I'm making this thread because of these *** marines I've ran into yesterday. It seems to me that everyone has the misconception that BJJ rules all because of the UFC. I agree that BJJ is an effective style, but has been hyped by the UFC. In pride, BJJ wasn't as dominating as it is now because the rules allowed strikers to use their arsenal in different situations. You can't knee or kick a down opponent, the scoring system also favors takedowns rather than striking (octagon control) I have respect for BJJ, especially Royce for fighting people 3x his size but now it's getting to the point where people think BJJ makes you a god.
In fairness Rogan is always hyping wrestling and BJJ/TKD is his background. I do feel sorry for strikers sometimes. So many fight finishing opportunities missed when you can't knee and kick a downed opponent. It works both ways though as a grappler isn't allowed to dump someone on their head for similar safety reasons. Some things are just too dangerous so as much as I love combat there has to be a limit otherwise the sport would never grow and would have remained underground.
True, but not much difference between a knee while trying to do a takedown or a knee in a thai clinch. I agree that there needs to be rules, but there has been only 2 deaths in total. Pride was brutal and entertaining where it wasn't abotu the styles but about the fighter
im sorry mate but its the most effective form of 1 on 1 self defence out there. while no style is absolutely perfect bjj is the closest youll find. theres very very few questions in fighting that it cant answer.
Are you kidding me? And please don't say "Look at UFC 1-10" I watched the manhoeff fight against gracie and he absolutely beat the **** out of him. I agree that it is useful but if someone knows how to sprawl you'll be out of luck
Yeah, that's all it takes. A good sprawl. Easy game. Wait until those MMA get that information! It'll change the game!
That's the thing; he doesn't know. He probably comes from the boxing school of BJJ; sprawl & everything else is useless.
I always hear that strikers are in disavantage because of no headbutts,knee or soccer kicks,but to be fair,grapplers also use these a lot,headbutt from the guard,knees from north-south position,half guard,soccer kicks after you stand up from half guard or mount if he would want,also heavyweight in pride was always dominated by grapplers,aside from Igor Vovchanchyn.
wrong, catch wrestling is more effective for self defense. try to pull guard in real life and wait for the gang pile.
Guess you missed the qualifier. And if we're talking about viable self-defense, then Krav Maga trumps absolutely everything. And I mean real Krav Maga. Good luck trying to box/wrestle one of those ****ers...
So just go on down to your local catch wrestling gym then... Nobody in their mind is going to tell you to pull guard in "real life". And for the original poster, yes it is somewhat annoying that it seems like everybody now claims to do BJJ, but if you actually are accomplished in it, you are going to be a pretty good fighter. It has nothing to do with UFC vs Pride.
Does anyone think a BJJ'er would have to pull guard in a street fight? If he was put on his back he has options. However I'm sure he'd slap on a standing guillotine and watch the guy fall asleep. If you are going to involve multiple attackers and weapons then the situation has a random element that simply cannot be prepared for in every way.
i have always thought how would one use BJJ to its adavantage in a self defense situation. I imagine going to the ground would be the last thing you would want to do right?
Depends on the situation doesnt it? If I'm fighting someone on the street who is significantly bigger than me, going to the ground is the FIRST thing I'll do. Because if he swings and connects, it's going to hurt. Once you're on the ground my skill and balance will nullify and exceed any size advantage that he has. On the other hand, if I'm facing 2 - 3 guys, and I had to choose between having had 3 years experience in boxing vs bjj, I'll take boxing every time. That's why when someone is talking about "street fight" you have to describe what you mean by street fight, because it's such a broad term. People always try to one up you when you decimate their argument with how an MMA fighter would superior to a boxer or w/e else in the street fight. Then they bring out biting, eye gouging etc. Then you destroy that argument by bringing in more evidence. Then they start bringing in knifes and guns. Where does it end? What is a street fight. If we're not going to define what it is before the argument starts, the conversation should not go on.
