaza which pretty much did away with all the Tachi-waza techniques. I am interested to read your thoughts on this matter.
+Vaughan MacEgan Again, all that are tales fed by GJJ romancists. Tanabe was indeed an exceptional Jiu-Jitsuka (Fusen Ryu included but not exclusively, and actually Ne-waza seems to be mostly absent from this schools teachings ) who defeated Kodokan Jiu-jitsukas. However, it is critical and revealing to point out that Tanabe was 15 (and still learning Jiu-Jitsu) when the Kodokan started developing their "Katame-No-Kata" (pins, chokes and locks), so they had well established Ne-waza by then. 7 years later, when Tanabe is 22, he arrives Tokyo for the first time. The first contacts with Kano and the Kodokan are unclear, but happened necessarily after that, i.e., 7 years after the first Katame-No-Kata documents, 9 years after the official Judo foundation and decades after Kano's Jiu-Jitsu different educations. Moreover, Kodokan athletes loosing out to other athletes via ne-waza seems to be a later phenomenon, after Judo had spread to the world already. It is important to understand that Judo has always been (pre and post the official 1882 mark) an evolving and updating discipline, incorporating techniques of several JJ masters and schools, western disciplines (from where kata-guruma or firemans throw originates) and even new techniques from exceptional athletes (like sankaku-jime or triangle choke by master Oda).
+Physical Activity Science It's also important to understand that Ne-waza, together with Tachi-waza are both as old as Jiu-Jitsu, far from being modern inventions. The first individual/institution to study, compile, systematize and properly document this body of knowledge was Kano and the Kodokan. This allowed a popularization of Jiu-Jitsu attached to a concrete, uniformed and scientific methodology. Firstly known as Kano's Jiu-Jitsu and later as Judo. More modern variations/branches (Olympic Judo being the closest to Kodokan, followed by Kosen, GJJ, Sambo etc) originate directly from there. The rest is romanticism and attempts to self-credit via Judo's discredit.
+Physical Activity Science Thankyou for that highly detailed response. I had no idea that the Kodokan schools had starting developing their own system of newaza pre-Tanabe - that is very surprising. Although the Jujutsu schools that preceeded judo has always had its newaza techniques it was never systematized like at the Kodokan. Thanks again for opening my eyes to this whole matter. It is very much appreciated.
You should learn ALL facets of combat. Striking, clinching, ground fighting, grappling, weapons. Ground fighting works best one on one or when you're taken to the ground and need to get back on your feet, which is what you should do on the streets. In the ring? You should be focused on how well you can last, I.e., "on your overall competent fighting skill(s)".
You forgot to mention that the graplings could also be used by samurai who worked as palace guards. There were guards working inside and outside the castles. The technical characteristics of the school approach and the style of combat showed this. If you study about schools like Shinden Fudo-Ryu Dakentaijutsu and Tagaki Yoshin-Ryu Jutaijutsu (both are included in Bujinkan and are cited in the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten), you can understand a little more of these aspects. These are specialized schools in this type of practice, guard and things like that. Both of these schools include studies of what is now called Jujutsu or Jiu-Jitsu, but in a more traditional and contextualized way.
in agreement with the fella below. bjj comes from the judo kadokan. but the old man gracie was small and didn't have the strength to fight in judo so invented his own twist on it. called on kimura for a fight and the rest is history. i'd say to take someone to the ground when it's 1 on 1 is obviously fine. however if there with a load friends they'll probably kick your head off your shoulders as regards fighting unarmed against someone armed. well Edu gracie said " I can beat anyone who has a knife, let me know where they are and I'll take a gun "
Good observation, I train in a gym with Guys of a very high standards of both Muay Thai and BJJ, both have their strengths, but ultimately, both are sports, there is no gouging, biting or tearing, finger strikes etc. There is also soft surfaces to land on and you cant bounce people off the walls, in a real fight, this, and any weapon you can use are what hurts the other guys. Samurai would have been no different in attitude.
Just checking the comments to see if his video caused a flame war. My personal opinion is similar to Anthony's that you should study it by historical context..but from studying both the historical west and some Ko Ryu, I will say this: Mostly, ground fighting was never used to kill. It was used to capture. Unless your opponent was wearing armor, you would not go down on the ground to kill your opponent. In Europe, they would ground fight only to stab the opponent with a dagger in the weak parts of the armor. In Japan, the same existed,but since they did not have as good armor as they did in the west..generally, the killing would have already been done. Generally, the cutting of the head was the only reason why they would go on the ground to count their kill as heads were tallies. Heiho Okugisho actually has a method of approaching an opponent who is on the ground to avoid being hit. He said nothing about going on the ground with him,but carefully to approach him while you are standing up to get the kill Submission wrestling, BJJ,etc comes from later developed sports like French folk wrestling, Judoi,non-Ko Ryu Jujutsu,Catch-As-Can,etc.
It all goes back to what you've said a million times: There is no comparing a sport to combat in terms of effectiveness or purpose of use; they're completely different. For some reason, many people in the sport fighting community can't seem to grasp this concept no matter how much anyone says it. As far as what I think on the subject, I'm a purpose driven person in terms of martial arts or fighting in general. I'm ok with sport fighting, I just think it only serves the purpose of being a spectator sport or a hobby. I personally believe in learning a martial art or system of skills for the purposes they are meant to serve. For instance, learn boxing so you can acquire some skills for hobby use and possibly self defense, and practice the art form of historical Ninjutsu, and yes I know it's not a formalized fighting system, to learn how to condition yourself and your mind for actual combat and learning an opponents weaknesses to achieve victory. In short, to each art form a purpose and to each purpose the root cause for learning them, if that makes any sense.
Sport contains WAY more combat than many street systems. So please refrain from separating sport from fighting, because that is literally the focal point of sport combat: To actually practise physical combat without maiming, injuring, or killing. The issue should NOT be the whole "rules makes it less combat efficient". The issue should be "do sport based fighters train to deal with scenarios OUTSIDE the ring"?
