Talk:Brazilian jiu-jitsu/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu → Brazilian jiu-jitsu – Per MOS:CAPS and WP:AT. This is English, not German; we do not capitalize random nouns and noun phrases. The [non-trademarked] names of sports and games are not proper names and are not capitalized. Cf. jiu-jitsu, chess, snooker, basketball, etc., etc., etc. The real name is jujutsu, anyway, and we don't capitalize after the hyphen in English, so "Jiu-Jitsu" is wrong three times over. A case can probably be made for moving this article to Brazilian jujutsu, but I won't raise that issue now (it would be a debate between proponents of "proper" usage of historical martial arts terminology vs. proponents of following populist but often historically ignorant sources; it is an argument I WP:DGAF about in this case. I'm only after fixing the silly "Capitalization Because I Really Like It A Lot And Think It Is Super-Important"). This is arguably a speedy case as a simple typo correction, but the WP:SSF essay exists largely because aficionados of any particular special interest are liable to argue pretty close to the point of death over capitalizing whatever it is they are especially interested in. PS: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 13#Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and subcategories. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but wrt This is English, not German; we do not capitalize random nouns and noun phrases. -- Neither do we. We capitalize all nouns. Interestingly though, it is invariably American editors who insist on awkwardly capitalizing article and section titles. Just saying. Btw, what about German Ju-Jutsu? --213.196.209.251 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  Aside: Right! I am not implying that Germans capitalize nouns on a random basis, of course. English used to follow the same pattern as German well into the Early Modern English period. Rather, I'm saying that various en.wiki editors abuse "the Capitalization (or CapitaliSation) of Leading Letters as a (not THE, but A) Means of EMPHASIS", an unbelievably annoying practice that is clearly and unequivocally deprecated at MOS:CAPS, and that this has the effect for readers of en.wiki of very, very randomly capitalizing some but not all nouns and noun phrases. For me, my phrasing is a shorthand way of saying: "This is English, which does not capitalize nouns and noun phrases unless they're proper names or begin a sentence, or are part of the title of an work, or [insert various other special cases here]; capitalization of nouns and noun phrases simply for being nounal is a common practice in German and several mutually related languages, but no longer applies to English". Maybe if I used "This is English, not German; we do not capitalize misc. nouns and noun phrases" would work better? I have my "stock phrase" about this programmed as a macro and use it sometimes a dozen or more times in a single wiki-editing day, so I don't much care what it says, word-for-word, as long as the point is clear and it fits in an edit summary with room for further comments. Sorry if it's been irritating to Germans! Anyway, feel free to take it up on my talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support just randomly. When looking at books for ideas about capitalization, it is necessary to look beyond the title. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Can of worms here - I actually think (but wont go to war over) that the Jiu-Jitsu is part of the proper name rather than just a noun being modified by Brazilian and as such even the double capital J is possible. The article itself discusses the source of the name. However if the change does occur it should be applied consistently over related articles and categories. To avoid that I would just leave the name alone but ...Peter Rehse (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most martial arts articles already have lowercase titles, e.g. Weng chun, Submission wrestling. What's left is e.g. Wing Chun → Wing chun.

But what about cases like Krav Maga? We might consider it a brand name for the purpose of capitalization, but then where exactly to draw the line? --87.79.176.62 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage by the group in question. We can't save the world.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty arbitrary rule though, and not reflected in Wikipedia naming guidelines. Or is it? --87.79.108.207 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. I worked through the guidelines especially WP:AT and my read is that the current name does not contradict any. The telling example used is Northwestern University. Just my two cents worth - I bow out of the argument.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Where exactly to draw the line?" is a good question, not always easy to answer. But MOS:CAPS give basic guidance: "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." To me that suggests "Brazilian jiu-jitsu" and "Krav Maga" get different capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. So that leaves only Wing Chun. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

But it does't make sense, really, because Krav Maga as a discernible, notable topic about which an article can be written, is a trademark (initially of KMA and now of IKMA), while Brazilian jiu-jitsu is not, of anyone. I concede that the obsolescent jiu-jistu spelling is in fact consistently used for BJJ in reliable sources almost overwhelmingly (for now - in ten years, when almost everything else worldwide uses jujusu, expect that to change, and we're more than half-way to that point already). But – and this is crucial – before KM was codified as such and recorded with that name in English, it only existed under a Hebrew name, and that language has no capital/lower-case letter system. I.e., the question of Krava Maga's unique capitalization devolves to absurdity if one tries to assert anything notable under the lower-case name "krav maga" in Latin lettering. Doing so would be a text book case of WP:OR stemming from incorrect assumptions about language and historical timelines.

