Is BJJ a TMA?

[isshinryuronin]

This is a branch-off of my post #3 in the Taipei Report thread (in the Chinese Internal Arts forum - reading it will put this post in perspective and keep me from repeating stuff) in which Windwalker brought up BJJ's place in the MA world.

As I describe in that post, CMA and karate developed gradually over centuries in response to the historical, cultural and philosophical environments in China and Okinawa, as well as Japan with input over time from numerous masters, sharing and passing on their knowledge. IMO, this fully addresses the definition of "traditional." BJJ, however, developed in a much different way.

In contrast to those other arts, BJJ developed in an environment mostly devoid of these traditional factors. Warfare, philosophy, politics, cultural need, etc. did not play much part. This is what I gather from the online info on its origins. The short history is judoka, Mitsuyo (or his student) taught the sport to Carlos Gracie. His brothers, including Helio, adapted that art from one that emphasized throwing the opponent to the ground to one that emphasized what to do once he was on the ground and stressed submissions. Thus, BJJ was born. Compared to other empty hand fighting methods, BJJ was born almost overnight by one family.

This birth happened to occur in Brazil, but couldn't it have been any country that Mitsuyo or someone like him taught someone like the Gracies? The place and its traditions had little influence.

By the common criteria of "traditional" BJJ does not come close to the experiences of Oriental TMA. IMO, it is a different kind of animal. There is a BJJ tradition within its own ranks, but when compared in light of the other arts' history, it falls short of being a TMA. I am talking only of semantics and classification here - no judgement or opinion is being given as to its effectiveness, usefulness or worth. Those early Gracies were innovative and developed a unique specialized style.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The basic CMA principle, it's better to be inside than to be outside. It's better to be on top than to be on the bottom. The BJJ pull guard and jump guard violate that basic CMA principle.

I don't know about Judo. For Chinese wrestling, pull guard is considered as "low class skill" that only used by someone who doesn't know any throwing skill.

 

[wab25]

In contrast to those other arts, BJJ developed in an environment mostly devoid of these traditional factors. Warfare, philosophy, politics, cultural need, etc. did not play much part.

You could argue that the environment did have a huge effect on BJJs development. While the older arts were influenced by the warfare of the time, BJJ was influenced by the lack of warefare of the time. When BJJ started, they were trying to learn Judo. Judo emphasizes the throw and a pin for 30 seconds. These came from the older jujitsu lines where on the field of battle, if you got your opponent controlled, your buddy would come along and finish the deal with his weapon. (presumably you lost your weapon, which is why you were only using your hands....) BJJ did not evolve on the same type of battlefield. The original BJJ looked very much like the new Judo, which had taken techniques from the older battlefield arts. Judo moved to sport under a set of rules that valued the throw and a pin.... from the battlefield. BJJ was in a different environment.... one where personal self defense was the non-sport usage. You were not holding the guy down, until someone could finish him with a sword.... and often, it was just you and the bad guy. In this scenario, the combat needed to continue on the ground, until someone was submitted.

In my opinion, BJJ is as traditional as Judo and Shotokan karate. All three came from older arts, all three were created rather quickly, all three conformed to the particular environment that they were in. All three, have since moved forward with a sports first outlook. All three have remnants of techniques that worked on battlefields from ages ago... and all three have since focused on other techniques that are more valued in the type of sport that they currently enjoy. All three can trace their origins back to the older arts in Japan, and then to China. in fact, now that I am thinking about it.... TKD fits this same category. I would call all of these TMAs.

 

[isshinryuronin]

A number of your points contradict, ignore the facts or make inaccurate comparison, IMO. No offense meant. This is just how it seems to me, based on the historical info.

In my opinion, BJJ is as traditional as Judo and Shotokan karate.........all three were created rather quickly

The basics of kung fu began by at least 900AD. It didn't develop into what we would call empty hand styles with its major elements (biomechanical/philosophical) giving it its own current identity in place till 1500's. That's over 600 yrs. Karate's formation started significantly from about 1700 to 1900 (1930 if talking about Japan). That's 200+ years. BJJ started 1920's and I'm guessing it became recognizable as a distinct art with most of its fundamental elements present by 1950's. That's only 30 years. If I'm skewing these dates, I think they're in favor of your viewpoint, though still don't support it.

BJJ was influenced by the lack of warefare of the time.

There had been no major warfare in Japan since the 1600's, well before (230 yrs?) judo was even developed. To go back so far in time, progressing thru judo to samurai jiu jutsu to link BJJ ancestry and development to presence or lack of warfare in Japan or Brazil is pushing the relationship a bit far. BJJ did not develop in response to such changes. Judo may have a bit (its main reason for being was sport), but the topic is BJJ.