Nick Vázquez And again, there is no comparison between sports and combat: there is no practice of combat, preparation yes, practice no. Sport fighting is obviously a form of fighting, but the issue in the video is that, in ancient Japan, the concept of ground fighting as it is today did not exist. You cannot compare ground fighting involving sharp objects to ground fighting with fists. Realize that old school ground fighting from say, the Sengoku period, had nothing to do with sport: it was about usually armored opponents going at each other in a completely brutal fashion with the express intent to kill. Combat, as I've seen it described and I'm thankful I've never had to engage in, involves two men running at each other with intent to kill, there is usually one point of contact between the two before someone is dead, and then on to the next one. Combat involves weapons; always has. The concept of let's fist fight each other until someone's down, has no place in combat...it would be considered a last resort to kill with your fists or feet. Lastly, no one is taking away from sport fighting, the point has merely been made that sport and combat, cannot go together; they are completely different things. The issue I see, is that sport fighters, in an attempt to verify what they've learned as fighters, want to make their sport relevant to combat situations, so they constantly pursue the concept that they practice sport combat, and not sport fighting. The two are different concepts entirely: one is focused around war and death, the other is about brawling and winning a non fatal fight. If a sport fighter practices for outside the ring situations, it is merely an attempt at preparation in the hopes that if something does happen, you'll be ready. Just food for thought: in the event that you encounter someone leaving a bar one night and he's set on fighting you no matter what, let's say you feel quite prepared because you say you've practiced sport combat, so you feel you have some advantage. Now, in the event that said person fights using just his fists, you'll probably win depending on your ability, training, etc. Curveball time: he picks up a brick and slams you in the face...Did you train for that? Did you expect that? That brick may kill you, quickly turning a fight in a real combat situation. At that point, all of your fight training means nothing without adaptability and that's the difference. Combat involves adapting to survive out of necessity, and until it happens to you, there is no amount of training in the world that can show you how. That's why I'm saying, the two are completely different. I like sport fighting, but that concept doesn't exist in combat, that was my only point.
You just wasted your time writing that whole paragraph talking about things that I completely know. But I do agree: combat always evolves outta necessity.
Nick Vázquez Time spent telling the truth and sharing it with others, is never time wasted. If one person learns something they don't know because of it, then I'm all the happier.
josh87saa i agree i train in martial arts but if you cant adapt on the go to a current threat and defend yourself properly, all the belts or fancy kicks wont be any good
Its true! I train Japanese jujutsu and when it comes to ne-wasa the main objective is to get up from the ground. If someone has mounted you, get him of and get up! Thats the hole point.
They would have needed skills in all those things. From various weapons, to ground skills and take downs. to striking skills if they were found without a weapon i would imagine. Much like modern military do.But i agree as a matter of practicality. u dont want to stay on the ground in a war situation, unless u r playing dead.
I suppose it can work, just not preferable especially if you're talking about armored warfare, if you're taken to the ground you're usually dead it is a very disadvantageous position to be in on the ground in a battle field, could get trampled, easily swamped by many people, even if you're the aggressor going to the ground while you're trying to wrestle your opponent might end up finding yourself grabbed by 3-4 people and end up being the one stabbed etc, than as what happened is Agincourt (aware European theater) if you're wearing heavier armor and the ground is poor you could end up bogged down even drown if you find yourself falling face-down when going to the ground. I have seen some Kyoryu martial arts performed in Yoroi where they take the person down, than pull out the Tanto/dagger cut away at the straps to the Kabuto so they could get to the throat and slit it. So "ground fighting" can work, just not preferable.
Ground fighting predates what youre talking about, predates Samurai by a long shot. In self defense top 3 individual styles to learn, BJJ, Muay Thai, Wrestling.
Respect due to the old ways but we have to know when to let go.We have learned everything we need at the moment since bruce lee and the first few ufc's....
I train BJJ now for a few years but I don't like it, it's ok as a hobby and to be well rounded. But I'd quit tomorrow i everyone would agree to stop grappling. lol I only do it for takedown/submission defense and as a contingency. But my takedown defense is good enough that I don't forsee using it ever.
I'm a karate guy who also has dabbled in BJJ. I have a very healthy respect for what a BJJ student can do to me on their terms which is why I studied it. During that time (admittedly only rolling with white and yellow belts) I found openings in their defenses that left them vulnerable to someone who can deliver strong strikes in limited space. Those strikes wouldn't do that much damage initially, but it would add up. And if I had a knife, those strikes became stabs and would prove lethal. I probably have a bias, but in a street fight one's opponent is likely armed and has backup so trying to grapple with them on the ground is the last place you want to be while being mobile and keeping them away from you is a more sound strategy to me. Another factor is the time it takes to choke someone out (which is 5-10 seconds) versus landing a knockout blow (takes a fraction of a second for a well trained striker).
+RapperNamedQUICK The more I train BJJ and Judo the more I realize nobody untrained is getting me to the ground. I get take down points in tournaments every time but once and that dude outweighed me by 100lbs and was a good wrestler. In a real fight, punches and kicks would have stopped him since 300lb wrestlers are slow. Now I focus on my striking.
Megajerk2000 and Olly Wilkins>>>> I disagree on the question whether there´s any system that has been proved against multiple attackers. If you can combine evasion with counterattacking and especially hidden/consealed counterattacking then it´s not impossible to defeat multiple attackers. But of course you don´t want to fight them all simultaneously, but to change the positioning and timing by moving to the most advantegous places of evasion and counterattacking. The best odds for a fighter would be if he´s as fast, mobile and creative as Jackie Chan or Jet Li at their best, and trives in messy and chaotic fightscenarios. But if one doesn´t have their qualities, then it is advisable never to be where the opponent expects one to be and let the opponents fight the fight for you and get in each others way and restricting their own possibilities while increasing the defender`s/good guy´s possibilities. This possibility of handling multiple attackers is perhaps more a question of creativity and personal ressources than a question of the fundamental possibilities of a martial art.