As for Wing Chun, it obviously needs to move to Wing chun like everything else. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm having kind of a hard time following your reasoning here, especially the part where you say that Dicklyon's reasoning "doesn't make sense". I don't see why his reasoning and yours should be considered mutually exclusive rather than cumulative in the same direction. --213.196.218.234 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

They are cumulative in the same direction. What I objected to in Dicklyon's reasoning was the idea that "Krav Maga" is capitalized here because it's frequently capitalized in third-party sources, and Brazillian jiu-jitsu should not be because it's isn't. External publications do not set style here. Reliable sources for facts (e.g. when Krav Maga was founded, or when BJJ was founded) are not magically also reliable sources on what English-language style rules work best in an online encyclopedia. That's what WP:MOS is for. Krav Maga is and should remain capitalized here because it's a trademark; that fact makes it an actual proper name. It's incorrect to assume that if someone can come up with reliable sources that capitalize something that this makes it a proper name automatically. There has to be an underlying reason for it being a proper name, or it isn't one. And a large number of external sources, especially ones specifically about martial arts, do capitalize "Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu" and ever other martial art name. It being common in such works does not make it correct here. Any review of specialist publications on virtually any topic will show an unmistakeable preponderance of mis-capitalizing all sorts of things in the field to which the work pertains, simply as a form of emphasis. E.g., any book by T.F.H. or similar publishers on animals as pets always capitalizes the common name (Nile Monitor, Tiger Salamander, etc.), even though this is grammatically wrong. Books on stamp collecting and comics collecting capitalize grading conditions (Very Fine, Near Mint), etc., but it's grammatically wrong. There are literally unending examples of this. Some people always want to capitalize things that are important to their interests; when they are writing for a specialist audience in a specialist publication being read only by people who miscapitalize the same things, no one notices or cares. When they come to Wikipedia and try to force their incorrect capitalization on the rest of the world, using the excuse that reliable sources in their field can be shown to capitalize, they are engaging in the WP:Specialist style fallacy, one of the most consistently disruptive behaviors that affects Wikipedia. Reliable sources on facts about a topic are not reliable sources on English-language grammar and style. All reliable sources on style, from dictionaries to style manuals, on both sides of the Atlantic, say not to engage in that sort of bogus capitalization-for-emphasis. It's not any better than or different from "grocers quotes", as in "Green 'Apples' $5/dozen". It's a blatant misuse of style that signifies one thing (proper names with capitalization, quotations with quotation marks) as if it signified something else (emphasis). Dicklyon's "where to draw the line" question is answered by "when reliable sources clearly indicate that a martial art is an actual trademark, and can be shown to not be miscapitalizing all martial arts simply as a form of emphasis." — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is not a porper noun, and should not be capitalized in a way that suggests it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

====== Where's the talking? Why has all of the valuable information that was in this talk page the last time I checked it been removed???

Founder of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

I believe the founder of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is Carlos Gracie. Helio, and the other brother's learned from him. Helio added other techniques that benefitted his size, but so did the other BJJGM's. each had their own way of teaching and adding/subtracting techniques. To say that Helio's the "founder" is ridiculous, he is just a major contributor, and the founder of his version of "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu," which wasn't even a coined term of his, but his students.

BJJ in MMA

removed the text " A black belt in BJJ is, nowadays, important in order to guarantee success in MMA." As they're are several MMA fighters without black belts. And a lot of black belts without titles. 66.119.9.207 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jiu-Jitsu Gis Are Not Regulated or Inspected?

