Is BJJ just a fad?

**ajaxman** · Posted On: 9/16/2008 12:26pm

No. It's not a fad.

It's there to stay and it's been around since the days when the first generation Gracies (Helio and Carlos) were fighting.

It is proven effective for 1 to 1 confrontations. Also more importantly, there is much more rigid control regarding rankings (a BJJ Black Belt is not easily earned) than arts like Karate, Kung Fu and TKD, which were all corrupted with McDojos so you can smoke out the fake BJJ BB's easier than other arts as it has a strict lineage.

**mcfc98** · Posted On: 10/17/2008 11:04pm

I'd say it's current jump in popularity coinciding with the upsurge of the marketing going on with UFC etc. puts it squarely in the fad zone. Fad to me suggests bandwagon jumping and I'm sure there's plenty of that going on. It's cost to train in from what I can see in comparison to other arts also suggests this is going on atm.

It's kind of putting me off it to some extent as I never like to be one of the "me too" brigade. That being said it's clearly effective in it's application so I'd be stupid to ignore that.

**foxguitar** · Posted On: 10/18/2008 7:01am

While I think it is effective , I do think that this is BJJ's moment in the sun ,
Just as Karate and Judo once was when GIs were returning from tours of duty in Japan and Okinawa just like Kung Fu was when Bruce Lee was da bomb , then Taekwondo when it became an olympic sport.

That said there will be always be something new just around the corner.

**BudoMonkey** · Posted On: 10/18/2008 9:14am

That's true, Fox. At the same time though, if you look at it all of those fads were based on trends, not effectiveness.

What a I think SHOULD differentiate BJJ is that it is not a movie star or a trend that popularized it's success, instead the fact that finally all of the arts were brought against eachother to see which one was the most effective and that BJJ prevailed. For that reason alone, even as the newer fads come into play, it will hopefully not fade from the spotlight.

People should remember that ****.

I would say this, moreso than a fad, is an evolution in the way that your everyday man sees the training of martial arts. It's widespread exposure means that damn near everyone now realizes that they need to train groundwork too if they have any chance of surviving and training in a credible, practical style.

**Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs** · Posted On: 10/18/2008 9:37am

I voted no (strange that I missed this thread).

The personal reasons for this are:

1) It's a MA that can stand on it's own, even with the limitations of no stricking.

2) It's perfect interchangeble with Judo thru their common history.

3) From all the grappling styles it's the fasted to adapt to stay effective, so even if there will be next year something new around the corner, BJJ will be adapted.

4) High quality control within the BJJ community.

**foxguitar** · Posted On: 10/18/2008 10:02am

Yes ,but all the arts are effective in the hands of a proficient practioneer. and also not knocking BJJ , I do think it is a very worthwhile art. And I do plan on eventually getting into it . It went up against other arts in a sport like setting , true it is a "realistic" as real could get in a sport setting . There were rules. no eye gouges. No groin strikes or what have you.

But that said BJJ has my respect.

**TheMarquis** · Posted On: 10/18/2008 1:39pm

The main thing is, from the limited bits of it's history I know (was purely a vertical fighter - now getting into Ju-Jitsu)... it just works dammit!
Sure I know that there are other techniques and that - but when one technique is taught with the mindset of adaptability and acceptance that other techniques can work alongside it, or even be assimilated into the body of the MA in question...
Then it makes it a very progressive and evolving MA.

which, as long as the governing bodies thereof continue to perpetuate this mindset - can only continue to move forward.

I'm reminded of what I was told by a friend of mine who does Karate: his instructor got the class to go through one of the kata in a more flowing style borrowing from the movements of the soft form of tai chi....

It added more difficulty to the kata as the legs and arms where being tested under endurance and not speed... by all accounts even the higher graded members found it a trying and difficult exercise.

The forward thinking is a notion that many an MA (as they are taught in some classes) would benefit from.

**marcusdbrutus** · Posted On: 10/19/2008 11:26pm

Originally Posted by Zendokan

I voted no (strange that I missed this thread).

The personal reasons for this are:

1) It's a MA that can stand on it's own, even with the limitations of no stricking.

Doesn't G'nP count as striking?

**Kentucky Fried Chokin** · Posted On: 10/19/2008 11:35pm

Originally Posted by marcusdbrutus

Doesn't G'nP count as striking?

You roll with strikes at your gym? Do they teach striking in your BJJ class? I didn't think so.

**Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 1:52pm

Originally Posted by marcusdbrutus

Doesn't G'nP count as striking?

Ground 'n Pound is a MMA technique, not a BJJ one.

I know that alot BJJers also compete in MMA, so it could be that your instructor is showing MMA techniques on the side.
But BJJ doesn't include striking.