I've been thinking about this for a while now and whether I should learn more newaza, transitions from tachiwaza into newaza, getting tackled into newaza Brock Lesnar fashion to learn what you can do from there not that I have any real idea?!? And what I come up with is that if there are 2 potential attackers and go to ground you will end up in an ambulance, and secondly that if the attacker were a Brock Lesnar type you might as well call an ambulance as well because there is no way I could beat a behemoth like that with wrestling/football/newaza knowledge. So you've got Buckley's chance of winning and a lengthy stay in hospital :(
unarmed combat is at a peak of effectiveness. it's the best it's ever been. to peaple who say you would never go to the ground don't understand and have never been in many fights. if you get pulled to the ground in a street fighter by many attackers some one who is versed ground fighting has a better chance not only of servival but of getting up off the floor lol its a no brainer. your all talking about fighting but yet you don't fight lol. talks cheap
MMA works during peaceful times for the entertainment of the masses. Ninjutsu works during war and survival situations. Argument over. If you read your history books (gather information), you'll see that civilizations go through cycles of rise and fall. A civilization will rise and go through a period of economic sustenance, eventually reaching economic abundance for a few decades until that society crashes due to political or social upheaval or invasion or all of the above. So, final answer? Learn MMA during economic abundance and build your body with fitness. At the same time prepare yourself for economic collapse. Ensure your survival. With the obesity epidemic reaching near 70%, you'll shoot to the top of the food chain. They'll make easy targets for your excursions into the city to resupply. Supplement your fitness with ninjutsu and bush craft 101.
+J. Swann now we have guns, you know. And even if it will be a downfall, civilization collapse etc, it will not be new middle ages. So you better know how to handle assault rifle and better have friends that also know it. And yes, i do practice so called "ninjustu" (actually Taijutsu and a little bit of wearpons ) a little bit.
Careful Antony, you know nothing of which you speak.Everything that is not today's evolution of martial arts come's from where it belongs, in the past....
It did. The Gracie family was originally trained by Mitsuyo Maeda, a Japanese Judo master who was trained at the Kodokan in Japan by Judo founder Jigoro Kano, and who traveled to Brazil where he taught the art of Judo under the name "Kano Jiu-Jitsu," as westerners did not yet know the difference between Judo and classical Japanese Jujutsu. The Japanese themselves didn't categorize Judo as an individual martial art until after World War II. Judo itself was created by Jigoro Kano from a combination of several styles of classical Jujutsu, including the Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū, which focused on "randori"(free practice), Kitō-ryū, which focused on "nage-waza"(throwing techniques), and the Fusen-ryu, which focused on "ne-waza"(ground techniques).
@@44excalibur Well both tenjin shin yo ryu and Kito ryu had(and depending on where you go have) randori, as that is a standard way of sparring. And both had Nage Waza as well. And both of them also had shime waza(choking techniques), Kansetsu waza(joint locks), and as I mentioned earlier Nage waza(or throwing techniques). There was a lack of new waza but soon as more and more people added there styles of jujutsu, and fusen ryu came along(which Kano did not study) and added a big emphasis on ne waza(ground fighting)(however it should be mentioned that it was much more known for stand up grappling than it was for ground fighting and only became known for ground fighting because of Tanabe).
Of course ground fighting works. If it didn't no one would use it. It works in MMA and the street. Sure it was probably rare with so many weapon options and being in the ground isn't smart being surrounded with so many people on the battle field. But let me say this. There is NO martial art or system that has been proven against multiple attackers. Lets be realistic here. If a Samurai has one sword can he really survive against 20 others with swords? Not likely. But from personal experience you stand a chance if you can keep one person in front of u the whole time. But even that can be hard. There are so many ways a fight can end up on the ground. You can trip, you can be knocked down, slip, get tangled in clinch and you both go down, you get taken down etc. Its be proven to know a bit of everything but do not totally rely on one more than the other.
+LittleImpaler lots of footage to prove otherwise. You say that based on what? It is not as fun to watch? What are you suposed to do when you take someone down? hope they are scared and go home? And finally with all the respect I can see in your face and hair you have never been nor plan to be on a fight.
again another video in wich u dont understand anything but i get it,u dont fight.jiu jitsu its not a ground fight.thats a new concept adapted so people can go to competitions.bjj modified the original japanese jiujitsu cuz jap jiujitsu was made for people wearing armour and has just a couoke of punches in the neck area cuz there u can hit your opponent wearing armour.when u fall of a horse in battle and a guy with a sword rushes u ,u have to know how to defend without a weapon and if u can disarm and or kill your attacker.so...u are historically wrong again.jiujitsu starts standing and u can brake somebodys neck with a throw or brake an arm or leg,but if u get to the ground there are technics so u can defent until ine of your friends jumps to save u,or if u are very heroic and good disqrm one of the attackers and fight your way out.not ideally but as last resort better than losing your life.u cannot understand not u,and nit your team of teanslatirs
Not in a UK pub. You go to the ground in a pub, not only are you rolling around in broken glass you have everybody else stamping on you both. Fights may be won on the ground in the octagon, but in a real life violent confrontation against multiple attackers it's the very last place you want to be.
+jofhill1066 Have to reply to this coz I heard it so many times. I live in the uk. I drank in many pubs, many times all my life. I could probably count the number of times I even WALKED on broken glass (of a potentially dangerous size) on one hand. If I had to take it to the ground my last concern would be big pieces of broken glass. If there was some glass in my knees or back it's preference to getting knocked out standing up and then hitting the ground hard (and landing on the broken glass?). People seem to think ground fighting just means going on your back (bjj style). Mount, side control or knee on chest is ground fighting too but they don't leave you completely vulnerable. If you know what you're doing you won't be 'rolling around' unless the other guy is a good grappler. Your point about multiple attackers is valid though. Then you just gotta leave or lose. Unless your a really good striker and they are completely unskilled or drunk.
Stick to Ninjutsu Anthony, you do it very well and i have almost all of ur 📚 's. So plz don't get me wrong. I don't mean to disrespect you, just exploring you to stick to ur speciality...
Careful Antony, you know nothing of which you speak.Everything that is not today's evolution of martial arts come's from where it belongs, in the past....
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh boy.. Where to start?
Firstly, as far as I know, the argument being now is not as you portray it. Generally grapplers say that grappling is a necessity, while strikers misconstrue this as them saying striking doesn't work.
The argument is that - if a possible opponent is well versed in grappling, the only real defense apparent from a weapon, is learning how to grapple as well.
This is because clinches neutralize striking for the most part, but striking does nothing to address clinching by itself.
Telling a person "don't go to the ground" as a means of preparing them for how to deal with grappling, is like telling a soldier "don't get shot" as a means of dealing with firearm threats. It's completely useless. The purpose of grappling, is to help the underdog either get back to his feet, or take out an opponent that is bigger, physically stronger, and has tackled you.
In your own example - imagine one warrior attempting to hold you in place as another goes in foe the kill - if you know how to grapple, you have a room for escape, if you don't you're dead.
