wrestling or jiu jitsu?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » wrestling or jiu jitsu?
« Previous Page
jkdskinhead
7/14/08 3:16:01AM

Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.




o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"




do you not realize this is all subjective?



And also it doesnt matter if your fighting in a cage or a ring.. pride rules.. ufc rules.. overall would include all of them put together in one average. How si this subjective?

I could be right or I could be wrong that wrestling is better then JJ.. but the point is one of them is better.. the scientific chances of one of them not being better, them both being exactly equal overall is astronomical
Pookie
7/14/08 3:20:59AM

Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.




o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"




do you not realize this is all subjective?



And also it doesnt matter if your fighting in a cage or a ring.. pride rules.. ufc rules.. overall would include all of them put together in one average. How si this subjective?

I could be right or I could be wrong that wrestling is better then JJ.. but the point is one of them is better.. the scientific chances of one of them not being better, them both being exactly equal overall is astronomical



how is this subjective? the fact that you could be right or wrong.
Thats what subjective was in reference too

Sure one of them could be better, but there is literally no objective way to test this.

If you base any of the results on mma you are already not following the rules.
Pure Wrestling v. Pure Bjj, how can one be better when theres no way to match-up evenly skilled competitors, theres NO WAY to determine that there equally skilled.

Thats a huge gray area, and thus the fighters skill will always be the main determinate.
jkdskinhead
7/14/08 3:29:41AM

Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.




o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"




do you not realize this is all subjective?



And also it doesnt matter if your fighting in a cage or a ring.. pride rules.. ufc rules.. overall would include all of them put together in one average. How si this subjective?

I could be right or I could be wrong that wrestling is better then JJ.. but the point is one of them is better.. the scientific chances of one of them not being better, them both being exactly equal overall is astronomical



how is this subjective? the fact that you could be right or wrong.
Thats what subjective was in reference too

Sure one of them could be better, but there is literally no objective way to test this.

If you base any of the results on mma you are already not following the rules.
Pure Wrestling v. Pure Bjj, how can one be better when theres no way to match-up evenly skilled competitors, theres NO WAY to determine that there equally skilled.

Thats a huge gray area, and thus the fighters skill will always be the main determinate.



Well yes your right to say this whole topic is subjective.. but i think the poster is obviously looking for an opinion, not a scientific test.

Yes there would be a way to test this.. take 100 randomly chosen guys from each stlye, and have each guy guy face each of the 100 guys form the other side once each untill.. the match goes on untill someone is unconcious or gives up. this is called scientific method.. also the more subjects you do this on, and the more times you repeat the test and get the same results, the more solid your theory becomes.. eventually once tested enough scientific theory becomes scientific fact. this is 6th grade sceince.. I thought everyone learned scientific method?
Pookie
7/14/08 3:32:18AM

Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.




o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"




do you not realize this is all subjective?



And also it doesnt matter if your fighting in a cage or a ring.. pride rules.. ufc rules.. overall would include all of them put together in one average. How si this subjective?

I could be right or I could be wrong that wrestling is better then JJ.. but the point is one of them is better.. the scientific chances of one of them not being better, them both being exactly equal overall is astronomical



how is this subjective? the fact that you could be right or wrong.
Thats what subjective was in reference too

Sure one of them could be better, but there is literally no objective way to test this.

If you base any of the results on mma you are already not following the rules.
Pure Wrestling v. Pure Bjj, how can one be better when theres no way to match-up evenly skilled competitors, theres NO WAY to determine that there equally skilled.

Thats a huge gray area, and thus the fighters skill will always be the main determinate.



Well yes your right to say this whole topic is subjective.. but i think the poster is obviously looking for an opinion, not a scientific test.

Yes there would be a way to test this.. take 100 randomly chosen guys from each stlye, and have each guy guy face each of the 100 guys form the other side once each untill.. the match goes on untill someone is unconcious or gives up. this is called scientific method.. also the more subjects you do this on, and the more times you repeat the test and get the same results, the more solid your theory becomes.. eventually once tested enough scientific theory becomes scientific fact. this is 6th grade sceince.. I thought everyone learned scientific method?



theres a bias you cant change though...
You have no way of determining these fighters are of the skill level, and that the test isnt flawed because one sided has better disciples of that style.
jkdskinhead
7/14/08 3:41:06AM

Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.




o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"




do you not realize this is all subjective?



