Talk:Brazilian jiu-jitsu/Archive 2

message: I have tried to contact the user DrParkes who is constantly vandalizing the BJJ article, which we all fought hard to improve (still need lots of attention though). I have provided the reasoning on the section above, but the user keeps misbehaving himself and reverting the edits which were backed up by historical facts and references, introducing his own interpretations on the facts. He completely ignores the talk pages and also his own talk page. I don't understand this disrupting behavior, nor what one gains by doing so. Wikipedia is already criticized (without justification) for its inaccuracies, we do not need to help this wrong image prevail. I really would like some help from administrators to solve this issue. I would start by blocking this user from editing this article for a few days. Regards Loudenvier 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has since been reverted. --Nate 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March, 12th, 2007 vandalism 

message: Two editors were blocked moments ago for violating 3RR on this article. I would like to remind all the involved parties to avoid edit warring and take your differences to the talk page. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was blocked for 24h trying to stop vandalism. My talk page has more info to anyone interested in this unfair treatment I received! Anyway, I'm back now. Loudenvier 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: Please put back wikibjj.com in the techniques external link section. thanks.
209.234.104.130 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site does not qualify under External Links policies. If, after reading the aforementioned link you still think this site deserves mention, please discuss it first here in this section of the Talk page, but rarely forum (wiki included) sites are eligible. Regards Loudenvier 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the wikipedia rules that are being broken by the other links I would argue that this one not only breaks less but has far more potential than the others. But then again you clearly strong arming the community by not allowing edits on the page.67.180.71.99 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you examine the history of the page, a temporary locking will seem quite necessary. FlowWTG 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't me that protected the page. A vandal was reverting every single edit to the page doing havoc here. This measure was necessary. I will clean-up the links section once again. Loudenvier 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WIKIBJJ

message: While I have nothing against BJJ itself - it is an excellent fighting system/sport - I find it extrmely aggravating, to put it mildly, that the Gracies and their followers far more often than not fail to acknowledge judo, particularly kosen judo, as being the true root of BJJ. Sensei Mitsuyo Maeda, the man who introduced jujutsu (or jiu-jitsu, as they insist upon spelling it) to Brazil in the first place, spent four years training extensively in judo and traditional jujutsu in his native Japan before traveling to Brazil where he taught Carlos Gracie. I say this as a shodan (black belt) in judo and a practitioner of Brazilian jujutsu. You've got a great system, guys; just do not forget that Jigoro Kano, Mitaemon Tanabe' and, of course, Maeda are the grandfathers of what you call "Brazilian" jujutsu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.214.47.178 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, this is a misconception to say that Maeda practiced jiu-jitsu. Maeda was the second generation of Kodokan Judoka. He did Sumo as a youngster but with 1m64cm and 70kg he wasn't fit to Sumo. He went to train Judo at the kodokan. He never did "old-school" jiu-jitsu. When Maeda, Lako, Shimitsu, Satake and Okura arrived in Brazil all the newspapers acknowledge Maeda as a jiu-jitsu world champion even being sent from the Kodokan. Judo was almost unknown outside Japan, and all the Japanese fight was jiu-jitsu. That's the source of the confusion. It was only in 1956 that the Kodokan sent Yoshio Kihara to Brazil to introduce the nage-no-kata and to specifically separata Judo from Jiu-Jitsu, but that was too late for the Gracies to embrace a new name and BJJ is Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu, not Brazillian Judo. Regards Loudenvier 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrestling and vale-tudo aren't roots to BJJ. In fact BJJ despised wrestling up until the UFC. They always said wrestling wasn't as technical as BJJ. Vale-tudo, on the other hand, has it's roots in BJJ, but Maeda, a Judoka, and many other ancient judoka fought in fights with less rules than vale-tudo, which, in fact, isn't a martial art, but just a kind of competition where almost every techinique is valid (vale = acceptable, tudo = anything/everything: vale-tudo = everything's acceptable/anything goes). It has nothing to do with politics, it's history. To be historically correct we must state what happened: a judoka (Maeda) taugh Carlos Gracie the kodokan Judo. Maeda as a great Judoka, both in tachi-waza and ne-waza, so the Gracies learnt what was fastest to learn which was newaza, which also happens to be more efficient in one-to-one street-fights... There are also many people who claim that BJJ is simply Judo without throws... I myself think that they differ only in the trainning regime Loudenvier 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Vandal' has a point 