Grappling arts, unlike striking arts, exist universally in cultures around the world, related to warfare(even if minor compared to weapon arts), because it's the only viable tool for dealing with an armed opponent if you've lost all your weapons.
You can't hit a guy in armour into submission. A choke, or a break on the other hand, works regardless.
Furthermore, many weapon arts incorporate grappling, because most weapons like swords and spears are often used in such a way as to allow for clinching. Imagine if somebody grabs your spear, or when two swords are linked at an impasse between blows and one grabs the hand of the other. These situations lead to clinches, which leads to situations where grappling is a necessity. You can't cut well if you're clinching and the opponent is locking your hands. If you let go with one hand to reach your dagger, your opponent will overpower you and cut you down. How do you solve that problem? With a throw perhaps? Who knows.
Point in case is that grappling has a space in all serious martial artists and warriors toolbox. There is no excuse or good reason not to learn it.
As for BJJ, it's a developed form of judo, with a shift in focus from takedowns to ground work. Judo is a combination of throws, locks and chokes from several schools of koryu, which were deemed to be the moat useful in one on one encounters, in a contemporary setting, based on sparring result.
Many koryu schools have grappling in them - the yagyu shinkage ryu, and Katori Shinto ryu are two good examples of primary weapon schools that also have grappling techniques in their curriculum.
Is it dumb to run around on a battlefield trying to grapple people? Yes, but then again, everybody already knows that.
Is it dumb to dismiss grappling because the above doesn't work? Yes it is, because that is not an argument against the specific context where grappling does work, and where nothing else is likely to help you.
As a person who studies both traditional arts, and BJJ/shoot in Japan, I would recommend people to do both.
Ground arts provide a necessary supplement to your general training, both in form of a new skillset that no other arts adequately teach you, and in terms of full-contact resistance, which adds to your physique, your stress-endurance, your reaction time, your understanding of timing and spacing, your mental toughness and many other factors that you're not likely to develop all that much in many other arts.
It also teaches humility - because nothing teaches that better than being tapped out 1000 of times, over and over, by people of all sizes, ages and creeds. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything, you'll know that the 50 years old salaryman standing in front of you, can kill you if he wants to, just as he throw you over his shoulder and trapped you in a collar choke, minutes earlier, while you were doing your very best to do the exact same thing.
Is grappling everything you need to know to fight in any given circumstance? As I said, no it isn't. Not even close. The argument is whether it has a use, whether it's necessary, and whether it's one of the best tools in one on one, unarmed combat. To that I'd say yes. If that isn't good enough reason to study it, at least, part time next to whatever else you're doing - I don't know what is...
Good comment. I agree with your logic.
Hian, this was, LITERALLY, the best comment on that issue that I have ever read online.
You deserve a medal.
nobody dissed the value of a throw or the knowledge of getting out of a grip.
I think the type of grappling anthony was referring to was the type of grappling with the intent to submit someone on the floor. Which in case of a large melee brawl medieval style was deadly. when you are on the ground, you pin yourself on the ground with the person you are pinning or grappling. Meaning you are very vulnerable to anyone around you to kick/stab/whatever you. + while you are on the ground in the midst of a large melee battle, you simply have no sight or knowledge of what is going on around you. Which was probably key to medieval melee warfare.
your companions that were with you attacking might have slowly been pushed back and now while you are in the midst of trying grapple and choke a guy out, you find yourself surrounded by enemy militants.
mr.lleuwelyn
That's a mindset, not a skill-set though. The grappling Antony refers to is the skill-set you'll need to have to be able to defend yourself at all, if you end up on the ground unarmed in either case.
Point many people also forget to raise, is that being at the bottom on the ground, very rarely lends itself to other attackers being able to strike cleanly at you.
This will be an anecdote, and you're therefore welcome to take it with a grain of salt. But, when I was younger I used to hang out with a rather unpleasant crowd. At one point, me and two friends got pulled into a fight involving several other individuals armed with telescopic batons. One of my friends got hit to the face and broke his nose, but he managed to pull his closest attacker down on top of him. Not only did this prevent the attacker from being able to hit him efficiently anymore, it also prevented the other attackers from reaching him.
Finally, we were broken up by security personnel at the place.
Furthermore, the techniques used in Judo and BJJ are arguable the most time-efficient techniques for putting down an attacker on the ground.
In a serious encounter, non-one is looking for submissions. Submissions simply mean holding the technique to allow the opponent to give up. Non of those techniques have to be held in that manner.
Chokes applied with full force, and no restraint put people to sleep in a manner of seconds, and arm-bars and other similar joint-locks break the bones even quicker under the same circumstance.
Here's a question:
If you're already on the floor becomes some aggressive guy just ran you down, and you've lost your weapon, why would you sweep him and stand-up immediately, if you could make him useless from the position you're already in, and then stand up?
The only real concern you've mentioned is time. Unfortunately, if you don't spend time learning grappling, you probably won't be able to stand up at all, much less quickly, so grappling is a necessary component in either case.
But, even if we accept the premise that if you spend even an extra couple of seconds dealing with the one who's one the floor with you is going to put you in danger of secondary opponents, I'd argue that not dealing with the opponent closest to you first, is going to pose a severe problem.
You stand up without putting down the opponent at your feet, to deal with the incoming attackers, and then he grabs hold of your feet and pulls you down again. Now you're just as bad off as you were before, except now you've lost additional time as well.
Grappling is important. Most people should just face that and spend some time learning it. Usually I get the impression that a lot of the nay-sayers when it comes to grappling are simply lazy and afraid. Lazy because they can't be bothered to practice more than they already do(if at all), and afraid because they feel threatened by the idea that despite what they do practice, they might find themselves losing to someone with grappling experience.
It's much easier to try to rationalize why we wouldn't need grappling, than to go to a dojo/gym and spend a few years learning grappling.
At the end of the day though, traditional Ju-jutsu had ground-fighting techniques. The mongols practiced grappling, and so did the greeks and romans. Almost all successful armies of history, including our modern ones have grappling and ground-fighting techniques in their unarmed combat regiments. At that point, what is left to say on the topic?
again: nobody really dissed grappling on its own and anthony said it was also practiced in the video. Just it wasnt seen with the choking out for the example you have. well ok if you lost your weapon somehow of course you would need to defend yourself mano a mano, be it grappling or striking or whatever. That is just common sense.
