Is BJJ a TMA?

[Tony Dismukes]

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.

Yeah, we're lucky to be in a period where at least some aspects of martial arts history can be researched with some degree of confidence. I'm not sure how much that has actually resulted in accurate information being disseminated in the dojo though. I think a lot of it just gets talked about by nerds like us online.

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 remember reading the stories about how a style of Praying Mantis Kung Fu was developed by some old master who learned from the way a Mantis responded when he poked at it with a straw. I was disappointed when I tried the same thing with a Praying Mantis I found outside my apartment and it didn't even try to block or engage with the straw in any way.

 

[marvin8]

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.

Here are 32 BJJ principles. So, you can call BJJ a TMA.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I remember reading the stories about how a style of Praying Mantis Kung Fu was developed by some old master who learned from the way a Mantis responded when he poked at it with a straw. I was disappointed when I tried the same thing with a Praying Mantis I found outside my apartment and it didn't even try to block or engage with the straw in any way.

Not sure about how the preying mantis system was created. But the Chinese wrestling was created from this:

 

[isshinryuronin]

I remember reading the stories about how a style of Praying Mantis Kung Fu was developed by some old master who learned from the way a Mantis responded when he poked at it with a straw. I was disappointed when I tried the same thing with a Praying Mantis I found outside my apartment and it didn't even try to block or engage with the straw in any way.

I guess you just weren't intimidating enough to the mantis for it to bother engaging with you. Work on your "war face."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I remember reading the stories about how a style of Praying Mantis Kung Fu was developed by some old master who learned from the way a Mantis responded when he poked at it with a straw. I was disappointed when I tried the same thing with a Praying Mantis I found outside my apartment and it didn't even try to block or engage with the straw in any way.

A mantis doesn't retreat. The mantis spirit is attack, attack, and attack.

 

[wab25]

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 am not too sure about that.... some of the most irritating injuries I have had were from training Shotokan. Those guys would stomp on the ground when they punched or blocked.... and have stomped so hard on my toes that I have lost toenails, had purple toe nails for years..... One of them won't re-attach properly.... all from the Shotokan guys stomping on them in kumite. In the nude, I would be afraid of what else of mine might get stomped on.... no thank you!

 

[skribs]

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

I think the difference is whether building character is part of the curriculum, or a consequence of it. BJJ builds attention-to-detail because the details are important to success. TKD builds attention-to-detail because details themselves are part of the curriculum. Wrestling builds discipline because discipline leads to success, TKD builds discipline because discipline is directly taught.

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.

I did say there's overlap.

 

[isshinryuronin]

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.

Trying to classify things can indeed get tricky and confusing. At what point does one thing become uniquely another? Even with agreed upon criteria, zoologists have trouble sometimes in saying whether an animal is its own species or just a subspecies. But at some point, all can agree that a tiger is different than a leopard.

When two different karate stylists are fighting in a tournament, both look very much the same during the competition. It's only when they go back to their dojos can they be differentiated. I have long maintained that sport karate is a style of its own. The ruleset itself commands a conformity, a box that whatever style you have must be fit into. Because of this, I rarely mix TMA and sport MA in discussions (except to contrast them). They are often apples and oranges. Extreme MA kata competition takes it to the point that I don't even consider it MA., clearly not only different species (styles), but different taxonomic families (systems). Karate generally utilizes the same principles, regardless of the style.

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)

Karate has practically the same identical list. The difference is in: A. In what proportion are these principles utilized, B. How are these principles manifested in execution.

 

[ap Oweyn]

The opening sentence of this thread is quoted below:



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.

I know mate. I know. I'm not suggesting you were being negative about BJJ generally. As you said, you were very clear about its effectiveness within its stated parameters. As I said, though, it reads as though others were claiming that it WAS a TMA. And that's what I'm asking about. Is that a phenomenon you've observed?

 

[isshinryuronin]

I know mate. I know. I'm not suggesting you were being negative about BJJ generally. As you said, you were very clear about its effectiveness within its stated parameters. As I said, though, it reads as though others were claiming that it WAS a TMA. And that's what I'm asking about. Is that a phenomenon you've observed?

