PDA

View Full Version : BJJ and Nei jia = Brothers in arms?



Pages : [1] 2

Empty.Hands
7/05/2006 5:39pm,
http://contactsparring.blogspot.com/

The latest blog entry compares Nei Jia (internal martial arts like Ba Gua) to BJJ, and uses it to explain (poorly IMO) how Matt Hughes really didn't beat Royce Gracie, but Royce was just conserving energy, and waiting for his moment to strike. Have a read I will leave the judgements up to you guys. Personally I think it is a load of :bsflag:

Ja

Rei

Cullion
7/05/2006 5:41pm,
A more interesting link between IMA and BJJ can be found by googling on 'Tim Cartmell'.

Yrkoon9
7/05/2006 6:02pm,
Yeah.

The guy is an uniformed idiot. Sounds like he spent 10 years doing IM and then got turned on to the UFC's and is somehow trying to rationalize his training. I am absolutely positive the guy has no MMA or real fighting experience if he thinks that none of Hughes punches really landed.

The guy is a Royce nuthugger and IM apologist too boot. He sickens me.

If you go on to read the crap about Tito/Ken you realize how fucked up this idiot really is when he says that Ken is the better fighter.

G8
7/05/2006 6:08pm,
"Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Principles of Nei Jia;" an entire book could be written on this subject alone. Unfortunately there are only a handfull of Martial Artists that i know of (myself included), who study both and understand how remarkably similar in principle (though not in approach), they are.. ...
Now the most obvious difference is that BJJ pays no attention to "Chi" (or "Ki" for the Japanese Aikido practicioners).

no, I'm pretty sure the most obvious difference is that BJJ works ...

Lane
7/07/2006 2:45am,
"Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Principles of Nei Jia;" an entire book could be written on this subject alone. Unfortunately there are only a handfull of Martial Artists that i know of (myself included), who study both and understand how remarkably similar in principle (though not in approach), they are.. ...
Now the most obvious difference is that BJJ pays no attention to "Chi" (or "Ki" for the Japanese Aikido practicioners).

no, I'm pretty sure the most obvious difference is that BJJ works ...


Perhaps there is a connection between BJJ's efficacy and its lack of focus on "chi"?

The biggest BS flag is this:


there are only a handfull of Martial Artists that i know of (myself included)

Self-aggrandizing guru syndrome is a major, major indicator that whatever follows is going to be bullshit.

MartialArtN00b
7/07/2006 12:47pm,
Im told to sit in a kneeling position at an hour at time everyday to improve my base because i get swept like dirt. Right now, i find it difficult because sitting on my instep is painful, and im not flexible enough to sit on the balls of my feet either.

Which isnt at all different from when i used to sit in horse stance for long periods. Of course back then it was to 'promote chi circulation' or to 'strenghten my legs'. The end result was neither really, but it gave me a standing base.

I detest neijia theory. It gives outdated, grandiose and complex explanations for the most simplest activity with simple goals in mind.

And in my mind, if kungfu trashed all those theories/weird classification and rampant use of vague metaphor today, kungfu as a whole would be infinitely better off tomorrow.

I swear to god that john locke had it right when he said metaphors==the suck.

Goju - Joe
7/07/2006 12:50pm,
Neija is like a lotus blossom floating on a pool of excriment.

How's that for deep thought!

Killing Moon
7/07/2006 12:52pm,
Im told to sit in a kneeling position at an hour at time everyday to improve my base because i get swept like dirt. Right now, i find it difficult because sitting on my instep is painful, and im not flexible enough to sit on the balls of my feet either.

Which isnt at all different from when i used to sit in horse stance for long periods. Of course back then it was to 'promote chi circulation' or to 'strenghten my legs'. The end result was neither really, but it gave me a standing base.

I detest neijia theory. It gives outdated, grandiose and complex explanations for the most simplest activity with simple goals in mind.

And in my mind, if kungfu trashed all those theories/weird classification and rampant use of vague metaphor today, kungfu as a whole would be infinitely better off tomorrow.

I swear to god that john locke had it right when he said metaphors==the suck.

I agree mostly.

UpaLumpa
7/07/2006 1:07pm,
This guy is a dipshit.
To say that fight was stoped early is absolute ignorance.

hl1978
7/07/2006 3:11pm,
I'd argue that internal martial arts has a lot more to do with fighting on the ground than most would think, same for standup as well.

Look at how a guy who has done the stuff for years and years moves, who can no longer rely simply on powering a technique. Instead they rely on body mechanics that they have learned over the years.

Now imagine what somebody who is young, who has that internal knowledge and has a good deal of strength can do. Thats where some IMA knowledge seems to shortcut. In most cases people seems to pick the stuff up eventually, but it never seems to be explicitly taught, thats where some IMA type training can be useful.

A good example is a golf swing, someone who has a great golf swing relies on body mechanics far more than simply hiting as hard as possible.

Note, I am not arguing that bodymechanics trumphs technique or muscular power, merely that a great grasp of bodymechancs enhances both.