All three came from older arts

This is true, but in a different fashion. Karate development assimilated several sources such as various N. Chinese and S. Chinese styles, perhaps some SE Asian as well, mixing in indigenous methods over at least a couple of centuries. Longer for kung fu. As I pointed out, BJJ grew directly out of mainly just a single source (judo) almost spontaneously (comparatively) as a result of just one family's efforts.

all three conformed to the particular environment that they were in

Also, I don't see Brazillian influence. If the Gracies lived in Argentina, or the USA) I think BJJ (AJJ/USJJ) would pretty much look the same. It has no national identity say, like capoeira has. There's not much traditional cultural input. I don't see its development being in response to any major environmental factors. Of course, your quote can relate to anything conforming to its environment, otherwise they would not likely exist and clouds the issue as other points have, IMO.

It seems clear to me, looking at the big picture, that BJJ is in a different group than what TMA is generally thought to be. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. It's just different. As we have both said:

In my opinion,

We are free to see things as we wish based on our own perception.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The following is based on my understanding of how the art developed, and ignoring other responses already on here (which I may or may not disagree with).

If we take tma versus modern martial arts, we first have to define what TMA means. To me, it means that there's some sort of traditional, philosophical component, with a structure curriculum for people to follow through the years. It really doesn't have to be too long since some of what we consider TMA has really only been around in a structured way for 50 years, which is insanely short in the history of people fighting each other.

So before I go further, I'd like to propose my own definitions of TMA versus CMA (contemporary martial arts) as arts that can be traced back a minimum of 1,000 years vs. those that can't. That doesn't mean either is better than the other, or any discussion on training methods, but I feel that if you're focusing on cultural/ethical ties, you need a minimum of 1000 years at this point to really say that.

Ignoring the last paragraph, I would argue that BJJ is as traditional as shotokan karate, okinawan kenpo (of any form) kempo (of any form), TKD, boxing, muay Thai, or any wushu. They all were really introduced in the 20th century, just with different methods. Not anything modern. that should really be the definition for what's traditional or not - when was it introduced, and was it following a cultural legacy.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah. We have played with this before.

My definition of TMA is ritual. Bowing uniforms belts. That kind of thing.

 

[skribs]

I've trained TKD and HKD for quite some time, and have a few years now in BJJ. If TKD and HKD are great examples of what a TMA is, I can say that BJJ most certainly is not. In fact, I can't really think of many similarities between the cultures of the TMAs and BJJ. BJJ does not have a standardized curriculum. The general consensus is that a BJJ gym shouldn't be teaching philosophy or a lot of the other elements you get from a TMA.

I like TKD, and I like BJJ. But they are very different arts with very different cultures, and I do not believe BJJ to be a TMA.

 

[ap Oweyn]

This is a branch-off of my post #3 in the Taipei Report thread (in the Chinese Internal Arts forum - reading it will put this post in perspective and keep me from repeating stuff) in which Windwalker brought up BJJ's place in the MA world.

As I describe in that post, CMA and karate developed gradually over centuries in response to the historical, cultural and philosophical environments in China and Okinawa, as well as Japan with input over time from numerous masters, sharing and passing on their knowledge. IMO, this fully addresses the definition of "traditional." BJJ, however, developed in a much different way.

In contrast to those other arts, BJJ developed in an environment mostly devoid of these traditional factors. Warfare, philosophy, politics, cultural need, etc. did not play much part. This is what I gather from the online info on its origins. The short history is judoka, Mitsuyo (or his student) taught the sport to Carlos Gracie. His brothers, including Helio, adapted that art from one that emphasized throwing the opponent to the ground to one that emphasized what to do once he was on the ground and stressed submissions. Thus, BJJ was born. Compared to other empty hand fighting methods, BJJ was born almost overnight by one family.

This birth happened to occur in Brazil, but couldn't it have been any country that Mitsuyo or someone like him taught someone like the Gracies? The place and its traditions had little influence.

By the common criteria of "traditional" BJJ does not come close to the experiences of Oriental TMA. IMO, it is a different kind of animal. There is a BJJ tradition within its own ranks, but when compared in light of the other arts' history, it falls short of being a TMA. I am talking only of semantics and classification here - no judgement or opinion is being given as to its effectiveness, usefulness or worth. Those early Gracies were innovative and developed a unique specialized style.

Hi Isshinryuronin. I'm in no way qualified to comment on the historical or cultural forces at work in Brazil. But you brought up the question of semantics, so I'm focusing on that.

when compared in light of the other arts' history, it falls short of being a TMA. I am talking only of semantics and classification here - no judgement or opinion is being given as to its effectiveness, usefulness or worth.

I'm wondering whether you're reacting to something here. A claim made by representatives of BJJ en masse that it is a TMA. (I stress the idea of such a claim coming in numbers because--really--any one individual could say anything. But have you seen a movement to have BJJ classified as a TMA? I certainly haven't.)