Currently the article reads: "While the judogi (judo uniform) is regulated and inspected by sanctioning bodies so as to maintain a necessary amount of room between the arm and the sleeve for gripping, and also between the leg and the pants, a BJJ practitioner's gi is not generally as tightly regulated. The practitioner can therefore benefit from a closer fit, providing less material for an opponent to manipulate." Is there no regulation or inspection of BJJ gis? I know that they have a slightly different fit than Judo gis (the width of the pants at the cuff, and the width of the sleeves at the cuff can be much smaller) but they have to meet certain requirements for competitions don't they? --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jiu Jitsu gi's are regulated at IBJJF competitions (Mundials, Pan Ams, European, etc) through the use of a measuring tool and specific measurements:

http://ibjjf.org/rules.htm

ARTICLE 8º - KIMONO

COMPETiTORS ARE REQUIRED TO USE KIMONOS UNDER THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS

A. Constructed of cotton or similar material and in good condition. The material may not be excessivly thick or hard to the point where it will obstruct the opponent.

B. Colours may be black, white or blue, no combined colors (white kimono with blue pants, etc.)

C. The jacket is to be of suficient length down to the thighs, sleeves must reach the wrist with arms extended in front of the body. The sleeve should follow the oficial measures according to CBJJ, and IBJJF.From the shoulder to the wrist.

D. Belt width 4-5cm, with colour corresponding to rank tied around the waist with a double knot , tight enough to secure the kimono closed.

E. Athletes are not permitted to compete with torn kimonos, sleeves or pants that are not of propper length or with t-shirts underneath the kimono (except in the female divisions).

F. Is not allowed to use paint kimonos, except for the teams.

Competitors must abide by the hygiene and kimono specifications in order to compete, otherwise the opponent will be considered the winner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.236 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 

I think the validity of this statement depends on how you define "tightly regulated". At the IBJJF tournaments, the gis certainly are checked, but at smaller regional tournaments this may not happen, and you may see mismatched gi top / pants, or strange colours, e.g. red. I don't have personal experience of high level judo competitions, but I suspect that the gi-checking is similar at the top levels of brazilian jiu jitsu. If "tightly regulated" refers to the permitted dimensions of the gi, it's clear that brazilian jiu jitsu allows for a tighter fitting gi. But that doesn't seem to be the point being made. Perhaps it should be edited? Systemet (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Using Your Opponent's Strength...

As I used to say to the judoka I sparred with (my background is Shotokan Karate and some jujutsu) "If you are always using your opponent's strength against him, how come you can bench-press a Chevy?" While my question was intended to be humerous, most succesful practitioners of the grappling arts are very strong. When you have an opponent without comparable skills, you can use his strength. Otherwise, you better have some of your own. 71.234.37.144 (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven

Well at lower levels stregth tends to play a larger roll. That said numeros times have the gracies proved size matters not. Watch Gracie VS Severn, Gracie clearly at weight disadvantage (80lbs) this one example of many. My personal jiu jitsu coach whos is 25 Lbs lighter than me can tap me at about 4 times per minute, i am also quite a bit stonger than him when it comes to hitting the weights. The point is, is that BJJ is meant for someone with superior technique to be able to defeat some of a larger stature regardless of stregth or size.--132.25.0.206 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

belt colours...

"Only the founding Gracie Brothers Helio, Carlos & his brothers will ever have the 10th degree red belt."

Someone should explain why this is. 129.173.209.8 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

because this is ONLY reserved for the original founders of BJJ; Also the red belt should not be included in that list, since a) it is not a feasible belt to be attained, it is very very difficult to get; b) there is no red and black belt in the list before it, so if the red belt is up, then also put the rend and black; c) the main belts are: white, blue purple, brown and black.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.143.3 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

9th degree...

