Talk:Brazilian jiu-jitsu/Archive 1

Recommendations (First Draft)
The purposes of these recommendations are to:


 * 1) plan a layout and structure for the article to facilitate orderly and mutually agreed upon development;
 * 2) discuss maintaining a neutral point of view especial with regarding to other martial arts;
 * 3) improve the quality of the content;
 * 4) explain what Aesopian is going to be doing to this article unless someone gives him a good reason not to. ;-)

Note: Obviously, these are just recommendations.

If you disagree with anything writen here, you are in no way obligated to follow these recommendations; this is Wikipedia after all. I do ask though that if you do not want to follow these recommendations that you please leave a comment as to why. These recommendations were written with the best of intentions in the direction of following all standards and policies set by Wikipedia and community at large. Any and all comments on and changes to these recommendations are highly appreciated and encouraged.

Outline and Structure
Below is a proposed structure for the article. In this first draft, specifics and details were intentionally omitted to avoid overdrawing the scope of these initial recommendations. It is hoped that other Wikipedians will contribute to this outline themselves, adding and subtracting from it until a concensus agreement is reached on which sections are needed and which are not.

Expect this list to be modified and expanded in later versions of these recommendations, and feel free to make these changes yourself.


 * Introduction
 * History
 * Uniform
 * Grading
 * Techniques
 * General strategy
 * List of techniques
 * Training methods
 * Drills
 * Competition
 * Rules
 * Notable organizations
 * Notable schools
 * Notable individuals
 * References
 * External links

Achieving and maintaining NPOV
As with most martial arts, and maybe especially with Brazilian jiu jitsu, comparisons to other arts seem inevitable and cause the most violations of NPOV. The safest approach appears to be avoiding such comparisions, or keeping them relevant and to a minimum.

With our article however, there are several arts we cannot avoid as they have historical significance to the development of Brazilian jiu jitsu. These are judo, jiu jitsu and Luta Livre. Whatever is written about these arts should give their relationship to Brazilian jiu jitsu, any major events involving the two (i.e. major fights), how they differ on a technical level, differences between training methods, the difference of competition rules, etc. Special care needs to be taken to avoid personal statements about the superiority or inferiority of any of these arts.

Comparisons to other unrelated arts such as Tae Kwon Do are not really needed. It is the observation of the author that such comparisons usually serve no purpose other than promoting Brazilian jiu jitsu while devaluating the other art. If someone wants to know the differences between Brazilian jiu jitsu and Tae Kwon Do, they can read the article on one then on the other.

Don't take all this to mean that it is impossible to show that one art is better than another while still maintaining NPOV, but such decisions should be made by the reader after he has been presented with the facts and the arguments on all sides, not by opinionated comments of the authors.

Agreeing on a single spelling
As seems to be an issue with the word "jiu jitsu" anywhere you go, it has a half dozen different spellings. Within the article on Brazilian jiu jitsu itself, we have it written "Jiu Jitsu", "Jiu-Jitsu" and "jujitsu". Seeing as this is still up for debate in the jiu jitsu article itself, I don't know if we should make judgment on the issue yet, but I thought it would be a good point to keep in mind.


 * What spelling would a Brazilian practitioner use when writing in his native language? Brasileira de jiu jitsu or something? Since this is an Brazilian art, I don't think it is important to use the correct Japanese spelling j&#363;jutsu, that I'm advocating for articles related to traditional Japanese martial arts. Several other Wikipedians (see User:Chameleon's writings) maintain that since this is an English language encyclopedia, the most prevalent form in English should be used, but I'm not very keen on that policy myself. Especially in this case, where the supposedly "correct" English version jujitsu (or what was it?) is a historical misromanization. jni 15:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
Pictures of someone in uniform and someone in competition would be a wonderful addition.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu community website
I am trying to add a social networking site exclusively for the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA community that we've worked very hard to build and the link gets taken down? Why? I added it to the LAST external link so as not to be obtrusive as it is in it's earliest stages and doesn't have tons of users or content...yet. The domain is BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com. I am a practitioner of BJJ and the site has and will provide a lot of value to the community. I apologize if this is not the proper place to post this comment as I am a novice to wiki based communication. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.61.162.155 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it's not here for adverts. see WP:EL--Nate1481 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blame all this on Aesopian
These recommendations are entirely open to change and correction. Just have at it or and leave a comment, and I'll be happy to work it out with you. So you know, I am planning on reworking the article myself to agree with the recommendations as they stand now.

Thanks for reading. Thanks even more if you contribute.

Aesopian 04:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History
Some important points in the history that are currenting lacking:


 * Clear explainations of who Maeda was, what he studied and what he taught the Gracies. More information available at:
 * http://www.bjjfighter.com/History/
 * Address the issue of Maeda actually teaching a form of judo.
 * Clearer explaination of the development of Brazilian jiu jitsu as an independent martial art, such as Helio frailty and inclination towards ground fighting, and its history in Brazilian Vale tudo.
 * Helio's fame as a professional fighter.
 * Helio's fights against Japanese judoka Kato and Masahiko Kimura. Information can be found at:
 * http://www.judoinfo.com/kimura2.htm (Near end of article)
 * http://www.judoinfo.com/helio.htm
 * Contention with Luta Livre
 * The Gracie Challenge
 * The creation of sport jiu-jitsu rules and competitions.