I'm not much into BJJ and don't have much contact with those that do. I thought I'd see more in this thread of how BJJ people see their art. Do they see it as a TMA or its own category? and do they see it as a style of judo, or a unique style of its own? How do non-bjj people see it? And the reasons they hold that opinion.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I thought I'd see more in this thread of how BJJ people see their art. Do they see it as a TMA or its own category? and do they see it as a style of judo, or a unique style of its own?

I don't think many BJJ practitioners would describe it as a TMA. Then again, I'm not sure what percentage of practitioners are even aware of the TMA/non-TMA terminology debate. I personally consider "TMA" to be more of a marketing category than a useful functional distinction.

Most BJJ practitioners do consider it to be its own art. But a growing number share something like my viewpoint that the different grappling styles are merely facets of a greater whole, separated only by sportive rulesets or historic lineage. Many of us would just as soon attend a class with Khabib Nurmagomedov (Sambo) or Kazushi Sakuraba (catch wrestling) as we would with any Gracie. And we wouldn't necessarily consider it to be cross-training in a different discipline. It would just be more grappling experience that we could use in our next sparring session.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Karate has practically the same identical list. The difference is in: A. In what proportion are these principles utilized, B. How are these principles manifested in execution.

I'd say that the most biggest distinction (in terms of importance, proportion, and execution) is positioning. This is because of the relative time that a positional advantage can last.

Let's say that you're a karateka engaged in a stand-up fight. Your opponent throws a punch and you evade with a skilled bit of tai sabaki to reach an angle where you can hit him and he can't hit you. Great! That tactical advantage will probably last for about half a second before he squares back up. If you react immediately, you probably have time for one free strike before you have to start over from neutral. If you are a master of footwork, maybe you can maintain that advantage for a couple of seconds and get a few free punches.

Positional advantage standing up is extremely transitory. Even against an unskilled opponent, you have to keep regaining that advantage.

In contrast, if we're fighting on the ground, and I get mounted on you and you don't know how to escape ... I'll hold you there for ten minutes easily. That's ten minutes during which I can hit you at will, threaten chokes and armlocks, and you really can't do much of anything to me. (That's assuming an unarmed confrontation. A knife or gun allows the bottom person to still be dangerous.)

Positional advantages on the ground can last much longer and so receive a much greater focus in training.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

TMA people like to hide secret. Sometime even a teacher may hide information away from his own students. BJJ guys may not think this way (I can be wrong on this).

Chinese wrestling may consider "tie" as a secret.



Are there anything that BJJ may consider as "secret"?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

TMA people like to hide personal secret. Sometime even a teacher wants to hide information away from his own students. BJJ guys may not think this way (I can be wrong on this). Why?

There used to sometimes be a little bit of this in some BJJ circles, but not very much and it’s pretty much extinct now.

Reasons?

• BJJ has always had a tradition of gaining reputation via challenge matches and competition. If you hide your best material from your students, then they aren’t going to be winning those challenge matches or competitions and your reputation as an instructor will suffer.
• Even if you swear your students to secrecy, they can’t use your secret moves in challenge matches or competition without everyone being able to see what they are doing. This is especially true in the modern day where video recording is ubiquitous. If your students are winning matches in high level competition, then practitioners around the world will be watching videos of those matches in slow motion to reverse-engineer their technique.
• BJJ also has a tradition of making money when the option exists. If people are going to be analyzing your tournament successes anyway, why not cash in by selling your own instructional videos explaining exactly what you are doing?

 

[Simfers]

This is in response to Kung Fu Wang's post, since I type too slowly.

The closest thing that comes to mind would be some schools'... reticence, I guess, towards leg locks. Some will apparently just not touch them at all and treat them as some dangerous, forbidden techniques. But even that is fading away, as leg locks are really prevalent in competitions now, especially in no-gi.

Otherwise, no, I've never known teachers or advanced belts to keep techniques as secrets to be taught only to the inner circle. Far from it, if you ask any of the ones I know to show you a move they caught you with or you saw them use, there's actually a sense of glee that they get to show you something cool.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you hide your best material from your students, then they aren’t going to be winning those challenge matches or competitions and your reputation as an instructor will suffer.

Agree with you 100% there. I also don't understand why some TMA teachers may like to hide secrets. IMO, sometimes, the secret is not how to apply a technique. The secret is how to develop "ability" to make that technique work.