I do not think Relson is 9th degree. Saheemg (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

half-guard [the picture]

the guy on the picture locked the half-guard incorrectly (in this case it should be right leg underneath the left, and not the other way round as pictured!) this can obviously happen, but since it is encyclopedia, and since the picture is titled "two practitioners in the half-guard position".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.90.116 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. Half guard means you are trapping half the opponents legs. i.e. one leg out of two. (Please note the instructions at the to of this page regarding putting new text under old, and signing your comments, thanks.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; however, I do know what half guard means. I can only reiterate that it's locked incorrectly on the picture. The leg between your opponent's legs should hook your other leg, NOT the other way round. Every instructor will tell you that. If you don't believe me, type "half-guard" on Youtube and check out a few first instructionals that will come up - posted by StephenKesting, kenprimo, StudioEFX (with world-class grappler JJ Machado). They ALL show half-guard locked the way I said it should be locked, and it's not a coincidence.81.108.178.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also have an open half guard, being in half guard and being the optimal position for it are two different things. Also if he top guy was trying to pass his right leg to mount that position would provide a better defence as you can trap the knee. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep... added to that, you often have to just take what you can get! --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This variant is considered incorrect, because such a half-guard is generally easier to open. Also it is limiting your other options - have a look at the picture; the bottom guy cannot base on his right leg in hope to sweep the opponent (and land on the top). It would be possible if it was his LEFT foot having contact with the mat. Also switching to full guard (an obviously advantageous move) is more problematic when you lock half-guard like that.

I completely agree with you that this is better than nothing! This reverted position can be used in sparrings and even seen on competitions.

I would compare it to shooting with the tip of the toe in football (or soccer if you prefer). Certainly better than nothing, you may even happen to score - but it should NOT illustrate an encyclopedic entry on the subject, if you see what I mean. In my opinion encyclopedias should aspire to present exactly that - OPTIMAL ("canonical") variants.

I know that you may consider it splitting hairs etc., so anyhow, I've made my point and I'm not going to argue anymore. Thank you!86.29.87.189 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No-one would object to you replacing that photo with a "more correct" one. We are only denying your assertion that the label on that photo is incorrect. Go right ahead. Thanks for your input. --David Broadfoot (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Due respect to all: there are so many different variations to the 1/2 guard that talking about a 'correct' way is impossible. Even a 'standard' way would be difficult to agree on. Sure, the guy on the bottom is making innumerable errors, but by virtue of wrapping two of his legs around one of his opponent's while in the bottom position, he is by definition applying the 1/2 guard, albeit poorly. As for which legs wraps which? I use either, depending on the needs of the moment. Eddie Bravo likes to lock outside over inside, others inside over outside -- whatever works. How about someone uploads a pic of someone applying the position effectively? 200.88.178.20 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)joe

Deletions by User:Vapour

Vapour, you've twice deleted a paragraph in the "Divergence from Kodokan rules" section, now giving the reason "Ground fighting in actual streefight being pointless has been debated for ages."

However, that paragraph is not even about ground fighting or its efficacy - it's about rule changes for safety, to reduce groundwork, and ban techniques like leglocks.

Why don't you delete the section titled "Ground fighting" instead? And delete the section titles "Style of fighting" which starts with the words "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu emphasizes ground fighting techniques"?

While you're at it, you may as well delete the entire article Kosen judo.