Aesopian 19:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good news. I put an explaination of the art that influenced Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. It's breif, but it's helpful. By the time you read this, there will also be links to Kimura and fights against other judo practitioners.

Comments from inside article
in the techniques section, the last paragraph says: "The main emphasis in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is to dominate the opponent through skillful application of technique and force them to quit (submit). By using the techniques of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, a smaller practitioner, male or female, can control much larger and stronger opponents and actually force that larger opponent to submit." I feel this information is repeated multiple times in the article, and although pertinent, does not add to the article in its current placement and should probably jsut be removed outright. Shaggorama 13:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Below is the content that was commented out of the article (with HTML comments). I'm moving it here so I don't have to worry about navigating between them while working on the page.'''

--Aesopian 19:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I would have just deleted the follow bit on Taekwondo, but I felt I would leave it until there is some agreement on the Talk page about handing this type of POV content. Aesopian

This is very different to many sport-oriented systems (WTF Taekwondo is the most often cited example for this) where the student is tested every few weeks and awarded their black belt in 1.5 to 2 years without ever testing their actual combat effectiveness against other fighters. This makes for the debatable practice within these styles of awarding black belts to children. In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, the belt is a ranking of a fighter's skill as demonstrated in head to head contests and tournament competition. (see also Kyokushin Kai karate)

A martial art by definition is the art of war. In war, the enemy must be dominated and in the end, stopped or eliminated. Playing tag for points is fine as a sport but in the end, a real fight does not stop for points to be awarded. A real fight rarely stops after the first punch or kick. In a real fight, the opponents will usually end up on the ground.

dead wrong and inappropriate (so much for the NPOV!), the whole tone of this entry is unprofessional and, sadly, gives credence to the "thug" stereotype that BJJ is stuck with, but I'll just comment out the outright inaccuracies for the time being

Both BJJ and Judo originated from traditional Japanese Jujitsu. Both are very similar with possibly the most glaring difference as follows. In Judo, the throws are emphasized. In BJJ, the submission is king. This is not to say there are no submissions in Judo or that there are no throws in BJJ simply that the training emphasis is different for both. Also, in Judo, a shoulder pin is a valid end of a fight. In BJJ, there are only 3 possible endings to a fight - knockout, physical damage rendering the opponent unable to continue, or making the opponent quit. This last option would only be offered to opponents in training or competition not in actual combat where the techniques would be applied to completion.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is a proven, combat effective martial art and may indeed be one of the last true martial arts in existence.

Damn wrong, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is highly impractical or dangerous when used as a general purpose martial arts for self-defense in live situation. It can't handle >1 opponents, can't be used indoor (e.g. staircase, room with furniture), cutting off your own escape path by lying on the ground.


 * You´re are basing your views on sport jiu-jitsu/MMA only. BJJ is much more than that. It´s also a self defense discipline which is taught in every serious BJJ school. It also have strikes and takedowns offense and defense. What you´re are telling is that Judo too is impratical or dangerous as a general purpose martial art. I think you´re missing the point here. BJJ and Judo both give you flexibility and confidence to fight standing or on the ground. Just by being able to avoid takedowns can save your day. In places where there are staircases, if you throw your opponent, well, the fight is over. And yes, you can dig your way to escape with jiu-jitsu if you are not stupid enough to lay down and try to play guard game. But there is always the wrong schools where atemi (stand-up striking), self defense and common sense :-) is not taught! Loudenvier 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * on the above comments.... there is a lot of hype cause brazilian jiu-jitsu gains fame over the years cause of competitions and this article is a good way to clear that all up. what people are forgetting is that Judo and brazilian jiu-jitsu are very much alike... the difference is that Judo is about development of the spirit.  the reason brazilian jiu-jitsu is called a "jitsu" is cause it's not about spiritual development like judo.  the techniques are all the same physically in traditional judo and brazilian jiu-jitsu.  it's the teachers that give them definition as far as scope goes.  like how judo can be used for group situations but brazilian jiu-jitsu cannot.  this is cause in judo they teach you to get things done quickly and that allows you to manuever around numerous assailants.  brazilian jiu-jitsu focuses on tricking someone into a leverage and tricking someone into things usually isnt something you have time to do especially in a group situation.  like the guard position.  it leaves someone locked facing the person in the guard so they have nowhere to go except the open arms where the one in the guard can manipulate the arm that goes that direction.  that sure doesnt work during a group situation and sometimes doesnt work well against someone who doesnt stop punching.  it doesnt take 20/20 vision to realize with someones legs wrapped around you, they cant use their legs to guard any vital organs especially between your legs.  and getting hit when you're on the ground is like getting hit twice.  almost any martial art works against someone who isnt trained.  when it's between Judo and brazilian jiu-jitsu, Judo training is a lot more rounded and more complete between the two.  i'm sure Helio Gracie knew that when he fought Kimura.  if you havent seen the fight, it's easy to find.  i've seen the whole fight and everything helio did was Judo pound for pound.  just as someone said theres a difference between MMA brazilian jiu-jitsu, and practical, the same goes with Judo.  theres a LOT more practicing sport judo than there is of the traditional.  before you compare the arts, make sure you find a legit source for traditional Judo or Jiu-do.

