This is a really interesting discussion with logical and compelling arguments on both sides.
FRAT to follow:
It seems like as time goes on the definition of "BJJ BB" is breaking down in two ways: 1) the definition of a BB is changing, and 2) the definition of BJJ is changing.
"Black Belt" Definition Drift:
Back when I started in 2001 or 2002, my idea of a BJJ BB was pretty awe inspiring. In my mind at that time, a BJJ BB was a guy who could roll through almost anyone gi or no-gi. There was also a strong connection in my mind between a BJJ BB and vale tudo/MMA prowess.
Fast forward a dozen years and now when I hear that someone is a BJJ BB the next question I hear is always "But, how good are they." Some of them suck now. Some of them suck in no-gi and some suck in both no-gi and gi. Some have done VERY little no-gi. A lot of guys are getting to BB for simply accruing enough years. The role of a guys ability to "kick ass on the ground" is diminishing and the role of "time in" is becoming more important. Along with this "time in" thing, it seems like there is also a greater emphasis on "(new) BJJ culture" like use of OSS, bowing, more Portuguese terms, more Japanese terms, paying fees to get your BB and your gym "recognized" by a central organization, BJJ exercises that basically approach kata (see Nic Gregoriades), lineage, affiliation with a large Brazilian run gym, formal belt promotion tests, belt promotion gauntlets, and photos of dead guys on the wall. There is also a much more tenuous connection between BJJ prowess and vale tudo/MMA prowess these days. The connection between wrestling prowess and MMA prowess is comparatively much stronger.
"BJJ" Definition Drift:
Back in 2001 or 2002, I remember hearing people accusing non-BJJ ground fighters of "doing BJJ" or "borrowing from BJJ" regardless of what their background was. SAMBO, Judo, and catch guys doing anything good on the ground that wasn't a twisting leg lock might all be told that they were really doing BJJ and just re-labeling it as a part of their respective discipline (See Royce's comments about Matt Hughes beating him with GJJ/BJJ).
Now in 2014, I see a ton of guys trying to say it's only "BJJ" if you are training in the gi at least some of the time. There is also a new emphasis on lineage. Fair enough. But, before, the trend was for BJJ guys to argue that most of everything that worked on the ground was BJJ and now the trend is for BJJ guys to argue that techniques are not BJJ because of how they are practiced, attire worn, and etc.
The Effect of Both Drifts Together:
The BB definition drift is probably inescapable since the greater the number of people involved in enforcing a standard, the more deviation you are going to see in a standard. The BJJ definition drift is actually a choice by the BJJ community. They could have chosen to embrace 100% no-gi training as an equally valid specialization under the BJJ umbrella. Instead, a large number of BJJ guys are choosing to shun 100% no-gi as being "not BJJ".
My opinion is that this movement away from a higher performance based standard for the "BJJ BB" (by many, but not all) along with the movement towards exclusion of 100% no-gi from "BJJ" (by many, but not all) is leading BJJ down a slippery slope that has a much more TMA/LARP flavor to it than the grappling discipline I encountered in 2001-2002. Sure, there are still the hardcore competitors and hardcore competition gyms, but there are an increasing number of guys just clothing themselves in BJJ culture to compensate for the actual level of their ground grappling skills.
The BJJ definition drift towards strict gi-only conceptions further divorces BJJ from actual performance of ground grappling since it reduces the number of guys who can walk in off the street and mount a reasonable challenge to BJJ guys. There are a lot of ex-high school and college wrestlers in North America. Straight out of wrestling, those guys are a much bigger threat in no-gi than they are in the gi. So, by removing no-gi from the definition of BJJ, they are making it less likely that a wrestler or other no-gi guy can come in off the street and humiliate them in BJJ.
I fully expect that this trend will continue and eventually BJJ will be an even more niche gi-centric sport with the same relation to no-gi and MMA that Tae Kwon Do has to kickboxing and MMA (many would argue we are already there).
A Possible Solution:
I feel like ditching the belt paradigm in both gi and no-gi would be a great way to reverse a lot of this.
Focusing on actual performance and not belts has worked for folkstyle/freestyle/greco-roman wrestling, boxing, and muay thai for a long time with no problems. They are all taught and practiced at a very high level today. They also have all retained very high applicability to combat/vale tudo/MMA.
Focus on belts is a common thread in a lot of the TMA LARPapalooza that we see today.
Judo could be cited as an exception here. But, it seems like the balance between belt and competition focus there is skewed toward competition anyway.
This doesn't even address the benefits that ditching belts has toward reducing drama over who is getting promoted when, sandbagging, different schools recognizing belts, and etc.
