Talk:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] belt colours...

"Only the founding Gracie Brothers Helio, Carlos & his brothers will ever have the 10th degree red belt."

Someone should explain why this is. 129.173.209.8 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

because this is ONLY reserved for the original founders of BJJ; Also the red belt should not be included in that list, since a) it is not a feasible belt to be attained, it is very very difficult to get; b) there is no red and black belt in the list before it, so if the red belt is up, then also put the rend and black; c) the main belts are: white, blue purple, brown and black.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.143.3 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 9th degree...

I do not think Relson is 9th degree. Saheemg (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] half-guard [the picture]

the guy on the picture locked the half-guard incorrectly (in this case it should be right leg underneath the left, and not the other way round as pictured!) this can obviously happen, but since it is encyclopedia, and since the picture is titled "two practitioners in the half-guard position".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.90.116 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. Half guard means you are trapping half the opponents legs. i.e. one leg out of two. (Please note the instructions at the to of this page regarding putting new text under old, and signing your comments, thanks.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; however, I do know what half guard means. I can only reiterate that it's locked incorrectly on the picture. The leg between your opponent's legs should hook your other leg, NOT the other way round. Every instructor will tell you that. If you don't believe me, type "half-guard" on Youtube and check out a few first instructionals that will come up - posted by StephenKesting, kenprimo, StudioEFX (with world-class grappler JJ Machado). They ALL show half-guard locked the way I said it should be locked, and it's not a coincidence.81.108.178.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You can also have an open half guard, being in half guard and being the optimal position for it are two different things. Also if he top guy was trying to pass his right leg to mount that position would provide a better defence as you can trap the knee. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep... added to that, you often have to just take what you can get! --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This variant is considered incorrect, because such a half-guard is generally easier to open. Also it is limiting your other options - have a look at the picture; the bottom guy cannot base on his right leg in hope to sweep the opponent (and land on the top). It would be possible if it was his LEFT foot having contact with the mat. Also switching to full guard (an obviously advantageous move) is more problematic when you lock half-guard like that.
I completely agree with you that this is better than nothing! This reverted position can be used in sparrings and even seen on competitions.
I would compare it to shooting with the tip of the toe in football (or soccer if you prefer). Certainly better than nothing, you may even happen to score - but it should NOT illustrate an encyclopedic entry on the subject, if you see what I mean. In my opinion encyclopedias should aspire to present exactly that - OPTIMAL ("canonical") variants.
I know that you may consider it splitting hairs etc., so anyhow, I've made my point and I'm not going to argue anymore. Thank you!86.29.87.189 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No-one would object to you replacing that photo with a "more correct" one. We are only denying your assertion that the label on that photo is incorrect. Go right ahead. Thanks for your input. --David Broadfoot (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Due respect to all: there are so many different variations to the 1/2 guard that talking about a 'correct' way is impossible. Even a 'standard' way would be difficult to agree on. Sure, the guy on the bottom is making innumerable errors, but by virtue of wrapping two of his legs around one of his opponent's while in the bottom position, he is by definition applying the 1/2 guard, albeit poorly. As for which legs wraps which? I use either, depending on the needs of the moment. Eddie Bravo likes to lock outside over inside, others inside over outside -- whatever works. How about someone uploads a pic of someone applying the position effectively? 200.88.178.20 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)joe

[edit] Deletions by User:Vapour

Vapour, you've twice deleted a paragraph in the "Divergence from Kodokan rules" section, now giving the reason "Ground fighting in actual streefight being pointless has been debated for ages."

However, that paragraph is not even about ground fighting or its efficacy - it's about rule changes for safety, to reduce groundwork, and ban techniques like leglocks.

Why don't you delete the section titled "Ground fighting" instead? And delete the section titles "Style of fighting" which starts with the words "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu emphasizes ground fighting techniques"?

While you're at it, you may as well delete the entire article Kosen judo.