In my experience, BJJ practitioners are perfectly happy to view their art as something different.

As a side note, the phrase "falls short" is loaded. You may not be making a judgment about the effectiveness of BJJ doing what it says on the tin. But that phrasing does strongly imply that BJJ has set out to do a thing and been unsuccessful. We don't fall short of things we aren't trying to do in the first place.

I guess I'm wondering from where this post came. Does that make sense?

 

[wab25]

The basics of kung fu began by at least 900AD. It didn't develop into what we would call empty hand styles with its major elements (biomechanical/philosophical) giving it its own current identity in place till 1500's. That's over 600 yrs. Karate's formation started significantly from about 1700 to 1900 (1930 if talking about Japan). That's 200+ years. BJJ started 1920's and I'm guessing it became recognizable as a distinct art with most of its fundamental elements present by 1950's. That's only 30 years. If I'm skewing these dates, I think they're in favor of your viewpoint, though still don't support it.

I did not say that BJJ was the same as Karate.... I said it was similar to Shotokan Karate. That one word makes a lot of difference. Shotokan was created in a short span by Funakoshi, when he wanted to bring Karate to Japan. Yes it has roots on the older Karate style, that have hundreds of years of development... But Shotokan was put together to meet the immediate requirements of the time and environment it was being brought into. If you say that BJJ had too short of a development time (less than 100 years), Shotokan karate was created in much the same time span.... same goes for Judo.... same goes for TKD. If you are basing your decision on time span of development, then all four of these are about the same. If BJJ has too short of a time frame to be a TMA, then Shotokan, Judo and TKD also have too short of a time span to be TMAs.

There had been no major warfare in Japan since the 1600's, well before (230 yrs?) judo was even developed. To go back so far in time, progressing thru judo to samurai jiu jutsu to link BJJ ancestry and development to presence or lack of warfare in Japan or Brazil is pushing the relationship a bit far. BJJ did not develop in response to such changes. Judo may have a bit (its main reason for being was sport), but the topic is BJJ.

The heads of the older schools wanted to preserve certain techniques, certain teachings and tactics. These were put into Judo, a lot went into the Judo Kata that are not practiced very much anymore.... but they are there. BJJ did not develop under the same environment.... so their emphasis was different. It was not developed with pressure to keep the old battle field techniques.... they were more free to develop what they felt was useful, and to create the rule set that they wanted for competition. They had a different focus.... that focus was a product of the environment, political, militarily and everything else. It was not created in a vacuum.

This is true, but in a different fashion. Karate development assimilated several sources such as various N. Chinese and S. Chinese styles, perhaps some SE Asian as well, mixing in indigenous methods over at least a couple of centuries. Longer for kung fu. As I pointed out, BJJ grew directly out of mainly just a single source (judo) almost spontaneously (comparatively) as a result of just one family's efforts.

You don't think BJJ assimilated things from various other arts?

My point is that all four of these arts were created in about the same time frame, from older arts, the different environments played a factor in the direction each went. The older techniques, which no longer contribute, given the new sporting rules were put to the side, favoring the techniques that performed well under the type of competition each created. So in these respects, BJJ, shotokan, judo and TKD are very similar.

If you want to make your TMA decision on belts, uniforms and bowing.... then that would be different.

 

[skribs]

My definition of TMA is ritual. Bowing uniforms belts. That kind of thing.

I think this is something that is associated with TMAs because they tend to have those elements, especially the most popular ones today (such as Karate and Taekwondo). However, I don't think that Kung Fu really had those. I believe the "uniform" we associate with Kung Fu was just normal clothes or workout clothes from back in the day, they didn't really have belt systems in Kung Fu, and the bowing was more like shaking hands than a special ritual for them. I could be mistaken, but I believe that to be the case.

In BJJ, the uniform serves a sporting purpose, it's not just there for show. There are some ritualized items, but not to the degree a TMA is.

For me, a TMA is categorized by a few things:

1. A heavy focus on curriculum. Belts support this (by providing new curriculum per belt). In BJJ, things are more age restricted than belt restricted, and an adult white belt can do 99% of what an adult blue belt can do, and 98% of what an adult black belt can do. (In terms of what techniques are allowed, not how well they do them). Also, many schools will teach any techniques to anyone, and just tell them what's allowed in competition.
2. An emphasis on building character as much as building technique and physique. Etiquette, respect, and discipline are much more a part of TKD than they are BJJ. TKD schools typically have programs for kids designed to help improve behavior at home or their listening and focus in school. We don't have anything like that in my BJJ school.
3. A dogmatic adherence to the traditional techniques and methods. There are some BJJ schools that follow this, but many don't. People stick to the techniques that work well in the sport, not just because it's the way they were taught. Some folks stick to the way they learned, not because "it's the way I learned it", but because they see the benefit of it. You don't have any TKD schools that drop forms because the Master of that school didn't connect with the forms. But you have a lot of BJJ schools that are dropping drilling for ecological training.
4. Teaching culture in addition to technique. There's an emphasis in TKD on bringing in some of the Korean culture. Some schools more than others.