message: Well, I just know that most of the jiu-jitsu guys, at least in the Atlanta area, tend to ignore their Japanese roots. One dojo in particular I'm thinking of, they have a Brazilian and an American flag side by side, but no Japanese flag. I insisted that they put one up, but of course I couldn't force them.
Also, you know that legendary "Fight", so-called anyway, between Maeda and Gracie? Yeah, well, they try to make it sound like it was a fight, but, truth be told, it was Gracie demonstrating his ability to take a lot of falls, not much else.
: Here in Brazil we call BJJ simply Jiu-Jitsu, no need to call it brazilian jiu-jitsu. Only in english language advertising the brazillian is pre-pended. You won't find a jiu-jitsu (by that I mean Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) academy with japanese flags around here... It's considered (and indeed it is) a brazilian martial art (or should I say sport?). Since 1920s it almost evolved by itself, with the Gracies. It's even harder to see this japanese root acknowledged overseas... But, even if it descended from old japanese jiu-jitsu, then this would be a japanase root too. You won't find a brazillian football (soccer for USA residents, football for the rest of the world) club with english flags, even tough football come from england. I think that's the correct reasoning behind all that. Loudenvier 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to guess, I think this is because in the U.S., it is marketed as "Brazilian" Jiu-Jitsu, specifically as opposed to modern Japanese Jujutsu (and Judo, and other forms). Even though there is a valid historical derivation there, from Japan to Brazil and then to the rest of the world -- I don't think anyone is denying that -- sometimes the Japanese connection is downplayed slightly to differentiate the art from the many Asian ones. I don't think there's any intentional whitewashing or disrespect going on. --Kadin2048 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indeed... 

message: I do judo, I do traditional jujitsu and I do BJJ. They shouldn't be rivals; they all compliment each other perfectly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThakarianDwarfTorvor (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest neither do I, with this article we just want the facts correct. --Nate 09:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand the rivalry. 

message: It is my intention for this section to be for valid criticisms against Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.  This section is added for informational purposes only.  I think it is good for a person using wikipedia that may be potentially researching a martial art to understand the criticisms of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu whether they are real or perceived.  Rockpyle26 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind this sounds too much like original research. This article is already plagued by lack of proper references and reliable sources, this kind of entry hardly deserves to be in a encyclopedia. But if you can provide reliable links with criticism about BJJ then it will be great (lack of striking and throwing emphasis in training, possibly not so well suited to face multiple oponents in a real world scenario, lack of a strict moral code to follow are just a few problems that came to my mind, but my opinion simply doesn't matter here, we need to find RELIABLE SOURCES that state that...). Regards and thanx for opening this discussion. Loudenvier 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hid the section as it's empty currently --Nate 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section added 

message: or a website for finding well respected locations to learn ? or world and national headquarters for various styles ? 
Hello,
I'm looking for a place to practice in L.A.  Where would I figure out how to find something?  While I don't think the article or talk page should directly advertise specific locations to learn, I think it should be more helpful in directing someone who is interested in the right direction.  Thanks. Tkjazzer 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that google provides enough assistance with people looking for places to trainThekiwifish 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually is very difficult.  You end up getting a lot of MMA or non-traditional places, it is difficult to find an authentic place. Tkjazzer 08:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to learn in L.A. ?

message: This was a revert to a version from 3 months back that was supported by an editor who is now banned for edit warring, the key difference is the origin s on bjj in judo vs jujutsu. Just wanted to explain my edit summary or 'rvv' here. Also to warn editors if you read the first 3 section of the talk page this may continue. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit on 09:09, 30 May 2007 by 80.34.17.209  

message: I was under the impression that even into the 1920's Judo was also known as 'Kano Jujitsu' (I have an English book from 1930's with that title). Is it not possible that this was also a reason why BJJ was referred to as JJ not Judo?
:Very likely not one I'd heard but not surprising --Nate1481( t/c) 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made this kind of comment before... even Kodokan Judo stated that Judo started as Kano's ryu of Jiu-jitsu. So that, in a sense, Judo is/was Kano's Jiu-Jitsu. There was no differentiation about Judo and Jiu-Jitsu in the beginning of the XX century until the middle, at least not outside japan. Read Mitsuyo Maeda article to see how international newspapers always called Kodokan judoka as Jiu-Jitsu world champions :-). Regards. Loudenvier 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Judo= Kano Ju-jitsu