And also it doesnt matter if your fighting in a cage or a ring.. pride rules.. ufc rules.. overall would include all of them put together in one average. How si this subjective?

I could be right or I could be wrong that wrestling is better then JJ.. but the point is one of them is better.. the scientific chances of one of them not being better, them both being exactly equal overall is astronomical



how is this subjective? the fact that you could be right or wrong.
Thats what subjective was in reference too

Sure one of them could be better, but there is literally no objective way to test this.

If you base any of the results on mma you are already not following the rules.
Pure Wrestling v. Pure Bjj, how can one be better when theres no way to match-up evenly skilled competitors, theres NO WAY to determine that there equally skilled.

Thats a huge gray area, and thus the fighters skill will always be the main determinate.



Well yes your right to say this whole topic is subjective.. but i think the poster is obviously looking for an opinion, not a scientific test.

Yes there would be a way to test this.. take 100 randomly chosen guys from each stlye, and have each guy guy face each of the 100 guys form the other side once each untill.. the match goes on untill someone is unconcious or gives up. this is called scientific method.. also the more subjects you do this on, and the more times you repeat the test and get the same results, the more solid your theory becomes.. eventually once tested enough scientific theory becomes scientific fact. this is 6th grade sceince.. I thought everyone learned scientific method?



theres a bias you cant change though...
You have no way of determining these fighters are of the skill level, and that the test isnt flawed because one sided has better disciples of that style.



If you read all what i wrote you will understand the test is not flawed.. First I said pick random guys... then preform the test over and over.. with new random guys each time. once you have done this numorous times you will eventually work out the kinks and get the average. Its simple math.. usaully scientists would use a computer to solve an equation liek this and run the test a few hundred times.. but for this test they would have to do it the old fashioned way since its all physical stuff.
jkdskinhead
7/14/08 3:47:59AM
Its like playing the card game war.. you shuffle the deck and deal out the cards 50% to each player.. you play a few games and someone may take the early lead.. but eventually if you play about 1000 games.. since the deck has perfectly balanced cards.. your gonna end up with about 500 wins each.. its just the way math works..

However in JJ and Wrestling the decks are not made of the same kind of cards so the results in the end will be lop sided showing the better style

this is the same mathmatical method casinos use to develope games.. they create a game and test the average.. they know in the end they will end up with more money because the games are lop sided.. the casino may even lose money for a few days in a row do to some crazy random wins by the customers.. but over all the casino will win out at the end of the year.
Pookie
7/14/08 3:48:12AM

Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie


Posted by jkdskinhead


Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.




o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"




do you not realize this is all subjective?



And also it doesnt matter if your fighting in a cage or a ring.. pride rules.. ufc rules.. overall would include all of them put together in one average. How si this subjective?

I could be right or I could be wrong that wrestling is better then JJ.. but the point is one of them is better.. the scientific chances of one of them not being better, them both being exactly equal overall is astronomical



how is this subjective? the fact that you could be right or wrong.
Thats what subjective was in reference too

Sure one of them could be better, but there is literally no objective way to test this.

If you base any of the results on mma you are already not following the rules.
Pure Wrestling v. Pure Bjj, how can one be better when theres no way to match-up evenly skilled competitors, theres NO WAY to determine that there equally skilled.

Thats a huge gray area, and thus the fighters skill will always be the main determinate.



Well yes your right to say this whole topic is subjective.. but i think the poster is obviously looking for an opinion, not a scientific test.

Yes there would be a way to test this.. take 100 randomly chosen guys from each stlye, and have each guy guy face each of the 100 guys form the other side once each untill.. the match goes on untill someone is unconcious or gives up. this is called scientific method.. also the more subjects you do this on, and the more times you repeat the test and get the same results, the more solid your theory becomes.. eventually once tested enough scientific theory becomes scientific fact. this is 6th grade sceince.. I thought everyone learned scientific method?



theres a bias you cant change though...
You have no way of determining these fighters are of the skill level, and that the test isnt flawed because one sided has better disciples of that style.