I plan to drop a lot of the traditional elements when I open my TKD school. Even with that said, it will still be more "traditional" in style than 99% of the BJJ schools. The only real curriculum I plan to have is the forms. I plan to completely avoid the dogmatic approach (except for the forms). Although I still plan to include a lot of the character-building elements, because that's what parents tend to want in a TKD school. I don't plan to include much of the Korean culture because I am largely an outsider. But even with 40% of the "tradition", I'm still more traditional than BJJ.

The way I define it, you have four general styles of martial arts:

• Traditional Martial Arts, defined by a focus on curriculum, character, culture, and history.
• Combat Sports, defined by a focus on win conditions that are tested in competition (such as a pin, knockout, submission, or area control as in Sumo).
• Self-Defense Arts, which often overlap with TMAs, which focus specifically on the self-defense aspect of martial arts (such as Krav Maga or Hapkido).
• Exercise Arts, which don't really purport to teach fighting skills, but are primarily about using martial techniques for a workout (such as Cardio Kickboxing or Tai Chi).

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Honestly, in all the discussions we've had on this forum over the years, I have yet to find a definition of "TMA" which reliably differentiates al the arts which are widely regarded as TMA vs those which are not. So I'm not going to worry about whether BJJ does or does not fall into that category. But I can do a compare and contrast regarding the historical development of BJJ vs Karate/CMA, and you can do with that what you will.

CMA
Discussion of the development of CMA in general is, I think, such a broad topic as to be almost pointless. Especially if you're going back centuries, which means you're pre-dating the modern conception of distinct named styles/lineages. But I'll hit some broad strokes.

You had military fighting systems, primarily bow, spear, and sword. Just as in the West, these have mostly been lost or transformed beyond recognition from their battlefield forms. I can't remember seeing a single CMA sword form which resembles the use of a sword when fighting in formation.

You had folk wrestling systems, which could be used in sport, self-defense, or in military training to build fighting spirit or as a supplement to close-range fighting in armor.

You had a wide variety of systems for armed and unarmed individual fighting. Probably these were originally the informally gathered experience of an individual family or village, but over time economic and cultural pressures led them to become "branded", if you will, with distinct names and claimed lineages and so on. This branded stylification could serve a number of purposes.

The school could provide a social group identity for students.
Defining a style as fitting within certain parameters could provide a teacher with a way to differentiate his school from competitors.
A teacher who could establish himself as the authority within a certain style could supplement his income and social status by controlling the flow of information within the school. "Secret" techniques or principles could be reserved for those who showed special loyalty or who paid extra.
(Confucian ideals of hierarchy certainly fed into that.)

Some practitioners tried to make a name for themselves via challenge matches. Others went the theatrical route, making money by staging shows for entertainment. (This eventually reached its logical conclusion with the creation of modern wushu by the CCP.)

Karate
Anyway, some branch or branches of an undetermined Hakka CMA reached Okinawa, possibly blending with the indigenous "Te" grappling art. In Okinawa, it was practiced as an unarmed fighting/self-defense art, focused primarily on dealing with untrained opponents at close range, and was trained in a relatively informal way - no special uniforms, ranks, standardized curriculums, or officially distinct style names. Since we don't know the exact CMA origins of this original Okinawan karate, we don't know if any or all of those features were representative of how the art was practiced in China.

With the official annexation of Okinawa by Japan and the efforts of Funakoshi to popularize the art, a rapid process of "Japanification" took place, especially for those branches of Karate which took root in (non-Okinawan) Japan. Uniforms, belt ranks, deeper and wider stances, fighting at longer ranges, more focus on striking vs grappling, standardized curriculums, officially distinct styles, sport competition, etc, etc. All of this had to do with fitting in with the Japanese culture of the time rather than combative requirements.

The Japanized form of Karate took root in Korea, where the native martial arts had been mostly suppressed under Japanese occupation, When that occupation ended after WWII, the Koreans quickly rebranded Karate. They originally kept both the technical base from Shotokan and the cultural trappings (uniforms, belt ranks, standardized curriculums, various formalities, etc). But over a generation or so, they reworked the technical base to be visually distinct from Japanese Karate (more kicks, higher kicks), changed the name of the art, created new forms, changed up the competition rules, and inserted Korean language and symbology in place of Japanese. None of this had anything to do with combative needs. It was strictly to do with resentment of the Japanese occupation and the desire to have a distinctly Korean cultural art. Despite those efforts, you can argue that Tae Kwon Do is technically no more distinct from Shotokan than Shotokan is from Shuri-Te.