Or perhaps you could instead stop and realise that your opinion on the efficacy of groundwork has absolutely nothing to do with whether such content should or should not be included on Wikipedia. Even if 99% of the world's population agreed with your opinion, it still has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be included. --David from Downunder (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. Please find a reference from media or academia and I won't touch it even if it is an obvious anti judo BJJ propaganda. I'm invoking verification criteria. Onus of responsibility is now on you to find a verifiable source(s). I will find my reference in regard to the jodo-jujutu match which precipitated ground work restriction. So instead of reverting unverified statement, start looking. Vapour (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, now your reasoning has changed from "Ground fighting in actual streefight being pointless has been debated for ages" to "obvious anti judo BJJ propaganda". Wrong on both counts. I am the contributor who wrote that paragraph, and I am a judoka. Exactly what facts in that paragraph do you believe to be untrue? --David from Downunder (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets start again, Why, explicitly, do you want the paragraph removed? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nate, I can't any change of any substance that you made. What was the "pov phrase" that you removed? --David from Downunder (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The very last sentence in that section was a bit 'tagged-on' & struck me as POV so I removed it, Did the rest of the edits make sense? I just felt it was a bit 'bitty' as also of stuff tends be after initial addition. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But that sentence you deleted (BJJ's different rules set and point scoring mechanisms are designed to give BJJ an arguably more practical emphasis.) is not in the paragraph that he deleted. The text that he deleted was Various changes over the years - some designed to make judo more interesting as a spectator sport for Olympic audiences, and some designed to make judo a safer sport - have greatly de-emphasised the groundwork aspects of judo, and reduced the range of joint locks allowed, though these non-sport aspects have been preserved in judo, and are practiced to varying extents in different judo schools. It's definitely not "obvious anti judo BJJ propaganda" - it's just a series of well-known facts that doesn't in any way at all express any opinion for or against the changes. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Other edits make sense, but I still dislike the phrase "arguably more practical emphasis", who argued it? you could also argue the other way too, I think it is an inherently pov phrase. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that. I chose that word purposely to make it less POV. As to who argues it, BJJ proponents obviously, the Gracies originally as it was them who designed that point scoring system for that reason. They have have good rationale for their arguments, but that is not to say that they are right on balance. The fact is that no-one knows whether they are right or not in general. They are certainly right when it comes to a bare-skinned challenge on a soft surface. Probably correct with regards to a clothed opponent on soft surface, especially if that person is untrained in being thrown, but could be incorrect when it comes to scenarios with hard surfaces. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the word "arguably" on the grounds that it's redundant and only distorts your meaning. No one's debating that the Gracies wanted BJJ to be more "practical" than Kodokan Judo. As for your discussion with Vapour, I'd ask this question: What did the Gracies want BJJ to be more practical for? Street fighting or no-holds-barred cage fights? Even a NHB fight (by which I mean a cage match free of MMA's sport-imposed restrictions) isn't "true" combat, because each opponent knows he's only facing one other person. In this regard, I think it's pretty clear that BJJ is more "practical" than judo. Whether one or the other is more "practical" for "combat" depends on your definition of those two words. In my opinion the argument would be made moot if we got a little more specific about BJJ's origins in Vale Tudo, which defines the kind of combat we're talking about and eliminates any controversy, because BJJ is clearly more effective training for Vale Tudo than Judo. Victors Monster (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter it is less POV or not. The fact remain that "judo rule being safe and crowd pleasing" does not have citation/source. Nor my claim that "judo's ground work restriction is more combat realistic" edit had citation. It makes no difference if you or I are 10th dan in judo or jututu. Verification criteria is invoked. Until you find a vierifiable source, the edit is out. Vapour (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, your criticism has strayed off yet again on a different tack. I never said that judo was safe or crowd-pleasing... just that the rule changes were made to try to make it so. It is a well-known fact. Only controversial statements are strictly subject to the need for citation. Not every phrase in every article is cited! Why don't you help instead by finding a suitable suitable citation. I have better things to do than to look for citations for uncontroversial statements. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fairly easy to argue why BJJ is not very useful in actual street fights.

1. while you're grappling someone, the guy's friend can easily break a beer bottle and stab you with it. or they can can pick up a rock and smack your head. or they can kick your head with a steel toed shoe etc.

2. you can't really react fast to changing circumstances while you're on the ground. for example, while you're grappling someone, you can't run away very fast if you see a cop or a guy with a baseball bat coming your way. in fact in some positions you probably wont see them at all.

3. depending on how good you are, there is a good chance that your opponent can reach into his pocket, take out his knife and stab you before you can subdue him...

sensible people generally dont enter into street fights... hence... when you do enter a street fight, it's most likely against opponents who don't care about going to jail for the next 30 years as long as they can win... and that's exactly the kind of fighting that BJJ is weak against.

Philosophy.dude (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Easy" if you have never trained in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

1. While in ANY fight, a person can easy grab a weapon and strike you with it, weather it be a standup fight or a grappling fight. Unless you have eyes on the back of your head, you are always at risk of being struck by a third party, so this argument is kind of null.