If you read all what i wrote you will understand the test is not flawed.. First I said pick random guys... then preform the test over and over.. with new random guys each time. once you have done this numorous times you will eventually work out the kinks and get the average. Its simple math.. usaully scientists would use a computer to solve an equation liek this and run the test a few hundred times.. but for this test they would have to do it the old fashioned way since its all physical stuff.



Until that is done, you cant say that wrestling is better though , so until this test is done... it can only be determined by the fighters skill.

And in reference to the first post, you should always build your base on what you do better. it will become pretty apparent after a month or 2 of training.
jkdskinhead
7/14/08 3:51:04AM

Posted by Pookie


Until that is done, you cant say that wrestling is better though , so until this test is done... it can only be determined by the fighters skill.

And in reference to the first post, you should always build your base on what you do better. it will become pretty apparent after a month or 2 of training.



Yes my statement about wrestling being better is certainly an opinion.. I based that opinion on the results ive seen so far.. but my results hardly merrit anything close to really deciding wich is better.. its just my opion
State_Champ
7/22/08 10:17:01AM
There doesn't need to be any opinions about this. Wrestling is better and that is a fact; Wrestling is the most important form of combat to MMA because it can control where the fight takes place.
mkiv9secsupra
7/22/08 12:22:03PM

Posted by State_Champ

There doesn't need to be any opinions about this. Wrestling is better and that is a fact; Wrestling is the most important form of combat to MMA because it can control where the fight takes place.




Big Nog > Coleman, Henderson
Shogun > Randleman
Roger Gracie > Waterman
Anderson > Henderson
Penn > Hughes


Overall Finishing Method Statistics
Percentage Submission = 45.87
Percentage KO/TKO = 29.70
Percentage Decision = 17.28
Other (Drawn, NCs, or Unknown) = 7.15


i really dont see your logic other than you are a wrestler yourself and are %110 biased
gamez0932
7/22/08 5:17:16PM

Posted by mkiv9secsupra


Posted by State_Champ

There doesn't need to be any opinions about this. Wrestling is better and that is a fact; Wrestling is the most important form of combat to MMA because it can control where the fight takes place.




Big Nog > Coleman, Henderson
Shogun > Randleman
Roger Gracie > Waterman
Anderson > Henderson
Penn > Hughes


Overall Finishing Method Statistics
Percentage Submission = 45.87
Percentage KO/TKO = 29.70
Percentage Decision = 17.28
Other (Drawn, NCs, or Unknown) = 7.15


i really dont see your logic other than you are a wrestler yourself and are %110 biased




thats exactly what i see... wretlers will be able to get the takedowns but wont be able to do anything on the ground... which then ends up as a lay n pray which is annoying.
Jackelope
7/22/08 5:54:01PM

Posted by gamez0932


Posted by mkiv9secsupra


Posted by State_Champ

There doesn't need to be any opinions about this. Wrestling is better and that is a fact; Wrestling is the most important form of combat to MMA because it can control where the fight takes place.




Big Nog > Coleman, Henderson
Shogun > Randleman
Roger Gracie > Waterman
Anderson > Henderson
Penn > Hughes


Overall Finishing Method Statistics
Percentage Submission = 45.87
Percentage KO/TKO = 29.70
Percentage Decision = 17.28
Other (Drawn, NCs, or Unknown) = 7.15


i really dont see your logic other than you are a wrestler yourself and are %110 biased




thats exactly what i see... wretlers will be able to get the takedowns but wont be able to do anything on the ground... which then ends up as a lay n pray which is annoying.



Might as well for safety's sake factor out 5-10% of those submissions as GnP submissions.

Then, factor half the KO/TKO as GnP KO/TKO's.

Still, submissions have the lead by a very large margin.
jkdskinhead
7/22/08 8:00:16PM

Posted by Jackelope


Posted by gamez0932


Posted by mkiv9secsupra


Posted by State_Champ

There doesn't need to be any opinions about this. Wrestling is better and that is a fact; Wrestling is the most important form of combat to MMA because it can control where the fight takes place.