BJJ
Japan has a centuries long tradition of various arts that I will call part of the overall "jujutsu" family, mostly involving various forms of grappling, locking, throwing, and pinning. Some date back to battlefield use in armor, but these have almost all been lost over time. Most of the surviving systems date from peacetime and were used for self-defense, law enforcement, or individual fighting.

By the late 19th century, jujutsu had largely fallen out of favor in Japan. The country was in the process of modernizing and Westernizing. Jujutsu was seen as an outdated relic of feudal times, there were few students, and instructors could rarely make a living at the art. Jigaro Kano was one of the few who had an interest in jujutsu. He studied Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū and Kitō-ryū, and within 5 years he had opened his own dojo, teaching his personal conception of a modern reinterpretation of these arts - Judo. This conception was very much his own, but it succeeded largely because it fit the Zeitgeist. It was presented as modern, scientific, and pro-social. Even though the art was called Kano jujutsu for a while, it wasn't long before apostles were preaching that Judo was a modern art entirely distinct from antiquated jujutsu. Kano also introduced some of the cultural elements (belt ranks, uniforms) which later spread to Karate and are sometimes seen as markers of a "traditional" art.

Judo may have a bit (its main reason for being was sport)

Sport was definitely not the original reason for Judo. That came later. Kano saw Judo as a path to self-improvement and the betterment of society.

In the early 20th century, a judoka named Mitsuo Maeda set out from Japan on a world tour to promote Judo via demonstrations and challenge matches. He arrived in Brazil in 1914 providing demonstrations and briefly opening a school. After a couple of years, he resumed his globetrotting fight career before returning to Brazil and teaching Judo mostly to Japanese immigrants. During his career of fighting and public demonstrations, he appears to have mainly used the term jiu-jitsu for his art rather than Judo, and so that was the name by which it initially became known in Brazil.

Among the students at Maeda's original school in Brazil were Carlos Gracie (of the famous family) and Luiz França (much less famous, but with his student Oswaldo Fadda he formed a parallel lineage to the Gracies that today is technically indistinguishable from any of the Gracie lineages). It's uncertain whether Gracie and França learned directly from Maeda or from one of his students, but that doesn't really matter much for the history.

Since the Gracies did much more to popularize the art than the França-Fadda lineage die, I'll simplify the rest of the story by focusing on them.

Carlos Gracie took whatever he learned in his short stint (no more than a year or two) at Maeda's school and taught his brothers. They liked fighting, they liked making money, and they liked being famous. So they decided that a good route to fame and fortune was to promote their art and themselves as teachers by means of public challenge matches.

Normally, such a minimal training background wouldn't be a great start for a martial artist wanting to make a career out of fighting professionally. But the Gracies had a few factors in their favor.

• They trained really hard and sparred all the time
• They had a lot of family members and a lot of students, all of whom trained and sparred hard
• They got lots of real fight experience, not only in professional prize fights, but also in dojo storms and fights on the streets and the beaches
• They cheerfully appropriated techniques and training methods from other arts that they encountered (in particular catch wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Judo, and Sambo)
• In their early years, before they had fully built the skills they became known for, they had no problem with arguing and negotiating the rules of a match to be in their favor.
• They figured out early on that most people have no clue about how to fight on the ground. So they focused their fight tactics on dragging opponents down to the ground for newaza. The more time they spent training in this specialized area of combat, the greater their advantage became once they got to the ground.

All of this was very much not in keeping with Kano's original vision for Judo. But it was a good cultural fit for Brazil, where machismo and braggadocio were valorized.

BJJ evolved fairly quickly over the first 70 years of its existence as a distinct art from Judo. (Some would still call it Basically Just Judo, but I think the difference in tactical approach justifies considering it a distinct art.) This evolution was due to the combined efforts of not only the many members of the Gracie clan, but all their students, and the non-Gracie instructors and competitors and the practitioners of other arts that they trained with and fought against. (Helio Gracie in his later years tried to take credit for single-handedly inventing the art, but it's worth nothing that he tried this only after his brothers had all passed away. In any case, the historical record is clear that he was just one important influence among many.)

After the first UFC, BJJ became popular worldwide and the number of practitioners grew exponentially. While the Gracies are still important members of the BJJ community, dominance of the art has passed out of their hands. (Both in teaching and competition.) With that spread of the art, the evolution sped up even more. The worldwide jiu-jitsu laboratories are constantly at work. The way I learned to do fundamental techniques twenty-five years ago is no longer the best practice. And new techniques and tactics are constantly being invented.

This innovation, BTW, is almost exclusively based on functionality. But there are different contexts for that functionality - sport grappling competition under particular rulesets, self-defense, MMA, law enforcement, etc. Which means that development in one context may not translate to another. One way I narrow down the innovations that I try to keep up with is to look at which principles and techniques are applicable in the largest number of contexts.