I don't know this work in ground game or not. In stand up jacket wrestling game, you can hold on your opponent's jacket in such a way that he can't break your grips. This mean he can't apply any technique on you. There is a "shaking" principle involved here, but the main thing is your monster grips. Most of the beginners just don't want to spend training time to develop that monster grips. So, the secret is if you spend training time, you will get. Otherwise, you won't.

Does BJJ also encourage students to develop

- monster grips,
- strong head lock,
- strong leg twisting power,
- ...?

Or does BJJ emphasizes only on softness as Taiji does?

 

[isshinryuronin]

Let's say that you're a karateka engaged in a stand-up fight. Your opponent throws a punch and you evade with a skilled bit of tai sabaki to reach an angle where you can hit him and he can't hit you. Great! That tactical advantage will probably last for about half a second

Positional advantage standing up is extremely transitory. Even against an unskilled opponent, you have to keep regaining that advantage.

In contrast, if we're fighting on the ground, and I get mounted on you and you don't know how to escape ... I'll hold you there for ten minutes easily. That's ten minutes during which I can hit you at will, threaten chokes and armlocks, and you really can't do much of anything to me.

Positional advantages on the ground can last much longer and so receive a much greater focus in training.

I think this is an excellent distinction. Things flow quickly in a striking fight and move slower on the ground (comparatively speaking). But old karate doctrine had a goal of once you exploit an opening, you build on it, pressuring the attack and prevent any chance of counter until the opponent is crushed. Each move of the progressive attack setting up the next move while simultaneously taking opportunity and capability for a counter away. I believe this was the main quality of karate that led to its success as a combat art - fast and furious, fights ending quickly. This style of fighting has been largely lost in many schools, but one I try to embrace.

Having wrestled a little in college, once the opponent was riding you escape was difficult (2 pts. if I remember correctly). It was a helpless and very unenjoyable feeling as you mention (and one I experienced often) even without chokes and strikes raining down upon you as in MMA. I really feel for the guy on the bottom.

Another observation - In standup striking there is a chance that even if outclassed in one or more respects, there is a chance for the underdog to land a lucky solid hit and change the course of the fight. It seems to me this is harder to do in grappling due to the slower pace - less techniques (and less opportunity) per minute giving fewer chances for the underdog to turn things around.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is in response to Kung Fu Wang's post, since I type too slowly.

The closest thing that comes to mind would be some schools'... reticence, I guess, towards leg locks. Some will apparently just not touch them at all and treat them as some dangerous, forbidden techniques. But even that is fading away, as leg locks are really prevalent in competitions now, especially in no-gi.

Otherwise, no, I've never known teachers or advanced belts to keep techniques as secrets to be taught only to the inner circle. Far from it, if you ask any of the ones I know to show you a move they caught you with or you saw them use, there's actually a sense of glee that they get to show you something cool.

When my Chinese wrestling teacher was alive, I was told not to teach "counter to circular dragging". Even today, we still don't see any video online about that.

I don't like this kind of close mind. The way I look at this is if my opponent knows how to counter my technique, it will give me a chance to apply counter to his counter. My MA skill will grow after that. It can be a good thing for me.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Another observation - In standup striking there is a chance that even if outclassed in one or more respects, there is a chance for the underdog to land a lucky solid hit and change the course of the fight. It seems to me this is harder to do in grappling due to the slower pace - less techniques (and less opportunity) per minute giving fewer chances for the underdog to turn things around.

There is always a lucky punch. There will be no lucky take down.

A 20 years old boxer can knock down a 70 years old boxer. A 20 years old white belt Judo guy will never be able to take down a 70 years old Judo master (not sure about 80 years old or 90 years Judo master).

 

[isshinryuronin]

but the main thing is your monster grips. Most of the beginners just don't want to spend training time to develop that monster grips.

Traditional Okinawan karate utilized a lot of stand-up grappling and seizing/twisting of the wrist or arm. This can be seen in many kata (though some may not recognize it). Old time training (hojo undo) entailed a lot of grip strengthening (not the most fun exercises, but then, little of hojo undo is fun, at least for normal people). I agree this is not common in modern days. Only a few dojo still stress this.

The secret is how to develop "ability" to make that technique work.

Ah, Grasshopper. You are ready to leave the temple now. I agree with you 100%. Advanced level students may have excellent technique, but this "secret" is what separates the expert.