message: I have myself passed by this custom. It's very common here in Brazil. It's analogous to the old Judo custom of being choked-out by the sensei when receiving the black belt, now almost forgotten. Sometimes it is not applied inside the mat, everyone just waits to get the unlucky but happy graduated in the washroom, where he would have dressed out his gi and the hits with the belt would hurt more. Not very nice, but no one complained much since receiving a graduation more than counts for the pain. But, even this being true, for a wikipedia entry it should be backed-up by an external reference. Can anyone provide one? Loudenvier 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it myself in the UK but it's going to be hell to source, a BJJ article in Black belt magazine possibly? As I said was going to let the removal go till I saw the edit summary. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduation 

message: The change made with this diff  again implie a direct lineage from Japanese jujutsu to bjj without judo, going to revert as we've had this discussion's before, and I believe Helio holds rank with the Kodokan!  --Nate1481( t/c) 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gracies & judo. 

message: Removed this as its asking for adverts --Nate1481( t/c) 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations section 

message: I restored the paragraph comparing Kosen Judo with BJJ that was deleted by an anonymous user. If you think that paragraph is incorrect, please provide  areference to current Kosen Judo rules that show that Hikikomi (disallowed in BJJ) is no longer allowed in Kosen Judo or in any schools of Japanese jujutsu.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user has deleted that paragraph again, so I have restored it. It's a valid comparison, showing the range of emphasis of three similar sports, ranging from Kodokan Judo, to BJJ, to Kosen Judo. If factually incorrect, please provide information to the contrary.  --David Broadfoot 08:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Kosen 

message: <-Major/minor thing was added back, that I could live with but including wrestling based on a single lock is nonsense. Especially as I highly doubt the lock was exclusive to wrestling. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. That lock (ude-garami) existed in the old judo and jujutsu, and the so-caled Kimura is a variation of it. Ude-garami didn't come from wrestling. Wrestling either got it from judo, or, more likely, developed it independently. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to list every art that may have contributed one or two techniques. I'm still unaware of any technique introduced to BJJ from jujutsu that didn't arrive via judo, so that 'minor' origin should also be omitted. The correct wikipedia way to handle any contentious issues like this is to provide references to back up the claims. I have thus introduced references now to back up the claim that BJJ derived from Kodokan Judo. So now if anyone wants to assert any other influences, they need to provide suitable references.  --David Broadfoot 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I reverted the cross training reference to be "Judo" rather than "Judo and Wrestling" as all my experience shows that to be the case. Note, I am only referring to BJJ cross training - not MMA or no-gi submission. I think you would need some statistics to justify including Wrestling in that claim. David Broadfoot 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but speaking as a BJJ and Judo practitioner, wrestling is just as common as Judo for BJJ cross-training. No-gi BJJ is still looked at as BJJ by the way (points for passing the guard, obtaining mount, advantages for submission attempts - if it's gi-less it's still BJJ), as contrasted to no-gi submission fighting under, say, catch wrestling rules. I don't think the wrestling mention needs any more referencing than the Judo. FlowWTG 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our experiences are probably different because we are in different countries then. I was never happy with referencing either as cross-training arts - it's not relevant enough to BJJ itself, and it's rather obvious as it is written (what is of slightly more interest is that the rate of cross-training between judo and BJJ is reportedly rising.) I will delete the references to cross-training - people can 'undo' if they disagree. One can argue, however, that no-BJJ is not true BJJ (as much as no-gi judo is not true judo) because the official rules for both sports clearly make reference to the gi  - both are threfore variations (I practice both judo and BJJ, and I practice both with gi and without.)  David Broadfoot 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross training 

message: We currently have 6 linked & more may get added any one know which ones are better so we can trim down to 1 or 2? --Nate1481( t/c) 08:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected that there might not have been any simple answer to your question. However, I checked all the school directories for BJJ in Australia, for example, and there were two clear winners: grapplingarts.com and onthemat.com both listed most of the the major schools, whereas the other directories were not very useful at all. Grapplingarts.com has 1463 entries wordlwide, and onthemat.com seems to have a similar number. Perhaps someone else might want to check some other countries. Paring it down to those two would have the added advantage that some switched-on schools wouls target those two directories on the basis that they are the ones linked to from wikipedia. I think, however, that it might also be a good idea to list all the directories in a new 'schools' section under Martial Arts. That would provide a useful service for people there. But for BJJ, it might be just those two.   --David Broadfoot 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Directories