But i think you also dont look at something else. most wrestlers you see now are barely clothed or wear body suits. Now take in the case of medieval warfare you have to count in armor. would it really be that easy to do the same chokes and grapples on a armored man? take in account that also your own armor might hinder you in your own movement?
the terrain in which many medieval battles were fought quickly became muddy and bloodsoaked also. So take on the added weight of your armor and wet clothing. Would you really be so fast back up your feet and ready to react to whatever is coming at you? take in mind also that the armor of back then is not the modern and lighter and body adapted armor you would see in use by modern military.
+grappling does not help you push the enemy ranks.
Again: nobody underestimates the values of grappling or wrestling. But i can imagine in medieval warfare ppl would tend to avoid it and only do it when really necessary.
When you mentioned weaponed martial arts like with swords/daggers it mostly results in a quick throw to the ground and finish off with a stab instead of the intresic rolling around we see in grappling matches.
In Medieval European warfare being on the ground was also considered VERY dangerous and period texts talk about doing their best to rescue guys who are on the ground...
Seems like people make this mistake with longsword techniques from historical manuals from Europe. Many false edge cuts seem flashy, but really would have no effect on someone in armor. Conversely, most of the grappling/binding techniques are really only meant for armored opponents; otherwise, its easy to slip out of the holds. Great video!
For me, I would prefer the one on one duel in the Edo period than a team effort during battles in the Sengoku period because in a duel, it's all about your personal skills and talents (finding your self-improvement) while in the team effort, it's all about your teamwork with others and the balance of the strength and weaknesses within team members. In the end, no one can really help you but yourself. That's why Musashi wrote Dokkodo or The Way of Walking Alone.
the outcome of a fight is based on experience, emotional stability, situation, timing, environment, distance,tools, etc....If I get taken to the ground and no one else is kicking me while i struggle with my opponent, , fuck yeah it works. Hell it has worked even with multiple people in a melee. Would I want to go to the ground with someone that i knew would take me quite a bit to take out? If i have the choice, hell no. I want to get the hell outta there. It's a game of chance at times, and at other times an outcome of certainty. No art is superior. No approach fail safe. I just happen to enjoy jiujitsu as well as practice it.
Thats a very smart way to put it
The direct linage of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is not the Fusen-ryu, it's Judo. Fusen-ryu ne-waza(ground fighting) was incorporated into Judo by Jigoro Kano after his students had been defeated by the Fusen-ryu Jujutsu school due to their superior ground fighting techniques. Then Kano student Mitsuyo Maeda traveled to Brazil and taught Judo to the Gracie family under the name "Kano Jiu-Jitsu," from which the Gracies developed Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
No ground fighting wouldn't work on no battlefield sport only, maybe throws/shoves would work for creating distance then use your weapon immediately afterwards. I think that's why traditional arts stress a strong foundation or stances so you won't fall or slip on battlefields to easily
Everyone knows the way to disarm someone is grappling. So yes grappling has always been used in the battlefield with the exception of modern times when the whole fight started to be done with guns (and still if you manage to get close enough grappling is your best chance to survive a gun attack by disarming the enemy)
Ground fighting only works with our modern fighting, where your opponent is not trying to kill you. If your opponent was trying to kill you, and has trained his body, going to the ground would be very dangerous. Hatsumi has shown all the various kinds of samurai weapons, you can find the videos elsewhere on youtube. Almost everything one might have on there person would be a weapon of some sort. If your opponent has several weapons you might not want to get close. Or, is someone has nails like Takamatsu getting close would have been very dangerous.
lol samurai is where jiu jitsu originated. Ground fighting worked then and now. "Getting close would be dangerous" again lmao, thats a fight! You are completely clueless, even Sam Harris trains.
I clicked on this not knowing it was going to be a history lesson, but it was informative. I thought it was going to be more on marten fighting.
Ok, thanks for the video. It is correct that Jiu-Jitsu is directly related with Bushido (Chivalry) and hence war/battle scenarios. However, I have to correct that BJJ and GJJ do not come from Fusen-ruy Jiu-Jitsu. That is a romanticized story that mostly the Gracie's started and perpetuated. BJJ and GJJ originate directly from Kano's Jiu-jitsu (Kodokan Judo) via Mitsuyo Maeda. Roughly put, Kodokan Judo is an interpretation, compilation and combination of Kito-ryu and mainly Tenjin Shin'yo-ruy Jiu-Jjitsu. It's not even clear if Fusen-ryu has ne-waza as their basis. Later masters of this school who were exceptional good at ne-waza (like many masters of other schools) may have influenced (ever so slightly anyway) Judo and BJJ. But the main point is, although the Gracie's worked hard to promote the myth, BJJ comes straight from the Kodokan, and that shows from studying both disciplines.
+Physical Activity Science
I thought it was common knowledge that Mataemon Tanabe (Fusen Ryu master), whose nickname was "Newaza-Tanabe" beat a number of proto-Kodokan Judo exponents and after doing so, was asked to teach at the Kodokan school the newaza techniques for which he was famed - and so Judo became both a grappling and ground fighting art. With means he was directly responsible for the newaza of Kodokan Judo and Brazillian newaza which pretty much did away with all the Tachi-waza techniques. I am interested to read your thoughts on this matter.
+Vaughan MacEgan Again, all that are tales fed by GJJ romancists. Tanabe was indeed an exceptional Jiu-Jitsuka (Fusen Ryu included but not exclusively, and actually Ne-waza seems to be mostly absent from this schools teachings ) who defeated Kodokan Jiu-jitsukas. However, it is critical and revealing to point out that Tanabe was 15 (and still learning Jiu-Jitsu) when the Kodokan started developing their "Katame-No-Kata" (pins, chokes and locks), so they had well established Ne-waza by then. 7 years later, when Tanabe is 22, he arrives Tokyo for the first time. The first contacts with Kano and the Kodokan are unclear, but happened necessarily after that, i.e., 7 years after the first Katame-No-Kata documents, 9 years after the official Judo foundation and decades after Kano's Jiu-Jitsu different educations. Moreover, Kodokan athletes loosing out to other athletes via ne-waza seems to be a later phenomenon, after Judo had spread to the world already. It is important to understand that Judo has always been (pre and post the official 1882 mark) an evolving and updating discipline, incorporating techniques of several JJ masters and schools, western disciplines (from where kata-guruma or firemans throw originates) and even new techniques from exceptional athletes (like sankaku-jime or triangle choke by master Oda).