And it's definately not "the last true martial art" in exsistance. There's tons of martial art's out there. Most of the martial arts people are familiar with are knock-offs and modifications anyway. Martial arts aren't fading away. People are ignoring them. Commercial martial arts have been in the spotlight for too long. If anything, commercial martial arts will take over in america but that definately wont speak for pure martial arts as long as there are places like okinawa and shaolin schools. Hell, be the first to change it. Start working on making martial arts whole again. that'll learn 'em. Down with commercial karate and so on!!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!
List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

brazilian jiu-jitsu and/or gracie jiu-jitsu
i just added back into the article the recent deletion of the phrase, "also known as Gracie Jiu-Jitsu (GJJ)" from the opening paragraph. in the early 90s when i first learned this martial art, it was always called gracie jiu-jitsu. it was not until it started gaining much popularity from the ufc and other ppv events that the more general brazilian jiu-jitsu term came into widespread use (among martial artist and fans anyway). i think it is important for an article about brazilian jiu-jitsu to mention that it is also known to many as gracie jiu-jitsu. at the very least it needs to say that this was the original name because as the article already mentions it was developed by and in the begining thaught mostly gracie family members. uri budnik 09:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it has grown past this exclusive moniker as other sources have contributed greatly to the development of the sport and art of BJJ. The article already references the Gracies as the originators in the history section. --Malathion 20:01, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Competition?
The BJJ article seems to have a lot of information and background on the history and techniques involved but it does not appear to make any reference at all to the competitive element. There are two elements to this, firstly that BJJ fighters (Royce) made such an impact on Mixed Martial Arts competitions and secondly that there are World Champions in BJJ. I have raised this here as I am not yet familiar enough with wikipedia to know whether the sport element should be included in the martial art section and I don't want to come into any conflict with a martial arts project template. MLA 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * well, i think that knowing the subject is more important than knowing the wikipedia. give yourself a little time to get better aquainted with it: the customs, rules, the general way in which this community works and then you can come back and better contribute to this (and other) articles. i recomend you start by reading articles in the areas you are interested in and then look at the talk pages and at this history. its interesting to watch how the articles evolve over time. uri budnik 04:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

ay todos ustedes el gracie jiuijitsu y el brazileno es los mismo nomas es ce los gracies asi le llamane a so estilo porque ellos lo iventallo: translation : gracie jiujitsu is the sam thing its just that they call it that cause its their style they invented it Hello, could someone please help me. The article vitor riberio is misspelled; it should be ribeiro. Also, maybe add his nickname to the page name or the article, "Shaolin." I was not able to do this myself because I could not and cannot locate the Move feature on my Quick Bar. Sheesh, thanks...AvoNuK 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Couple of Points
Firstly, I'm not sure I would consider boxing a combat art. What do other people think of this? Plenty of traditional martial arts punch people in the face as well.

Secondly "Sparring is considered essential to your progression and sessions are held at the end of every class."

That sentence seems a little too particular to a school or type of class. I've been to plenty of classes that were structured differently, so I don't think it has a place in this article.

Also, I get the feeling some of the other material under Grading isn't quite in the right tone, although I think the content is fine.

Bihal 03:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * how about this:
 * One of the things that separates Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu from other martial arts is the importance of competition. Many schools use sparring as an integral part of the teaching process and encourage students to pair up and participate in open practice at the end of each class. Most American Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu schools do not include striking until students are advanced; furthermore, submissions do not require punching, therefore students can practice at close to 100% without fear of injuring his or her opponent. For example, most "matches" during training start with the opponets facing each other but on their knees (as opposed to standing up) to lessen the possibility of someone being hurt in a takedown. Many say that this constant training against live, fully resisiting opponents sets it apart from other traditional martial arts.
 * (1) i'm not really happy with "practice at close to 100%" perhaps someone can think of a better way of saying this. (2) the example i use may not really fit in this paragraph. it seems to take it slighly off point. (3) my comments about "most American Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu schools..." is based on a very limited sample size, and from a long time ago. if this is not accurate anymore please suggest accordingly uri budnik 20:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The current version looks good. Let's consider the issue resolved... CasualFighter 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Anon: Fusen ryu jujitsu
I think since there were no references given on the discussion page, and it was from an anonymous user, that it is best to err on the side of caution and leave it as it was. If anyone thinks differently, let me know by putting a comment here. Bihal 05:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, it's part of a very dishonest attempt to try to repackage Maeda as a Fusen JJ player, not a judoka representing the Kodokan. KingMob 02:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