FRAT to follow:
It seems like as time goes on the definition of "BJJ BB" is breaking down in two ways: 1) the definition of a BB is changing, and 2) the definition of BJJ is changing.
"Black Belt" Definition Drift:
Back when I started in 2001 or 2002, my idea of a BJJ BB was pretty awe inspiring. In my mind at that time, a BJJ BB was a guy who could roll through almost anyone gi or no-gi. There was also a strong connection in my mind between a BJJ BB and vale tudo/MMA prowess.
Fast forward a dozen years and now when I hear that someone is a BJJ BB the next question I hear is always "But, how good are they." Some of them suck now. Some of them suck in no-gi and some suck in both no-gi and gi. Some have done VERY little no-gi. A lot of guys are getting to BB for simply accruing enough years. The role of a guys ability to "kick ass on the ground" is diminishing and the role of "time in" is becoming more important. Along with this "time in" thing, it seems like there is also a greater emphasis on "(new) BJJ culture" like use of OSS, bowing, more Portuguese terms, more Japanese terms, paying fees to get your BB and your gym "recognized" by a central organization, BJJ exercises that basically approach kata (see Nic Gregoriades), lineage, affiliation with a large Brazilian run gym, formal belt promotion tests, belt promotion gauntlets, and photos of dead guys on the wall. There is also a much more tenuous connection between BJJ prowess and vale tudo/MMA prowess these days. The connection between wrestling prowess and MMA prowess is comparatively much stronger.
"BJJ" Definition Drift:
Back in 2001 or 2002, I remember hearing people accusing non-BJJ ground fighters of "doing BJJ" or "borrowing from BJJ" regardless of what their background was. SAMBO, Judo, and catch guys doing anything good on the ground that wasn't a twisting leg lock might all be told that they were really doing BJJ and just re-labeling it as a part of their respective discipline (See Royce's comments about Matt Hughes beating him with GJJ/BJJ).
Now in 2014, I see a ton of guys trying to say it's only "BJJ" if you are training in the gi at least some of the time. There is also a new emphasis on lineage. Fair enough. But, before, the trend was for BJJ guys to argue that most of everything that worked on the ground was BJJ and now the trend is for BJJ guys to argue that techniques are not BJJ because of how they are practiced, attire worn, and etc.
The Effect of Both Drifts Together:
The BB definition drift is probably inescapable since the greater the number of people involved in enforcing a standard, the more deviation you are going to see in a standard. The BJJ definition drift is actually a choice by the BJJ community. They could have chosen to embrace 100% no-gi training as an equally valid specialization under the BJJ umbrella. Instead, a large number of BJJ guys are choosing to shun 100% no-gi as being "not BJJ".
My opinion is that this movement away from a higher performance based standard for the "BJJ BB" (by many, but not all) along with the movement towards exclusion of 100% no-gi from "BJJ" (by many, but not all) is leading BJJ down a slippery slope that has a much more TMA/LARP flavor to it than the grappling discipline I encountered in 2001-2002. Sure, there are still the hardcore competitors and hardcore competition gyms, but there are an increasing number of guys just clothing themselves in BJJ culture to compensate for the actual level of their ground grappling skills.
The BJJ definition drift towards strict gi-only conceptions further divorces BJJ from actual performance of ground grappling since it reduces the number of guys who can walk in off the street and mount a reasonable challenge to BJJ guys. There are a lot of ex-high school and college wrestlers in North America. Straight out of wrestling, those guys are a much bigger threat in no-gi than they are in the gi. So, by removing no-gi from the definition of BJJ, they are making it less likely that a wrestler or other no-gi guy can come in off the street and humiliate them in BJJ.
I fully expect that this trend will continue and eventually BJJ will be an even more niche gi-centric sport with the same relation to no-gi and MMA that Tae Kwon Do has to kickboxing and MMA (many would argue we are already there).
A Possible Solution:
I feel like ditching the belt paradigm in both gi and no-gi would be a great way to reverse a lot of this.
Focusing on actual performance and not belts has worked for folkstyle/freestyle/greco-roman wrestling, boxing, and muay thai for a long time with no problems. They are all taught and practiced at a very high level today. They also have all retained very high applicability to combat/vale tudo/MMA.
Focus on belts is a common thread in a lot of the TMA LARPapalooza that we see today.
Judo could be cited as an exception here. But, it seems like the balance between belt and competition focus there is skewed toward competition anyway.
This doesn't even address the benefits that ditching belts has toward reducing drama over who is getting promoted when, sandbagging, different schools recognizing belts, and etc.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Anthony Herrera