+Physical Activity Science It's also important to understand that Ne-waza, together with Tachi-waza are both as old as Jiu-Jitsu, far from being modern inventions. The first individual/institution to study, compile, systematize and properly document this body of knowledge was Kano and the Kodokan. This allowed a popularization of Jiu-Jitsu attached to a concrete, uniformed and scientific methodology. Firstly known as Kano's Jiu-Jitsu and later as Judo. More modern variations/branches (Olympic Judo being the closest to Kodokan, followed by Kosen, GJJ, Sambo etc) originate directly from there. The rest is romanticism and attempts to self-credit via Judo's discredit.
+Physical Activity Science
Thankyou for that highly detailed response. I had no idea that the Kodokan schools had starting developing their own system of newaza pre-Tanabe - that is very surprising. Although the Jujutsu schools that preceeded judo has always had its newaza techniques it was never systematized like at the Kodokan.
Thanks again for opening my eyes to this whole matter. It is very much appreciated.
You should learn ALL facets of combat.
Striking, clinching, ground fighting, grappling, weapons.
Ground fighting works best one on one or when you're taken to the ground and need to get back on your feet, which is what you should do on the streets. In the ring? You should be focused on how well you can last, I.e., "on your overall competent fighting skill(s)".
You forgot to mention that the graplings could also be used by samurai who worked as palace guards. There were guards working inside and outside the castles. The technical characteristics of the school approach and the style of combat showed this.
If you study about schools like Shinden Fudo-Ryu Dakentaijutsu and Tagaki Yoshin-Ryu Jutaijutsu (both are included in Bujinkan and are cited in the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten), you can understand a little more of these aspects. These are specialized schools in this type of practice, guard and things like that.
Both of these schools include studies of what is now called Jujutsu or Jiu-Jitsu, but in a more traditional and contextualized way.
Fascinating realistic look at samurai warfare. The Rake example was totally awesome. I will have to check out that book!
Nice video, thank you for sharing!
in agreement with the fella below. bjj comes from the judo kadokan. but the old man gracie was small and didn't have the strength to fight in judo so invented his own twist on it. called on kimura for a fight and the rest is history.
i'd say to take someone to the ground when it's 1 on 1 is obviously fine. however if there with a load friends they'll probably kick your head off your shoulders
as regards fighting unarmed against someone armed. well Edu gracie said " I can beat anyone who has a knife, let me know where they are and I'll take a gun "
Can you go into more detail about the late Edo period dueling? What would be a good resource to learn more about this specific topic?
Even karate simulates weapons fighting. Any "move" should be a simulation of if a weapon was in your hand.
Why ask this guy?
He's not qualified to answer that.
He doesn't even know that BJJ comes from Judo.
Good observation, I train in a gym with Guys of a very high standards of both Muay Thai and BJJ, both have their strengths, but ultimately, both are sports, there is no gouging, biting or tearing, finger strikes etc. There is also soft surfaces to land on and you cant bounce people off the walls, in a real fight, this, and any weapon you can use are what hurts the other guys. Samurai would have been no different in attitude.
Just checking the comments to see if his video caused a flame war.
My personal opinion is similar to Anthony's that you should study it by historical context..but from studying both the historical west and some Ko Ryu, I will say this:
Mostly, ground fighting was never used to kill. It was used to capture. Unless your opponent was wearing armor, you would not go down on the ground to kill your opponent. In Europe, they would ground fight only to stab the opponent with a dagger in the weak parts of the armor.
In Japan, the same existed,but since they did not have as good armor as they did in the west..generally, the killing would have already been done. Generally, the cutting of the head was the only reason why they would go on the ground to count their kill as heads were tallies. Heiho Okugisho actually has a method of approaching an opponent who is on the ground to avoid being hit. He said nothing about going on the ground with him,but carefully to approach him while you are standing up to get the kill
Submission wrestling, BJJ,etc comes from later developed sports like French folk wrestling, Judoi,non-Ko Ryu Jujutsu,Catch-As-Can,etc.
It all goes back to what you've said a million times: There is no comparing a sport to combat in terms of effectiveness or purpose of use; they're completely different. For some reason, many people in the sport fighting community can't seem to grasp this concept no matter how much anyone says it. As far as what I think on the subject, I'm a purpose driven person in terms of martial arts or fighting in general. I'm ok with sport fighting, I just think it only serves the purpose of being a spectator sport or a hobby. I personally believe in learning a martial art or system of skills for the purposes they are meant to serve. For instance, learn boxing so you can acquire some skills for hobby use and possibly self defense, and practice the art form of historical Ninjutsu, and yes I know it's not a formalized fighting system, to learn how to condition yourself and your mind for actual combat and learning an opponents weaknesses to achieve victory. In short, to each art form a purpose and to each purpose the root cause for learning them, if that makes any sense.
Sport contains WAY more combat than many street systems. So please refrain from separating sport from fighting, because that is literally the focal point of sport combat: To actually practise physical combat without maiming, injuring, or killing.
The issue should NOT be the whole "rules makes it less combat efficient". The issue should be "do sport based fighters train to deal with scenarios OUTSIDE the ring"?
Nick Vázquez And again, there is no comparison between sports and combat: there is no practice of combat, preparation yes, practice no. Sport fighting is obviously a form of fighting, but the issue in the video is that, in ancient Japan, the concept of ground fighting as it is today did not exist. You cannot compare ground fighting involving sharp objects to ground fighting with fists. Realize that old school ground fighting from say, the Sengoku period, had nothing to do with sport: it was about usually armored opponents going at each other in a completely brutal fashion with the express intent to kill. Combat, as I've seen it described and I'm thankful I've never had to engage in, involves two men running at each other with intent to kill, there is usually one point of contact between the two before someone is dead, and then on to the next one. Combat involves weapons; always has. The concept of let's fist fight each other until someone's down, has no place in combat...it would be considered a last resort to kill with your fists or feet. Lastly, no one is taking away from sport fighting, the point has merely been made that sport and combat, cannot go together; they are completely different things. The issue I see, is that sport fighters, in an attempt to verify what they've learned as fighters, want to make their sport relevant to combat situations, so they constantly pursue the concept that they practice sport combat, and not sport fighting. The two are different concepts entirely: one is focused around war and death, the other is about brawling and winning a non fatal fight. If a sport fighter practices for outside the ring situations, it is merely an attempt at preparation in the hopes that if something does happen, you'll be ready. Just food for thought: in the event that you encounter someone leaving a bar one night and he's set on fighting you no matter what, let's say you feel quite prepared because you say you've practiced sport combat, so you feel you have some advantage. Now, in the event that said person fights using just his fists, you'll probably win depending on your ability, training, etc. Curveball time: he picks up a brick and slams you in the face...Did you train for that? Did you expect that? That brick may kill you, quickly turning a fight in a real combat situation. At that point, all of your fight training means nothing without adaptability and that's the difference. Combat involves adapting to survive out of necessity, and until it happens to you, there is no amount of training in the world that can show you how. That's why I'm saying, the two are completely different. I like sport fighting, but that concept doesn't exist in combat, that was my only point.