School Issue
I don't know if it's wise to include a listing of schools. Who is to say what is a relevant school and what is not? I don't believe that Wiki was ever supposed to be as much of an advertising listing. KingMob 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, list should be a small sample of high quality web sites representing the typical BJJ school for the uninformed. It would be like listing McDonalds and Burger King under Fast Food. Jimmy C. 17:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Right now that section looks an incomplete version of BJJ World Yellow Pages.. So, I say, let's abandon individual school listings and include a couple of links to internet BJJ school directories instead. CasualFighter 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * United States section. This one is the worst offender. I agree with Jimmy's opinion - let's do some major clean-up. I would actually advocate removing all US schools to avoid appearance of favoritism, and including a link to a couple of Internet find-a-BJJ-school resources.
 * Countries with 1-3 school listings. At first, I thought that it might be good to leave these in.. But on second thought, we really shouldn't try to be in the International Yellow Pages business.

All right, I'll give it another week, and then clean up the schools directory per my post above unless there are disagreements...CasualFighter 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! CasualFighter 21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) You can find the old school listings at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu/Schools for now. CasualFighter 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Martial arts category for Wikipedians
A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your own user page:

Shawnc 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph in the techniques section.
"Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is designed for one-on-one fighting." What exactly is this line trying to say? That other arts are designed to win agaisnt multiple opponent or something? Or that BJJ will absolutely not work in anything more than 1 on 1? Shardakar 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu techniques, however, are extremely flashy (look good but usually don't work) and time-consuming. Practitioners are known for being very proud and refusing to admit there are faults in the Gracie method (and all Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu systems in general) as well as neglecting some techniques like small joint manipulations and attacking vital areas which are looked down upon in this style.

What in the world is this?

I noticed someone removed that paragraph. Don't worry. I rephrased it and put it back with a link to verify the information. Also happens to be BJJ.org. i also noticed the elaborate praising of this style has been removed as well. i wont argue with the editors decisions. i didnt see a point in putting all the glory and none of the failures anyway. Even the Karate articles make mention of commercial Karate. I'm glad someone cleaned up this article. Also the dates for all those championships and winners of would save someone a lot of internet searching if they were put on this article and clear up any confusion in case someone thinks they're still undefeated to this day.

The link is broken, and the paragraph still is completely non-neutral and in poor style - for example, the "Practicioners are known..." statement is illegitimate without something to back this statement up. I'm going to remove it for now, as I don't see it as being useful, but if somebody feels it necessary to add this information back in a more neutral fashion that would seem fine. Lateralus1587 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

UFC Rules in grapplers favor?
"The success of BJJ versus the other martial arts has been attributed primarily to the rules of competitions falling in a grapplers favor(example: no hitting the spine)"

In the early UFC's, hitting the spine was indeed allowed. In UFC2, you couldn't even get disqualified by biting, you would only get a fine. I'll change this to "example: no biting" though.
 * Vale Tudo fights, which is much more vicious than UFC ever was allowed every kind of hit, including the spine or neck. BJJ was the most succesfull martial art into Vale Tudo, and is one of the most successfull in MMA today. By the way, a grappler would not expose his spine if such hits were allowed, and even while exposed it's hard to land a devastating blow to the spine while defending a take-down. So please, stop adding this kind of nonsense about rules, and saying that BJJ succes has been attributed PRIMARLY to the rules: you are denying history and currenct facts and statistics, and even worse: not citing a reliable source. Regards Loudenvier 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

you're still adding unnecessary praise to this art. just because he's a brazilian jiu-jitsu black-belt doesnt meant he's unstoppable once he attempts a take-down or a jointlock just as kazushi sakuraba proved who's fought almost every gracie and won every time and yes, they do expose their spines when they go for a shoot or when they're face down on their elbows and knees like when matt hughes fought royce. even so, competitions are not the best way to prove the effectiveness of a martial art as proven by the history of sportsman who practiced martial arts versus men who fight only for their lives which you can find in many martial arts books. the most effective martial arts are battlefield tested like the traditional jujutsu. it's not very informative if you just put what people do right in brazilian jiu-jitsu and not what they do wrong. rickson gracie lost twice to kimura. why isnt that put in the article? royce's wins in ufc are. people are just using this article to express their pride in this art. these articles are not about the people making them. for example, i put up an external link about problems with the brazilian jiu-jitsu method and someone thought it should be deleted yet there's links to the same website but only to the areas that speak good on the art. and one last thing about competitions, you're not aloud to strike someone to put them in a coma. if the spine were struck with enough force to brake a 2x4, the spine would snap and that's grounds for disqualification in competitions at least in the u.s. no one's saying this art is useless, just stating flaws since there is a lot of commercialization today and a lot of people walk the streets thinking they're the best just cause they learned brazilian jiu-jitsu. it's very informative to remind people it's not the most versatile art available. if you guys just keep putting things like "skilled grappler" or "skilled technique" then might as well put kung-fu is the best or karate is the strongest on every article. ... one more thing. the style with the most losses in vale tudo is brazilian jiu-jitsu
 * Well, you made me laugh. Thank you. You´ve choosen the wrong guy to throw up the Kimura fact in the face: I do not differentiate Judo from BJJ. To me they only differ in training emphasis: Newaza vs Tachiwaza (if you don't know what it is go do your homework). Kimura never fought Rickinson, where did you got that info? A devastating blow to the spine is very hard to deliver. It can occur if the defender is on all-fours, which is a position a BJJ will avoid above anything else. The exposed spine and neck you see in many fights are of clumsy takedown attempts. You never saw Yoshida on such exposes stance even tough he lost a good deal of fights. I was never POV towards BJJ, although I practice it, but you are beign POV against it without providing a reliable basis for your claims. Did you saw the fight of Minotauro against Bobb Sapp? Well, your claim that strikes that couldn't put someone in a coma aren't allowed is at least a litle disputed after you saw that fight. I do also think that this articles needs a rewrite because it is inaccurate and with a tone not proper to wikipedia, but it should be written by unbiased people, not by detractors nor advocates of BJJ. Regards Loudenvier 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's on the internet somewhere that Rickson fought Kimura twice or maybe it was one of his students but i read that it was kimura. Of course it's worth a laugh. I put all the negative stuff about the art cause i could tell people were using this article as an ad or using it to boast Brazillian jiu-jitsu and that's just not what it's for. It wouldn't be an informative article without the negative as well.