So ... that's a lot of blather. I apologize to anyone who is a slow reader but still made it all the way through. But based on all that, is BJJ a traditional martial art? Is TKD? Is Judo? Is Japanese Karate? Is Okinawan Karate? I don't know. Give me a definition of TMA and you tell me what fits and why.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I did not say that BJJ was the same as Karate.... I said it was similar to Shotokan Karate. That one word makes a lot of difference. Shotokan was created in a short span by Funakoshi

I indirectly (kind of) addressed this in my posts and agree that the time of development of Okinawan karate > Shotokan karate is similar to that of judo > BJJ, maybe around 20-30 years for the transformation into something unique from its predecessor, having its own unique identity.

But note that Okinawan karate and Shotokan karate are both still karate. They can be said to be styles of the same system. When casually asked about their activity, practitioners from both would say, "karate." I don't think if a BJJ practitioner would answer a casual question about their art by saying they take "judo." Would they say BJJ is a style of judo or is it a separate system? Tony brought up this point a couple of posts up. When makings comparisons, we need to know what we are comparing.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I guess I'm wondering from where this post came.

The opening sentence of this thread is quoted below:

This is a branch-off of my post #3 in the Taipei Report thread (in the Chinese Internal Arts forum - reading it will put this post in perspective and keep me from repeating stuff) in which Windwalker brought up BJJ's place in the MA world.

As a side note, the phrase "falls short" is loaded.

I made a big effort to clarify that no negative connotation was intended in that sentence or the post in full. It was strictly an academic viewpoint on BJJ's classification as a TMA, based on a number of criteria that I detailed. There was no subliminal message contained in that phrase. I think while BJJ may fall short of being considered a TMA as some other MA, BJJ does NOT fall short as an effective ground fighting system. There is no negative in being or not being a TMA in this regard.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Would they say BJJ is a style of judo or is it a separate system? Tony brought up this point a couple of posts up. When makings comparisons, we need to know what we are comparing.

Now this is an interesting question. I answered it in the affirmative earlier, but let me add a bit more nuance ...

The question of whether two people are training the same art or different arts or different styles of the same overarching system is a lot like the debate in linguistics around whether two groups of people are speaking different languages of just different dialects of the same language.

(If you aren't familiar with the complexities of those discussions, I highly recommend that you look it up. It's a fascinating topic.)

One famous answer to the dialect vs language question is "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." In other words, the categorization is often made along political lines rather than linguistic ones. Linguists typically look at mutual intelligibility. (Although that gets complicated in a way I'll get to later.) But politically ...

Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, although they use different writing systems. Politically - different languages.

Many Chinese languages are less mutually intelligible than English and Spanish and are joined only by a common (non-phonetic) writing system. But for purposes of national unity, the Chinese government considers them to be dialects.

Serbian and Bosnian are considered by linguists to be variations of the same language, but politically they are officially considered to be separate languages.

The languages of Italy, such as Lombard and Sicilian, are officially considered by the government to be dialects of standard Italian. This despite the fact that they are not necessarily any more mutually intelligible than Italian and Spanish.

Of course, English is just English ...

Even if you take a strictly linguistic, apolitical viewpoint, mutual intelligibility is a tricky metric. As the clip above illustrates, you can find plenty of examples where groups A and B can understand each other, groups B and C can understand each other, groups C and D can understand each other, but groups A and D cannot.

So how does this relate to martial arts? Just as with languages, there are situations where two martial artists who officially practice style A may have more discrepancy in technical execution, training methods, and philosophies than two other martial artists who officially practice styles B and C. Some styles splinter over ego, personality conflicts, political disagreements, or arguments over what should be included in the curriculum. Other styles allow huge amounts of technical variations. Other styles undergo convergent evolution and learn from each other. Your experience learning BJJ from me might be very different from your experience at another gym.

By the standard metric most people use for differentiating styles, I consider styles like modern Judo, BJJ, Danzan Ryu, and Sambo to be different arts stemming from a common root. (BTW, officially BJJ is considered an offshoot of Judo. But modern Judo has evolved in its own way as much as BJJ over the same time period. So I'd consider modern Judo and modern BJJ to be sister arts rather than parent-child.)