You just wasted your time writing that whole paragraph talking about things that I completely know.
But I do agree: combat always evolves outta necessity.
Nick Vázquez Time spent telling the truth and sharing it with others, is never time wasted. If one person learns something they don't know because of it, then I'm all the happier.
josh87saa
i agree i train in martial arts but if you cant adapt on the go to a current threat and defend yourself properly, all the belts or fancy kicks wont be any good
Its true! I train Japanese jujutsu and when it comes to ne-wasa the main objective is to get up from the ground. If someone has mounted you, get him of and get up! Thats the hole point.
They would have needed skills in all those things. From various weapons, to ground skills and take downs. to striking skills if they were found without a weapon i would imagine. Much like modern military do.But i agree as a matter of practicality. u dont want to stay on the ground in a war situation, unless u r playing dead.
I suppose it can work, just not preferable especially if you're talking about armored warfare, if you're taken to the ground you're usually dead it is a very disadvantageous position to be in on the ground in a battle field, could get trampled, easily swamped by many people, even if you're the aggressor going to the ground while you're trying to wrestle your opponent might end up finding yourself grabbed by 3-4 people and end up being the one stabbed etc, than as what happened is Agincourt (aware European theater) if you're wearing heavier armor and the ground is poor you could end up bogged down even drown if you find yourself falling face-down when going to the ground.
I have seen some Kyoryu martial arts performed in Yoroi where they take the person down, than pull out the Tanto/dagger cut away at the straps to the Kabuto so they could get to the throat and slit it. So "ground fighting" can work, just not preferable.
Ground fighting predates what youre talking about, predates Samurai by a long shot. In self defense top 3 individual styles to learn, BJJ, Muay Thai, Wrestling.
Respect due to the old ways but we have to know when to let go.We have learned everything we need at the moment since bruce lee and the first few ufc's....
I train BJJ now for a few years but I don't like it, it's ok as a hobby and to be well rounded.
But I'd quit tomorrow i everyone would agree to stop grappling. lol
I only do it for takedown/submission defense and as a contingency.
But my takedown defense is good enough that I don't forsee using it ever.
+petersouth1000 i agree. i am in the same boat. only do bjj to not get caught in a quick choke or arm bar and to learn how to sweep when mounted
I'm a karate guy who also has dabbled in BJJ. I have a very healthy respect for what a BJJ student can do to me on their terms which is why I studied it. During that time (admittedly only rolling with white and yellow belts) I found openings in their defenses that left them vulnerable to someone who can deliver strong strikes in limited space. Those strikes wouldn't do that much damage initially, but it would add up. And if I had a knife, those strikes became stabs and would prove lethal. I probably have a bias, but in a street fight one's opponent is likely armed and has backup so trying to grapple with them on the ground is the last place you want to be while being mobile and keeping them away from you is a more sound strategy to me. Another factor is the time it takes to choke someone out (which is 5-10 seconds) versus landing a knockout blow (takes a fraction of a second for a well trained striker).
Ground fighting works but it's hard to do in armor.
+RapperNamedQUICK
The more I train BJJ and Judo the more I realize nobody untrained is getting me to the ground.
I get take down points in tournaments every time but once and that dude outweighed me by 100lbs and was a good wrestler.
In a real fight, punches and kicks would have stopped him since 300lb wrestlers are slow.
Now I focus on my striking.
Megajerk2000 and Olly Wilkins>>>> I disagree on the question whether there´s any system that has been proved against multiple attackers. If you can combine evasion with counterattacking and especially hidden/consealed counterattacking then it´s not impossible to defeat multiple attackers. But of course you don´t want to fight them all simultaneously, but to change the positioning and timing by moving to the most advantegous places of evasion and counterattacking. The best odds for a fighter would be if he´s as fast, mobile and creative as Jackie Chan or Jet Li at their best, and trives in messy and chaotic fightscenarios. But if one doesn´t have their qualities, then it is advisable never to be where the opponent expects one to be and let the opponents fight the fight for you and get in each others way and restricting their own possibilities while increasing the defender`s/good guy´s possibilities. This possibility of handling multiple attackers is perhaps more a question of creativity and personal ressources than a question of the fundamental possibilities of a martial art.
I've been thinking about this for a while now and whether I should learn more newaza, transitions from tachiwaza into newaza, getting tackled into newaza Brock Lesnar fashion to learn what you can do from there not that I have any real idea?!? And what I come up with is that if there are 2 potential attackers and go to ground you will end up in an ambulance, and secondly that if the attacker were a Brock Lesnar type you might as well call an ambulance as well because there is no way I could beat a behemoth like that with wrestling/football/newaza knowledge. So you've got Buckley's chance of winning and a lengthy stay in hospital :(
unarmed combat is at a peak of effectiveness. it's the best it's ever been. to peaple who say you would never go to the ground don't understand and have never been in many fights. if you get pulled to the ground in a street fighter by many attackers some one who is versed ground fighting has a better chance not only of servival but of getting up off the floor lol its a no brainer. your all talking about fighting but yet you don't fight lol. talks cheap
Is a hammer a better tool than a saw?
MMA works during peaceful times for the entertainment of the masses. Ninjutsu works during war and survival situations. Argument over.
If you read your history books (gather information), you'll see that civilizations go through cycles of rise and fall. A civilization will rise and go through a period of economic sustenance, eventually reaching economic abundance for a few decades until that society crashes due to political or social upheaval or invasion or all of the above.