"based on Chinese principles of leverage (admitted in an interview)"?
The article mentions "based on Chinese principles of leverage (admitted in an interview)". Anyone has any references for that? Which interview? By whom? When? Sounds a bit fishy to me. I used to study GJJ under Helio back in the late 1970's, and Chinese MAs were quite unknown in Brazil back then. There has always been a huge Japanese community in brazil, but we had very few Chinese immigrants back then.

Pictures
Interesting long article here, but pictures of the art in practice would be nice. Colonel Marksman 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) $$Insert formula here$$

YouTube links
This article is one of [ thousands] on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin
I've seen various version on this can we get a consensus here people support. Was Mitsuyo Maeda a jujitsu and judo expert? I've reverted one edit that said he wasn't as else where in the article it says he was. --Nate1481 09:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He was a Judo expert. He was from the Kodokan. He was sent overseas to spread Judo to the western world by Jigoro Kano. In his epoch Judo was a kind of Ju-Jutsu, the Kano Ju-Jutsu. Maeda could use Ju-jutsu as a general term encompasing his Judo. Prior to 1925 Judo was mostly fight on the ground. The triangle choke for example came from Judo (Kosen Judo). All serious sources tell, correctly, that Maeda was a Judo expert, but, since Judo was a school of Jiu-jitsu, he was also a jiu-jitsu expert, get it? Regards Loudenvier 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was the impression I had originally so explicitly stating he was not a JuJitsu expert is misleading, sounds like the most appropriate thing to do would be to state that in the article, something like "he was an expert in Judo, which was still being synthesized from various styles of JuJitsu at the time" --Nate1481 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just read your edits more a less what I had in mind (but better phrased) it might be an idea to mention that the Kodokan curriculum was still under development at the time. --Nate1481 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At that time, Jigoro Kano used to give black belts in Judo for other exponents in other schools of Jiu-jitsu. But Maeda wasn't one of those. He trained in Kodokan Judo almost exclusively. Judo was (and to me it still is) a school of Jiu-Jitsu. Our own sport BJJ is much more like Judo than the old jiu-jitsu schools that Kano used to create his Judo. Randori is the key relation here: old jiu-jitsu schools normally trained with Kata or simulated techniques, BJJ and Judo train with full force in Randori, which is more closely related to real fighting while still protecting its practitioners. That's why the injury rate is so low in both BJJ and Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. BJJ enforces Randori even further, here in Brazil we spent 80% of our training time in Randori (BJJ). Regards Loudenvier 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently the Origin and History, General and History all cover the same ground and could do with merging and re-separating I can try and help but as you seem to have a better back ground knowledge you might be better to do it. --Nate1481 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I´ve noticed that. The entire article seems a great mess of duplicate information. Currently I do not have much spare time at my work to review wikipedia pages and I am without internet connection at home... Even agreeing completely with you there's not much I could do right now. Perhaps somebody else could merge those sections, or, better yet, put the correct info on each one. Regards. Loudenvier 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Put it on WikiProject Martial Arts I'd suggest merge, removing repeats, and splitting under

Done some but needs more --Nate1481 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Over view- What it is now, principles etc.
 * History- Maeda Judo> development by Graces
 * Vale Tudo- how this affected it
 * ? - introduction in the states ufc