Big Nog > Coleman, Henderson
Shogun > Randleman
Roger Gracie > Waterman
Anderson > Henderson
Penn > Hughes


Overall Finishing Method Statistics
Percentage Submission = 45.87
Percentage KO/TKO = 29.70
Percentage Decision = 17.28
Other (Drawn, NCs, or Unknown) = 7.15


i really dont see your logic other than you are a wrestler yourself and are %110 biased




thats exactly what i see... wretlers will be able to get the takedowns but wont be able to do anything on the ground... which then ends up as a lay n pray which is annoying.



Might as well for safety's sake factor out 5-10% of those submissions as GnP submissions.

Then, factor half the KO/TKO as GnP KO/TKO's.

Still, submissions have the lead by a very large margin.



Problem with these calculations is, your pitting MMA, vs MMA.. not pure JJ, vs Pure Wrestling, and seeing what pure martial art would help your gameplan more.
ncordless
7/22/08 8:10:01PM
This probably one of the dumbest threads in mmaplayground history.

a "pure" style vs. style matchup is pointless. Which rules are you going by?

an "mma" style vs. style match up is pointless. It all depends on the fighter.


to a pointless thread where arguing semantics and mmath has filled the void of a lack of anything to talk about.
telnights
7/22/08 8:11:34PM

Posted by juanez13

Wrestler is much better. a wrestler can learn BJJ much easier than a BJJ guy can learn wrestling. doesnt matter how good the BJJ is, if they cant get it to the ground, doesnt count for nothing, and even if they pull guard, its much easier to defend subs than to apply them. so it takes a relative small amount of time for wrestler to learn how to defend subs (first step, after that they have time to learn more about applying them etc..), while i'll take years for BJJ guys to become good wrestlers.



as a x top level wrestler myself I can tell you BJJ was easy for me to pick up on. I have seen this hold true in training and in MMA.
ncordless
7/22/08 8:20:50PM

Posted by telnights


Posted by juanez13

Wrestler is much better. a wrestler can learn BJJ much easier than a BJJ guy can learn wrestling. doesnt matter how good the BJJ is, if they cant get it to the ground, doesnt count for nothing, and even if they pull guard, its much easier to defend subs than to apply them. so it takes a relative small amount of time for wrestler to learn how to defend subs (first step, after that they have time to learn more about applying them etc..), while i'll take years for BJJ guys to become good wrestlers.



as a x top level wrestler myself I can tell you BJJ was easy for me to pick up on. I have seen this hold true in training and in MMA.



LOL telnights, now I know why you and I don't get along. You're an okie wrestler and I am an Iowa wrestler. We have been mortal enemies since the beginning of time!
telnights
7/23/08 3:06:41AM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by telnights


Posted by juanez13

Wrestler is much better. a wrestler can learn BJJ much easier than a BJJ guy can learn wrestling. doesnt matter how good the BJJ is, if they cant get it to the ground, doesnt count for nothing, and even if they pull guard, its much easier to defend subs than to apply them. so it takes a relative small amount of time for wrestler to learn how to defend subs (first step, after that they have time to learn more about applying them etc..), while i'll take years for BJJ guys to become good wrestlers.



as a x top level wrestler myself I can tell you BJJ was easy for me to pick up on. I have seen this hold true in training and in MMA.



LOL telnights, now I know why you and I don't get along. You're an okie wrestler and I am an Iowa wrestler. We have been mortal enemies since the beginning of time!



Isn't that the truth. BTW John Smith is the guy a grew up around and helped me train. I went to the same high school that John did with his brother Mark and later went to OSU under John Smith. He is the best wrestler I have ever been around.

So to reply to your prop

John Smith>Dan Gable
John Smith two-time Olympic gold medalist 1988 and 1992
Dan Gable One time Olympic gold medalist 1972


Just kidding both guys are legends in their own way.
ncordless
7/23/08 3:41:40AM

Posted by telnights


Posted by ncordless


Posted by telnights


Posted by juanez13

Wrestler is much better. a wrestler can learn BJJ much easier than a BJJ guy can learn wrestling. doesnt matter how good the BJJ is, if they cant get it to the ground, doesnt count for nothing, and even if they pull guard, its much easier to defend subs than to apply them. so it takes a relative small amount of time for wrestler to learn how to defend subs (first step, after that they have time to learn more about applying them etc..), while i'll take years for BJJ guys to become good wrestlers.



as a x top level wrestler myself I can tell you BJJ was easy for me to pick up on. I have seen this hold true in training and in MMA.