G8
7/07/2006 3:28pm,
Note, I am not arguing that bodymechanics trumphs technique or muscular power, merely that a great grasp of bodymechancs enhances both.

what, pray tell, is the difference between "body mechanics" and "technique"?

hl1978
7/07/2006 3:38pm,
what, pray tell, is the difference between "body mechanics" and "technique"?

Technique is simply the action itself, wether a punch, choke etc.

Body mechanics is what is going on in the rest of the body besides the limbs involved in the technique itself. Think skeletal alingment, involvment of other muscle groups, weight transfer etc. This also results in more force beling delivered into your opponent instead of back into you. If you want to see it from an engineering viewpoint just google "free body diagram."

Going back to the golf swing analogy, the body mechanics behind the swing involves more than just using the muscles of the arms.

If you want a better discussion of it, ask Upyu, he has a far better grasp of it than me and how to apply it to ground fighting.

G8
7/07/2006 3:52pm,
as to your example, of course the body mechanics of a golf swing involve far more than the use of the arms alone. the hips, the head, the wrists etc. are all crucially involved--but the totality of that body involvement IS the technique; you can't isolate it to the arm muscles, and no instructor would ever try to do so. the same is true of any groundfighting application--proper alignment and integration of virtually every part of the body is critical to the success of an armbar, a sweep, a triangle etc. you can't sensibly parse technique as just "the limbs involved." if your entire body doesn't know what it's doing, your technique is going to be ****, period. I simply don't get the distinction you're trying to draw.

hl1978
7/07/2006 4:03pm,
as to your example, of course the body mechanics of a golf swing involve far more than the use of the arms alone. the hips, the head, the wrists etc. are all crucially involved--but the totality of that body involvement IS the technique; you can't isolate it to the arm muscles, and no instructor would ever try to do so. the same is true of any groundfighting application--proper alignment and integration of virtually every part of the body is critical to the success of an armbar, a sweep, a triangle etc. you can't sensibly parse technique as just "the limbs involved." if your entire body doesn't know what it's doing, your technique is going to be ****, period. I simply don't get the distinction you're trying to draw.


Ok, outside of internal martial arts, I haven't heard any instructor make any distinction regarding alignment of the spine, being aware what is going on in your upper body when using your lower body and vice versa. That is to say the result of preforming the technique on your own body rather than only on your opponents and involving far more core strength.


Looking at highly experienced guys, they all seem to do it, so it seems to be something they pick up on their own, rather than being taught.

A far better discussion of the topic can be found in the following thread:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26158

Its basically along the lines of what Arsenio Advicula taught while coaching the Chargers back in the 80's. While attending the seminar, he said that the guys who made the connection of what he was teaching had longer careers on average than those who didn't.

Perhaps the following comment might clarify it a bit?


Johnny,

I think that's because people are often looking for specific techniques, which is fair enough - using the trick/game/exercise shown in the video clip as an example, you're never going to get anyone in a real fight into that position, so what's the point of practicing like that?

The answer is that the exercise, as artificial as the set-up is, teaches a skill-set that can be applied to plenty of techniques. For one thing, you can't succeed as the defender in that exercise if you're trying to out-muscle the other guy. It literally forces you to employ core strength rather than, say, just arm and shoulder strength, and to connect the power bases of the lower and upper bodies together. Likewise, if you master the exercise, you develop a keen sense of tactile sensitivity, balance, leverage and especially of combining all of these into redirections; tricking the opponent into over-committing his weight and momentum, and how to take advantage of that by turning, suddenly yielding, etc.

Every martial art from Aikido to BJJ uses those principles in a wide range of techniques, but they are usually taught and learned by osmosis - if the student gets good enough at the techniques, they eventually pick up the principle by default. Along the way, though, many people struggle with aspects of the techniques for various reasons, most commonly because they are relying more on sheer muscle power than on posture/alignment/"feeling" etc. supported by muscle power. Exercises like that shown in the video can be a short cut to understanding these principles because they isolate the basic mechanics.

The real "trick" is to explain and teach these exercises in a way that clarifies the connection between general principle and specific technique; if that doesn't happen, then the exercise often becomes simple showmanship.

G8
7/07/2006 4:18pm,
I've never participated in, seen, or heard of any sport or MA that didn't stress the importance of overall body mechanics to the proper execution of technique. I'm a good golfer, a former college tennis player, swim coach & baseball player; I've lifted weights, boxed, trained a bit in judo, wasted three years in TKD, gotten my blue in BJJ, and played the usual amount of HS basketball, football & the like. I can't think of a single one of those in which serious, competent training doesn't emphasize the vital role of overall body mechanics to performance. Are you hinting at the existence of some secret "internal knowledge" that enhaces performance?

CMack11
7/07/2006 4:35pm,
I haven't heard any instructor make any distinction regarding alignment of the spine, being aware what is going on in your upper body when using your lower body and vice versa. That's funny. One of the first things a purple belt taught me about BJJ was that it's like being a drummer in a band--most of the time your arms and legs will be doing something completely different, but both are needed in order to perform the technique.