Competition and Scoring
There should be a section on Competition and the rules of competitions. Patiwat 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Images
The article could do with a few pictures to break up the text can anyone help? --Nate1481 17:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Carlos vs. Hélio, who is the father of BJJ
There's great misconception among newcomers (anyone born after the 1970s) about who was the actual "father" or founder of BJJ (GJJ). Actually Carlos and Hélio could share 50% each for this. There's no single founder. Contrary to common knowledge Hélio didn't made a quantum leap and discovered the principles of leverage: the art his brother taught him was Judo, which already emphasized leverage instead of raw power. Maeda itself was an example of a small fighter that used leverage and finesse to win his fights. Carlos role as founder of GJJ is sometimes shadowed by Gracie's marketing/hype itself, focusing too much on the Hélio's family branch. Hélio was a hell good of a teacher and fighter, and he and Carlos were the pivotal forces of early BJJ. I own a book about Maeda from a scholar on the history of judo in Brazil that tells the documented history of Maeda and BJJ on its very beginning. I'll be updating Carlos Gracie and Maeda's article to reflect that knowledge soon but I always wanted to make this "founder" issue clear. Regards Loudenvier 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Links
There are two links which are repeatedly being removed form the article by unregistered user(s) with no reason being given. If their is some reason not to have the links fine, but could they at least explain them --Nate1481 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable links
Hi. There are a couple of non-notable links that are always brought back by some unregistered user. These links to Forums or personal websites not symmetrically related to BJJ and as such are not proper links for the External links section. It would be nice if those unregistered users refrain from putting the links back because these reverts are a big load to wikipedia servers and only makes the article about BJJ looks unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Its completely detrimental to the sport we love. This article is already permeated with POVs and unsourced material, which is hard to maintain or correct, but the external links are fairly easy to purge unless someone insists in doing the wrong thing over and over again as these unregistered users are doing right now. They are just disrupting the process of making the BJJ a better article. Loudenvier 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, here I am trying to get dialogue going so as not to be considered a spammer by posting our site, BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com only to be removed. Understandably, the site is still new, however it is non-commercial (yes a few adsense adds that HOPEFULLY may offset some of the hosting, development charges) and is designed so that people will be able to create profiles, add their own content (ie: videos and photos, etc.) and basically be allowed to engage other fans of BJJ and MMA without the need to go through huge sites like MySpace or YouTube and filter through all the garbage to get to good content. We have lots of plans to add to the site, ie; FREE, NON-Commercial professional technique videos section, a section where people can buy and sell their own equipment, again FREE, Non-commercial and other ideas hopefully that will come from the community itself. However, we'd like to have a decent sized user base before spending $$ on these sections. So can you please leave this discussion up for review and let me know how I can communicate with you to allow the site to be place in its proper section. Thanks!


 * If you want to argue the principle then discus it on the central talk page for WP:EL, there are lots of sites that do accept advertising, this isn't one. --Nate1481 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I'm not talking in principle, I'm talking about this being a site for the BJJ community. Can you be specific as to what part of the site doesn't qualify for linking ANYWHERE on this wikipedia page and perhaps we can try to modify it? My friend, this is NOT a money making commercial site. Again thanks for the dialogue. I might add that perhaps a different section or category on this wikipedia page would be appropriate. BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com, as the name implies is a site for BJJ practioners by BJJ practitioners. It is not a forum site, it is not a commercial site. In fact there is no site that I am aware of that will serve the community as this site will. Additionally, I am the moderator of the site and I intend on only allowing good quality content whether videos, photos, dialogue, etc. that enhances OUR martial art, even at the expense of the site growing slowly. Please reconsider your deleteion of the site and consider allowing a link under a current category or perhaps a new category. Not doing so, I really think it is a disservice to the BJJ community. Thanks.


 * It comes down to notability, i.e. is your site more relevant and important than any other if so why? If there is no standard then the external links section would be longer than the article. It may well be a good site but the question is will it improve the article, there are already lost of links to good sites --Nate1481 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your site, despite being good, should only be linked from wikipedia article if it provides crucial information about BJJ that cannot be included in the article itself. If info from your site is included in the article, then it will be already referenced and linked so you will not need to include it in the External links section. The best way to have your site listed in a wikipedia article is to use unique information from it on the article itself and citing it as source. For example, if you perform an interview with Hélio Gracie you can quote it in the BJJ article and cite your site as source. This way we keep the articles in a encyclopedic tone and improve it rather than advertise related sites. Loudenvier 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks also for the comment and compliment. However, It's YOUR SITE, not mine! Already, with 5 videos, there are techniques being shown that would qualify for a link in the techniques section. There is a history video, narrated by Rorion that would qualify for the history section. And this is with 3 members and all content uploaded by me in a couple days time!!! Please allow it to enhance our beloved sport and allow it a link, not for my benefit, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of Brazilain Jiu-Jitsu! can I get an AMEN....!


 * See this is what's great about wiki-we can discuss it. First, what differentiates BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com and makes it notable is that it is not MY site in asmuch as this page is not YOUR site. They are both open platforms to disseminate BJJ in all its context. Most BJJ sites, if not all, are based on a static model in that someone controls what content (ie; technique videos, etc.) that are posted and what are not. Just like initially nobody thought wikipedia would work because most thought it would be just a lot of junk and spam content and you needed a closed model like encyclopedia Brittanica where so called "experts" decided what content to disseminate, here we are right now deciding in a Socratic fashion what's best for this page and the BJJ community! Open model works yet both models serve their purpose. The closed model is being done by every BJJ site. The open model is not. I think that BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com will serve the same purpose as this wiki page and wikipedia in general to benefit the community by providing an open platform to allow the dissemination of BJJ information, with a heavy emphasis on video techniques and content.