LOL telnights, now I know why you and I don't get along. You're an okie wrestler and I am an Iowa wrestler. We have been mortal enemies since the beginning of time!



Isn't that the truth. BTW John Smith is the guy a grew up around and helped me train. I went to the same high school that John did with his brother Mark and later went to OSU under John Smith. He is the best wrestler I have ever been around.

So to reply to your prop

John Smith>Dan Gable
John Smith two-time Olympic gold medalist 1988 and 1992
Dan Gable One time Olympic gold medalist 1972


Just kidding both guys are legends in their own way.



Wow, that is impressive. I remember seeing Smith at a Freestyle clinic in Kansas City the only year I did juniors. It was strange because I'd been to a Dan Gable camp the year before and they were quite different. It was pretty informative. Gable would just beat you up on the basics where I felt like Smith was teaching some advanced stuff (over my head at the time to be honest). Of course, maybe I just felt that way because everybody says the same thing about the two. I was pretty young when all that was going on.

When you say Mark, are you talking about Mark Perry Sr, are you?
ncordless
7/23/08 3:42:25AM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by telnights


Posted by ncordless


Posted by telnights


Posted by juanez13

Wrestler is much better. a wrestler can learn BJJ much easier than a BJJ guy can learn wrestling. doesnt matter how good the BJJ is, if they cant get it to the ground, doesnt count for nothing, and even if they pull guard, its much easier to defend subs than to apply them. so it takes a relative small amount of time for wrestler to learn how to defend subs (first step, after that they have time to learn more about applying them etc..), while i'll take years for BJJ guys to become good wrestlers.



as a x top level wrestler myself I can tell you BJJ was easy for me to pick up on. I have seen this hold true in training and in MMA.



LOL telnights, now I know why you and I don't get along. You're an okie wrestler and I am an Iowa wrestler. We have been mortal enemies since the beginning of time!



Isn't that the truth. BTW John Smith is the guy a grew up around and helped me train. I went to the same high school that John did with his brother Mark and later went to OSU under John Smith. He is the best wrestler I have ever been around.

So to reply to your prop

John Smith>Dan Gable
John Smith two-time Olympic gold medalist 1988 and 1992
Dan Gable One time Olympic gold medalist 1972


Just kidding both guys are legends in their own way.



Wow, that is impressive. I remember seeing Smith at a Freestyle clinic in Kansas City the only year I did juniors. It was strange because I'd been to a Dan Gable camp the year before and they were quite different. It was pretty informative. Gable would just beat you up on the basics where I felt like Smith was teaching some advanced stuff (over my head at the time to be honest). Of course, maybe I just felt that way because everybody says the same thing about the two. I was pretty young when all that was going on.

When you say Mark, are you talking about Mark Perry Sr?

telnights
7/23/08 4:55:58AM

Posted by ncordless
Wow, that is impressive. I remember seeing Smith at a Freestyle clinic in Kansas City the only year I did juniors. It was strange because I'd been to a Dan Gable camp the year before and they were quite different. It was pretty informative. Gable would just beat you up on the basics where I felt like Smith was teaching some advanced stuff (over my head at the time to be honest). Of course, maybe I just felt that way because everybody says the same thing about the two. I was pretty young when all that was going on.

When you say Mark, are you talking about Mark Perry Sr, are you?



Yeah I had a really good run before blowing out me knee then followed by major back problems later down the road that has left me lucky to walk today. I messed up my knee right before the Olympic try outs. John seamed to think I would have made it but will never know now. Mark is Mark Smith, This is John's youngest brother. He has 2 brothers Pat and Mark. I have had diner with the Smiths more than once. Great bunch, Pat is a little hot headed K a lot hot headed but so are most wrestlers. If it wasn't for John I wouldn't have gone as far as I did in wrestling. He taught me so much stuff I don't think I could have learned anywhere else. I got to meet Dan Gable at a meet once but really didn't get to spend much time talking to him but from the time I had he seamed like a good guy.

To this day I have yet to see anyone be able to shoot in as fast a John did in his prime. He was just lighting fast and had a single leg from hell. We even named the single leg after him because he really took it to a new level.
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Topics