My more controversial opinion is that close quarter grappling arts like Judo, BJJ, catch wrestling, folkstyle wrestling, Sambo, Shuai Jiao, Sumo, Danzan Ryu, etc are different combat sports when practiced for competition purposes. But I consider them all facets of the same art when practiced for combative purposes. There's nothing I've learned from Judo or Sambo or Sumo or catch or freestyle that doesn't make me better at using BJJ in a fight. These systems are different in terms of their adaptation to different competition rulesets and in terms of the cultural trappings they come packaged in. But the underlying physical principles are all the same.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The way I define it, you have four general styles of martial arts:

• Traditional Martial Arts, defined by a focus on curriculum, character, culture, and history.
• Combat Sports, defined by a focus on win conditions that are tested in competition (such as a pin, knockout, submission, or area control as in Sumo).
• Self-Defense Arts, which often overlap with TMAs, which focus specifically on the self-defense aspect of martial arts (such as Krav Maga or Hapkido).
• Exercise Arts, which don't really purport to teach fighting skills, but are primarily about using martial techniques for a workout (such as Cardio Kickboxing or Tai Chi).

Just some random thoughts to consider with this sort of division ...

Many sports (including combat sports) heavily emphasize the idea that they build character. You definitely see a lot of this in wrestling circles.

Many arts which are commonly considered as TMAs also have a substantial sport competition component, for example TKD and Judo. Some people primarily practice those arts for that purpose.

Probably the majority of martial arts schools out there at least claim to teach effective self-defense. (Whether or not they really succeed in that department.)

A huge portion of the history taught in martial arts (traditional or otherwise) is unreliable at best and complete nonsense at worst. (I remember in college a 3rd dan TKD practitioner I knew telling me that Karate was just "bastardized Americanized Tae Kwon Do").

The cultural aspects are also often distorted and/or watered down in translation to a new country.

I'm not sure about the TMA focus on a set curriculum. From what I've read about old school Okinawan karate, it was often taught in an individualized manner and not everyone would learn the exact same material. I've also seen some CMA practitioners talking about the importance of operating on principles rather than specific memorized techniques. But I'm not a CMA or Okinawan Karate practitioner, so I'll let others speak to that point.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It was strictly an academic viewpoint on BJJ's classification as a TMA, based on a number of criteria that I detailed.

CMA are all built on a set of principles.

- Praying mantis is built on "8 hard and 12 soft".
- Zimen is built on "Zimen 8 methods".
- Taiji is built on "8 gates and 5 steps".
- Chinese wrestling is built on "30 butterfly hands".
- ...

Does BJJ as a grappling art also built on a set of principles? What are those BJJ principles? If a BJJ beginner doesn't start learning principles, where does his training start?

The day when BJJ has developed a complete set of "principles", the day BJJ can be called TMA.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I think it important to differentiate between pre-Japan and post-Japanese karate in discussing some points.

My definition of TMA is ritual. Bowing uniforms belts. That kind of thing.

I think these are just surface window dressings and have little to do with an art being a TMA, although these things have certainly become a part of it, mainly due to Japanese influence of uniformity and conformity. Okinawan karate did not have uniforms or belts till late 1930's/'40's, Japan adopting them a decade or two sooner. By your definition, karate prior to its intro to Japan was not a TMA, which I'd dispute. Putting on a uniform has nothing to do with the nature or core of the art. Not only belts and uniforms, most karate "ritual" are add-ons by the Japanese. While bowing is a widespread Oriental custom, I believe it became more prevalent in karate due to Japanese cultural influence.

In other words, if karate was done without bowing and in the nude, it would still be a TMA, and maybe even more fun.

I do not believe BJJ to be a TMA.

While we agree on this opinion, your reasons are different.

For me, a TMA is categorized by a few things:

1. A heavy focus on curriculum. Belts support this (by providing new curriculum per belt). In BJJ, things are more age restricted than belt restricted, and an adult white belt can do 99% of what an adult blue belt can do, and 98% of what an adult black belt can do. (In terms of what techniques are allowed, not how well they do them). Also, many schools will teach any techniques to anyone, and just tell them what's allowed in competition.
2. An emphasis on building character as much as building technique and physique. Etiquette, respect, and discipline are much more a part of TKD than they are BJJ. TKD schools typically have programs for kids designed to help improve behavior at home or their listening and focus in school. We don't have anything like that in my BJJ school.
3. A dogmatic adherence to the traditional techniques and methods. There are some BJJ schools that follow this, but many don't. People stick to the techniques that work well in the sport, not just because it's the way they were taught. Some folks stick to the way they learned, not because "it's the way I learned it", but because they see the benefit of it. You don't have any TKD schools that drop forms because the Master of that school didn't connect with the forms. But you have a lot of BJJ schools that are dropping drilling for ecological training.
4. Teaching culture in addition to technique. There's an emphasis in TKD on bringing in some of the Korean culture. Some schools more than others.

You are describing post-Japan karate where all these things are true (and good, IMO) but have little to do with karate's physical principles or formative development. For all the many reasons I discussed in this and the Taipei thread, I think even 1900 Okinawan karate qualified as a TMA. For CMA, maybe by 1700, though I wouldn't argue it couldn't have been earlier.

 

[drop bear]

In other words, if karate was done without bowing and in the nude, it would still be a TMA, and maybe even more fun.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

CMA are all built on a set of principles.