 * As an example, I am a 4 stripe Blue belt, training for 4+ yrs and with a decent guard. I was filtering through all kinds of garbage on YouTube and came across and uploaded 5 finishing techniques from Jean Jacques Machado to the BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com site. One technique showed a normal armbar from the guard to a switch to the other arm armbar. I never saw this technique before! I showed the move to our brown belt instructor, who also admittedly had not seen it. That's the point! In a closed system site like EVERY other BJJ site, a technique like this could have been easily missed and never disseminated. In an open platform, it was uploaded to BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com and disseminated to all the practitioners instantly! Can you imagine how many excellent, valid techniques are floating around by BJJ practitioners without names like Machado! Where is the open platform and site to disseminate this? On BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com, a technique can be user rated, so if it is a junk technique, it is either deleted or ranks low at the end of the scale. It is this type of open ended model, JUST LIKE WIKI PLATFORM, that utilizes technology to perpetuate and improve our sport and THIS is what differentiates the site and makes it NOTABLE. And that is why I think it has a valid place on this page. It is not that it is more important, relevant, etc. than any other site, it is a different context. What will differentiate the site will be the quality of the content provided by users and moderated by users, just like this wiki page, and yes this will take some time and some trust and some exposure from legitimate links such as this. Give it a chance, a link, and some time and then let's look back in 1 month, 6 months, whatever and see! Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.61.162.155 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * This site sounds good to me. Still it isn't eligible for inclusion in External links as it can be labeled as SPAM. It's totally subjective that your site "differentiates" from others. That's why the WP:EL policy has to be stringent or else any site would probably be eligible as External links. This is an encyclopedic article after all, not advertisement. Links to forums, community-like sites, etc should be avoided (but are not prohibited). If your site had unanimous notoriety among BJJers then it would probably be allowed here, but even that is hard to objectively define. In the end, a google search for BJJ should bring your site as top-ranked pages when it start to be a phenomenon (if it lives up to the description you made, man, it will be really great!). Read the WP:EL there are better reasonings there about why this External links policy has to be so stringent. Abuse would surely happen if that wasn't the case. For example, in the Boxer article we editors implemented a policy not to allow any External link that wasn't a nationally recognized club, society or rescue about the Boxer dog. This way we prevented SPAM. There are good sites in the reference section which served as sources for the article, but not a single External link that could be classified as SPAM. Regards. Loudenvier 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point (I tap:)) but at least allow this discussion to remain so others may see my point and comment, and perhaps you may reconsider. Or at least allow it to be included under a different heading after some more discourse by others. Or perhaps a suitable link from within an article (ie; a link to the history of Jiu-Jitsu video narrated by Rorion gracie- http://www.brazilianjiu-jitsu.com/video/video/show?id=528245:Video:342, or a specific technique video that you or other users like, ie: the machado video I described earlier-http://www.brazilianjiu-jitsu.com/video/video/show?id=528245:Video:182). I don't want to mess with your work, that's why I'll leave that up to you. Thanks again and keep up the good work! (And figure a way to get BrazilianJiu-Jitsu.com site referenced here). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.61.162.155 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Removal of links to commercial sites
I removed 2 links to sites which were 100% commercial under the techniques section. Previously, without reason, a third techniques link was being removed as well. To be fair, the other 2 links which were obviously 100% commercial and full of advertising were also removed. We can be consistent and allow all 3 links, or none. Personally, I would like all 3 links to be there since they provide video techniques of jiu jitsu, but one of the admins seems to disagree for some reason. Would like him to state the reason here.

How much advertising is too much
Under school searches, the OnTheMat.com school search has two AD's on the same page as their school search. What is the limit before it is considered commercial/spam?


 * I'd say commercial is a site that tries to sell you things. If a site provides minimal content &/or has pop-up ads then it's not a very good link & can be removed. One or two links of a specific type is enough, if another one is better than a current ok, but other wise it is probably better to leave as it is, I have reverted all the edits made can we sort this out hear before an edit war starts. --Nate1481 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An admin removed this link to jiu jitsu techniques: http://www.jiujitsuforums.com/v_armlocks.php?id=arm_bar_from_mount Why would this be removed and not the other 2 links which are commercial sites with advertising? Either all 3 should stay, or all 3 should go.   I would like to see all 3 stay.  But I still want to hear why the admin is playing favorites.  Why is the jiujitsuforums site being singled out?


