Random thoughts or the joys of Empiricism

**NoMan** · Posted On: 2/25/2006 9:09pm

This is simply my commentary on a few related threads I've browsed through. I've seen people argue on various threads something along the lines of this:

(fictionalized) Does BJJ or Judo own the only rights to grappling? Other martial arts can do it too, no matter how ridiculous that picture may look!

Well, there's a certain thing about sciences, including fighting. (Which relies upon physics, biomechanics, and physiology, all hard sciences.) The same thing often gets independently discovered. For example, both Newton and Leipniz discovered calculus independently. Both Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin discovered evolution. Three different geneticists at almost the same time discovered Mendelian laws of inheritance.

In the case of martial arts, the same way to do an armlock in Sambo is the same as in Hapkido is the same as in Judo is the same as in BJJ. Remarkably, I found the same thing applied to boxing and Muay Thai. The two systems throw punches almost exactly the same, though they evolved independently of each other. (*)

In other words, two systems that use the same method of fighting often resemble each other because the constraints of the laws of the universe. There is only one way to maximize the power of a punch while protecting the face from getting hit in return. Thus, both systems keep the elbows tucked in, the chin down, and rotate the hip into any punch.

Thus, when one sees a system of "crappling", as it has been called, it does not matter what system that person or people may be claiming. The same principles of the human body apply to all martial arts equally, and those martial arts must deal with those principles, or else face the consequences of failure. Every system of grappling will do a kimura the same, because every human body has the same joints, bones, and ligaments.

On another thread, the concept of belt-testing has come up. As a marketing tool, I can tell you that belting has many advantages. I also know this empirically. I am a boxing/grappling coach at a college. Technically, I'm the coach of the grappling team, but my sensei, (2nd dan in Judo, brown belt in BJJ **), actually teaches it.

By our commandant's order, (I work at a military academy), we cannot compete. Under his impression, boxing and brazilian jujitsu are highly dangerous martial arts that will, (not might), lead to injuring a participant in any competition. Not being allowed to compete has seriously hurt my boxers and grapplers, and it is a complete demotivator for training.

Meanwhile, we also have a Tae Kwon Do team. My classes participation has been dropping steadily, as has TKDs. However, about two weeks ago TKD did belt testing, and suddenly, their numbers have surged.

I imagine that since the average person that joins most of these martial arts does not want to compete, they want a belt or something to show for their time. So, I completely sympathize with the switch into belting. I just don't like it for another reason. I heard people tell me 'black belt in Muay Thai' and I always thought that meant bullshido. It ranked right there with "my chi can prevent any chokeout" or "my fists are registered lethal weapons" in my bullshido checklist. I would hate to have to change my checklist after having it ingrained for so many years.

That's all.

(* I haven't seen many hooks in Muay Thai, presumably because they possess better short-range attacks than are allowed in boxing.)

(** The head of Brazilian Jujitsu in New Jersey made a brown belt in his system. I'm not sure how common this is. His name is David Lentz if you want to look him up on bjj.org)