- Praying mantis is built on "8 hard and 12 soft".
- Zimen is built on "Zimen 8 methods".
- Taiji is built on "8 gates and 5 steps".
- Chinese wrestling is built on "30 butterfly hands".
- ...

Does BJJ as a grappling art also built on a set of principles? What are those BJJ principles? If a BJJ beginner doesn't start learning principles, where does his training start?

The day when BJJ has developed a complete set of "principles", the day BJJ can be called TMA.

BJJ is very much principle based. There isn't an official list with a specific number of those principles, but off the top of my head some of the most important ones are:

• Control the distance. (If your opponent is striking, you want to be either too far or too close to hit.) If you are in a position of control, you want to close space. If you are being controlled, you want to create space.)
• Position before submission (Possibly the most important principle in all of BJJ.)
• Use structure rather than muscle. Use big muscle groups rather than small muscle groups. Stay as relaxed as possible.
• Break your opponent's structure before attempting throws, sweeps, or submissions
• Isolate limbs before attempting to break them
• Use frames to maintain distance. When attacking frames, change the angle to turn them into levers.
• Always strive for superior leverage rather than matching strength with strength.
• Keep your own body aligned so that you can generate power from your whole body as a unit. Try to break your opponent's alignment so that they can't do the same.
• Whether standing or on the ground, you should have a base which allows you to transfer your opponents force through to the ground
• Create dilemmas for your opponent where defending one threat opens them up for another one
• Use your connection to the opponent to feel and control their movements
• Where the head goes, the body follows
• Movement and power originate in the hips
• Use strikes to set up grappling moves and vice versa (This is generally neglected in pure sport grappling BJJ, but it is still a part of combative BJJ)

These are all pretty broad principles. I could come up with more granular aspects.

I tell my students that there are just too many techniques with too many variations and too many details to learn and memorize them all. I teach techniques as situation expressions of the overarching principles. I tell my students that the more they understand the concepts that make the techniques work and the "why" behind each detail, the easier time they will have remembering them, making contextual adjustments as necessary, or even inventing new techniques on the spot.

 

[isshinryuronin]

A huge portion of the history taught in martial arts (traditional or otherwise) is unreliable at best and complete nonsense at worst. (I remember in college a 3rd dan TKD practitioner I knew telling me that Karate was just "bastardized Americanized Tae Kwon Do").

I've heard many tales/explanations of karate history and technique. Take your example that's obviously false, we now know karate is really a bastardized form of Master Chiun's art of Sinanju . On more serious notes, here is some background on the problem.

Chinese MA history has a lot of it documented but tales of the Shaolin monks got greatly inflated (due to ignorance or for commercialism). And the adoption of Taoist philosophy helped create a mystical aspect that most all of us find attractive. Did Feng Qiniang (or other name some styles attach) really watch a Crane do something (depending on the story's version) to inspire her to create a new style that still influences today? Even if pure myth, it serves the purpose to describe the movements and principles some styles are based on. And it's a great story as well. I'm surprised there isn't a movie about her, her crane and her husband (whom she may have beaten into submission). It's got all the elements of good cinema: revenge, animals, women's empowerment, fighting, etc.

Early Okinawan karate had very little documentation as its knowledge was restricted to just a few. And this bit of documentation was almost totally destroyed during WWII, nearly every storehouse of this knowledge was burnt or flattened - the devastation cannot be over-exaggerated. But the surviving masters retained some oral tradition of historical and technical info, largely keeping it to themselves, not sharing with their American conquerors. What was written down and available to outsiders was of course in Japanese and so unavailable to the West (were very few Westerners interested in MA history who also spoke the language).

Lots of stories circulated among gullible Westerners, sometimes encouraged by the sly Okinawans themselves (they had little to laugh about then). Still not wanting to divulge all the bunkai, they made up some explanations for mysterious looking techniques that the soldiers readily embraced. All these stories and explanations were brought back to the US and spread as true, GREATLY influencing our perception of the art (and still does to some extent).

With the passage of time Western MA researchers that could speak Japanese were able to translate into English, sharing new info with the world. Some also had high skills in karate, lived in Okinawa, and earned the respect of the masters there. As a result, we now know a lot more about karate history than 25 years ago thanks to these men. For example, rather than learning from a particular master, we now know it was that master's son or senior student who was the likely teacher. The mysterious Ryu Ryu Ko seems to have been identified, but there are still parts we're not sure of. Also, there may have been 2 people going by that name???

There is still so much missing, never to be known, but in many cases fact from fiction have been separated. One unique problem is that early karate personalities had multiple names: family, child and adult names, nickname, warrior name, and some went by one name in Japanese, and another in Chinese. Having 4 or 5 names did not simplify the research.

Didn't mean to bore anyone. I'm just a TMA nerd.