So, final answer? Learn MMA during economic abundance and build your body with fitness. At the same time prepare yourself for economic collapse. Ensure your survival. With the obesity epidemic reaching near 70%, you'll shoot to the top of the food chain. They'll make easy targets for your excursions into the city to resupply. Supplement your fitness with ninjutsu and bush craft 101.
+J. Swann now we have guns, you know. And even if it will be a downfall, civilization collapse etc, it will not be new middle ages. So you better know how to handle assault rifle and better have friends that also know it. And yes, i do practice so called "ninjustu" (actually Taijutsu and a little bit of wearpons ) a little bit.
Love it
Careful Antony, you know nothing of which you speak.Everything that is not today's evolution of martial arts come's from where it belongs, in the past....
I thought BJJ came from Judo?
It did. The Gracie family was originally trained by Mitsuyo Maeda, a Japanese Judo master who was trained at the Kodokan in Japan by Judo founder Jigoro Kano, and who traveled to Brazil where he taught the art of Judo under the name "Kano Jiu-Jitsu," as westerners did not yet know the difference between Judo and classical Japanese Jujutsu. The Japanese themselves didn't categorize Judo as an individual martial art until after World War II.
Judo itself was created by Jigoro Kano from a combination of several styles of classical Jujutsu, including the Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū, which focused on "randori"(free practice), Kitō-ryū, which focused on "nage-waza"(throwing techniques), and the Fusen-ryu, which focused on "ne-waza"(ground techniques).
@@44excalibur Well both tenjin shin yo ryu and Kito ryu had(and depending on where you go have) randori, as that is a standard way of sparring. And both had Nage Waza as well. And both of them also had shime waza(choking techniques), Kansetsu waza(joint locks), and as I mentioned earlier Nage waza(or throwing techniques). There was a lack of new waza but soon as more and more people added there styles of jujutsu, and fusen ryu came along(which Kano did not study) and added a big emphasis on ne waza(ground fighting)(however it should be mentioned that it was much more known for stand up grappling than it was for ground fighting and only became known for ground fighting because of Tanabe).
in samurai time lock to ground so that someone else could kil you with a weapon
stand up fighting and learn how to use weapons u can carry with u
Enploring not Exploring, keypad mistake....
Of course ground fighting works. If it didn't no one would use it. It works in MMA and the street. Sure it was probably rare with so many weapon options and being in the ground isn't smart being surrounded with so many people on the battle field. But let me say this. There is NO martial art or system that has been proven against multiple attackers. Lets be realistic here. If a Samurai has one sword can he really survive against 20 others with swords? Not likely. But from personal experience you stand a chance if you can keep one person in front of u the whole time. But even that can be hard. There are so many ways a fight can end up on the ground. You can trip, you can be knocked down, slip, get tangled in clinch and you both go down, you get taken down etc. Its be proven to know a bit of everything but do not totally rely on one more than the other.
i thing more team fighting
BEING ON GROUND IS REALLY STUPID IN SAMURAI WARFARE. BEING ON THE GROUND PERIOD IS NOT GOOD IDEA WHEN FIGHTING!
+LittleImpaler lots of footage to prove otherwise. You say that based on what? It is not as fun to watch? What are you suposed to do when you take someone down? hope they are scared and go home? And finally with all the respect I can see in your face and hair you have never been nor plan to be on a fight.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, KICKING IN OPEN DOORS IS VERY HARD WHEN YOU'RE LYING ON THE GROUND!!!!!!
Click bait!
Yes ground fighting works and yes stand up fighting works.
again another video in wich u dont understand anything but i get it,u dont fight.jiu jitsu its not a ground fight.thats a new concept adapted so people can go to competitions.bjj modified the original japanese jiujitsu cuz jap jiujitsu was made for people wearing armour and has just a couoke of punches in the neck area cuz there u can hit your opponent wearing armour.when u fall of a horse in battle and a guy with a sword rushes u ,u have to know how to defend without a weapon and if u can disarm and or kill your attacker.so...u are historically wrong again.jiujitsu starts standing and u can brake somebodys neck with a throw or brake an arm or leg,but if u get to the ground there are technics so u can defent until ine of your friends jumps to save u,or if u are very heroic and good disqrm one of the attackers and fight your way out.not ideally but as last resort better than losing your life.u cannot understand not u,and nit your team of teanslatirs
Wtf you talking bout!!!
Brazilian jiu jitsu comes from BRAZIL..PERIOD!!
I WANNA KNOW DO YOU EVEN TRAIN ANY MARTIAL ART??
Most fights are won on the ground
Not in a UK pub. You go to the ground in a pub, not only are you rolling around in broken glass you have everybody else stamping on you both. Fights may be won on the ground in the octagon, but in a real life violent confrontation against multiple attackers it's the very last place you want to be.
True I was talking more in a cage fight where the best go toe to toe
+TheGreatGrandchamp Streetwise
Plenty of them don't. even in UFC.
If you know what you are doing, it won't unless you want it to.
+jofhill1066 Have to reply to this coz I heard it so many times. I live in the uk. I drank in many pubs, many times all my life. I could probably count the number of times I even WALKED on broken glass (of a potentially dangerous size) on one hand. If I had to take it to the ground my last concern would be big pieces of broken glass. If there was some glass in my knees or back it's preference to getting knocked out standing up and then hitting the ground hard (and landing on the broken glass?). People seem to think ground fighting just means going on your back (bjj style). Mount, side control or knee on chest is ground fighting too but they don't leave you completely vulnerable. If you know what you're doing you won't be 'rolling around' unless the other guy is a good grappler. Your point about multiple attackers is valid though. Then you just gotta leave or lose. Unless your a really good striker and they are completely unskilled or drunk.
ground a pound look at the best in the world im not talking about weak ass bar fights or jail fighting im talking real mma
AND YOU DIDNT WRITE THOSE BOOKS..YOU DIDNT EVEN TRANSLATE THEM...
Stick to Ninjutsu Anthony, you do it very well and i have almost all of ur 📚 's. So plz don't get me wrong. I don't mean to disrespect you, just exploring you to stick to ur speciality...
Careful Antony, you know nothing of which you speak.Everything that is not today's evolution of martial arts come's from where it belongs, in the past....