Or perhaps you could instead stop and realise that your opinion on the efficacy of groundwork has absolutely nothing to do with whether such content should or should not be included on Wikipedia. Even if 99% of the world's population agreed with your opinion, it still has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be included. --David from Downunder (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. Please find a reference from media or academia and I won't touch it even if it is an obvious anti judo BJJ propaganda. I'm invoking verification criteria. Onus of responsibility is now on you to find a verifiable source(s). I will find my reference in regard to the jodo-jujutu match which precipitated ground work restriction. So instead of reverting unverified statement, start looking. Vapour (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
So, now your reasoning has changed from "Ground fighting in actual streefight being pointless has been debated for ages" to "obvious anti judo BJJ propaganda". Wrong on both counts. I am the contributor who wrote that paragraph, and I am a judoka. Exactly what facts in that paragraph do you believe to be untrue? --David from Downunder (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, lets start again, Why, explicitly, do you want the paragraph removed? --Nate1481(t/c) 12:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nate, I can't any change of any substance that you made. What was the "pov phrase" that you removed? --David from Downunder (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The very last sentence in that section was a bit 'tagged-on' & struck me as POV so I removed it, Did the rest of the edits make sense? I just felt it was a bit 'bitty' as also of stuff tends be after initial addition. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
But that sentence you deleted (BJJ's different rules set and point scoring mechanisms are designed to give BJJ an arguably more practical emphasis.) is not in the paragraph that he deleted. The text that he deleted was Various changes over the years - some designed to make judo more interesting as a spectator sport for Olympic audiences, and some designed to make judo a safer sport - have greatly de-emphasised the groundwork aspects of judo, and reduced the range of joint locks allowed, though these non-sport aspects have been preserved in judo, and are practiced to varying extents in different judo schools. It's definitely not "obvious anti judo BJJ propaganda" - it's just a series of well-known facts that doesn't in any way at all express any opinion for or against the changes. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Other edits make sense, but I still dislike the phrase "arguably more practical emphasis", who argued it? you could also argue the other way too, I think it is an inherently pov phrase. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that. I chose that word purposely to make it less POV. As to who argues it, BJJ proponents obviously, the Gracies originally as it was them who designed that point scoring system for that reason. They have have good rationale for their arguments, but that is not to say that they are right on balance. The fact is that no-one knows whether they are right or not in general. They are certainly right when it comes to a bare-skinned challenge on a soft surface. Probably correct with regards to a clothed opponent on soft surface, especially if that person is untrained in being thrown, but could be incorrect when it comes to scenarios with hard surfaces. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you remove the word "arguably" on the grounds that it's redundant and only distorts your meaning. No one's debating that the Gracies wanted BJJ to be more "practical" than Kodokan Judo. As for your discussion with Vapour, I'd ask this question: What did the Gracies want BJJ to be more practical for? Street fighting or no-holds-barred cage fights? Even a NHB fight (by which I mean a cage match free of MMA's sport-imposed restrictions) isn't "true" combat, because each opponent knows he's only facing one other person. In this regard, I think it's pretty clear that BJJ is more "practical" than judo. Whether one or the other is more "practical" for "combat" depends on your definition of those two words. In my opinion the argument would be made moot if we got a little more specific about BJJ's origins in Vale Tudo, which defines the kind of combat we're talking about and eliminates any controversy, because BJJ is clearly more effective training for Vale Tudo than Judo. Victors Monster (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter it is less POV or not. The fact remain that "judo rule being safe and crowd pleasing" does not have citation/source. Nor my claim that "judo's ground work restriction is more combat realistic" edit had citation. It makes no difference if you or I are 10th dan in judo or jututu. Verification criteria is invoked. Until you find a vierifiable source, the edit is out. Vapour (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, your criticism has strayed off yet again on a different tack. I never said that judo was safe or crowd-pleasing... just that the rule changes were made to try to make it so. It is a well-known fact. Only controversial statements are strictly subject to the need for citation. Not every phrase in every article is cited! Why don't you help instead by finding a suitable suitable citation. I have better things to do than to look for citations for uncontroversial statements. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)