 * Forums are generally considered less appropriate, see wp:el for the whole thing. A commercial site is one that is attempting to sell something, not one that sells ad space to provide free content. --Nate1481 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * bjjzone.com and onthemat.com are also both forum sites. We can decide that any site which has a forum is a forum site, and therefore should be removed, or we can decide that having a forum doesnt qualify for immediate removal.  All three sites have more than just forums, although onthemat.com is the most commercial of the three and sells gear, and bjjzone has a "shopping and gear" section.  jiujitsuforums.com sells nothing at all.  So once again, do we get rid of all 3, and remove links to references of great techniques, or do we keep all 3? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.142.197 (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

A question was posed on User talk:Nlu as to why I only removed one site and not all three: my response is, feel free to remove the other two. The removal of one site is not an implicit statement that the others that were not removed are not spam, only that the site that removed was. --Nlu (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes the techniques section of this site spam in your mind? http://www.jiujitsuforums.com/v_armlocks.php?id=arm_bar_from_mount —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.142.197 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Forums are generally considered inappropriate as external links. See WP:EL.  --Nlu (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that forums simply exists in millions. Why one specific forum is allowed while others are not? You will try to judge the importance of each forum and choose one or two to be on the page? This is POV, and is not objective since what you or I think is good may be bad for others. In Brazil the site have great techniques pages (really great), explained by world champions, but its not eligible to inclusion in wikipedia. Read WP:EL in its entirety for rationales about why Forums, personal or commercial sites should almost never be linked in the External links section. In fact the External links should be kept to a minimum because links should came naturally as the sites that were used as references for the article itself. There's also policies about that which states the references are reliable, etc. Loudenvier 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Should a website be considered as a whole or in sections? If we consider any website that has a forum on it a "forum site" then a huge number of sites will be swept up into that definition and immediately disqualified, even if they have other sections of their site which contain good external content. Further,  if we use the existence of a forum as a test, then basically *ALL* the links in the external links section need to be removed because they are all hosted by sites with forums.  This would be a huge loss.  As more and more websites throw a forum into the mix, it seems kind of stupid that this would somehow disqualify all their other content as good external links. Imagine a website that currently has a valid external link in wikipedia for valid content.  Next month the webmaster adds a forum to his site.  Do we now suddenly decide this external link to non-forum content is suddenly invalid? What changed? This doesnt make any sense.  So far I dont see any issue with the techniques sections of any of these websites being included.  Sure they all have forums too, but again, if we strictly used that as the criteria you would end up removing 1 million good external links from wikipedia.  Dumb idea if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.107.248.220 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The url for the one removed is so most people ill remove without looking at the link. --Nate1481 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you saying the removal was an error? Having forum in the name doesnt change anything, they are all forum sites, or sites that also have forums is a better way to think about it.  I think links to technique sections should be allowed.  Im going to add the link back.  Or we can remove all the links in the external link section, which would be a big loss, just because all the sites also have a forum section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.107.248.220 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Any site that is mainly meant as a forum isn't allowed in the External links. You should ask your self: this is a site that is focused on forum? If yes, then the site isn't qualified. The External links should be kept to a minimum, linking to site with extensive and pertinent information not found on the article itself. A site with few techniques isn't eligible. Nor are links to videos in youtube (almost about individual techniques or fights). A site with extensive techniques, or sites for the many BJJ federations all are allowed in the External links. We should avoid linking only to promote one site. It's not the purpose of wikipedia. Loudenvier 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the videos about techniques link may be eligible because it is an extensive compilation of techniques. Just my 2 cents :-) Although the takedowns section are laughable... Really terrible. Loudenvier 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Grading nonsense
I've rewritten the following paragraph:
 * A black belt in Jiu-Jitsu signifies a very high level of expertise and skills. To achieve a black belt in Jiu-Jitsu is typically much more difficult than in any other martial art. This is because that in practically every other martial art, a black belt does not mean that the holder is an "expert" or a good fighter, nor is it supposed to mean that! It is because of Hollywood that the general public holds a misconception of what a black belt means. All a black belt is supposed to mean is that the holder is competent at the basics of that particular art in which they hold the rank in. It is often said that a black belt is really only the begining and the holder is now ready to learn. The Gracies however have elevated the black belt to a level within their own system to such a high level that to hold a black belt really does signify expertise in their system. This helps assure that the art remains strong and that a black belt is a very special and prized goal. Practially speaking, a purple belt in Jiu-Jitsu is about equal to a black belt in other arts as far as skills, competence and time involved to achieve the rank (in their own respective arts).

It's full of nonsense. The purple belt part is what strikes me more surprisingly. Since I'm a BJJ purple belt myself, I can't accept that! I also practice Judo with Medhi sensei (the one who taught Rickinson, Royler, etc. Judo), and I have a hard time with his Judo black-belts on ground fighting (which comprises 50% of his training regime!), two of them simply always submit me many times in a row during rolling. Before you start saying my BJJ sucks, when I was attending the Gracie Centro School of JJ (Rolker Gracie) here in Rio de Janeiro downtown, I never had trouble dealing with the other purple belts there... (although I'd never defeated any of the brown and black belts there) Loudenvier 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Submissions

 * "Submission holds can be grouped into two broad categories: joint locks and chokes."

Should there be a third category for things like bicep and calf slicers? "Crushing techniques" or some such? Akqjt 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

BJJ
I noticed that you have been involved in the BJJ page, their is now a wiki just for BJJ at... http://wikibjj.com Check it out, i think its a great idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.71.99 (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).