2. BJJ addresses this with the Knee on Belly position, which I won't explain.

3. Again, anyone can have a weapon at anytime, but to a good grappler an exposed arm (grabbing for a weapon) can easily mean a dislocated shoulder in a matter of seconds. Also dropping a hand to your side could expose your head to an onslaught of punches, and in the heat of the moment, you are almost always going to be protecting your face. But BJJ isnt a knife fighting martial art. A boxer versus a knife wielding attacker would have similar problems (albeit with more space to run). But if the BJJ fighter can not allow the attacker to get to his knife, there is no knife threat.

Either while striking or grapping, being in a fight and knowing BJJ is certainly an advantage to a well trained practitioner, so I'd argue why is it actually very useful in an actual fight.

67.80.235.158 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Adam from NJ, USA

Half Guard picture

Hi Guys

I really think the picture should be changed. The only people who are going to access this page will be those who don't know much about BJJ - I don't think a good first picture should be two guys in the half guard/mount position.... Doesn't do much to promote BJJ I have to say...

A better picture would be say, one guy with knee-on-belly choking his partner, or one guy in the midst of a takedown/slam. Anything would be better that this picture, although a picture of someone in another guy's guard would be worse. I can't even put Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in my hobbies/interests as anyone curious will google BJJ, find the Wikipedia article (it's the first search result) and be greeted with two guys in half guard/mount. Someone not knowning about the sport will I'm afraid will look at this picture and call it gay immediately - at the end of the day first impressions count...

In case you're wondering, yes I'm an avid BJJ'er / MMA practitioner but at the same time I realise that to make the sport more appealing to outsiders the picture should be more 'interesting' than two guys in half guard/mount...

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.131.89 (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 

 ::while i see your point that half-guard might seem a bit overly technical to be a first picture introducing someone to bjj, i would disagree with your assertion that it looks "gay" or seems "uninteresting." a lot of time is spent in half guard as it's a good position to get a sweep, so it is a pretty accurate representation of a typical bjj position. if you want to change it to something less "gay" and more "interesting," perhaps you could do so; however, as i said, i don't think it's either gay or uninteresting. maybe just overly technical. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working on securing a better picture. I actually like the half-guard picture, but I would agree that we should having something that's more recognizable. Buddy23Lee (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally changed the picture! See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts for more details or alternatives. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gogoplate and judo

(----December 2008----) In the article is mentioned that in old school judo or Kosen Judo the Gogoplata was already know. Can this statement be accompianied by some references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.221.228 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) It's true. Judo did it a bit differently and they called it Kagato Jime. I just don't know why it's even mentioned in this article. The whole slant of it as it stands sounds like it was written by a Judo guy with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.48.113 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

4 Styles and their origins

Under 1.2 Name, the article mentions the 4 styles of BJJ and says that all 4 can trace their roots back to Helio Gracie and Maeda. Doesn't Gracie Barra's roots come from Carlos Gracie, Sr., older brother of Helio? The path would be Maeda to Carlos, Sr. and then Carlos, Jr. / Gracie Barra - Helio doesn't appear to be in the path here. Can someone please clarify (like, did Helio also teach Carlos, Jr. or contribute to the Gracie Barra school in another way)? Wouldn't it be a fair statement to also say that all 4 styles can trace roots back to Carlos, Sr., since he studied directly from Maeda and passed those teachings along to his brothers (including Helio). I'm not coming at this from any particular side, just seeking clarification; citations would be good, too.

--Porfitron (talk) 21:03, 03 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I suggest a criticism section be made on the main article. Althogh BJJ sprouted throughout the world in the 90's, the Gracie family was always seen as a family of rowdies, of people who were always involved with street fighting, confusion, police departments and law suits. They are very far from being a martial arts example of morality and good conduct. Another criticism is that Jiu-jitsu was never created by brazilians - it was adapted. In japanese terms, it should be called Gracie-ryu (gracie school or method), but many people still believe that the art was created in Brazil. Besides, all the good aspects of traditional japanese martial arts, such as etiquette, discipline, hierarchy, respect to others, the kind of thing that promotes human development, all of this were ignored and forgotten by these brazilian schools - a real disrespect for the thousands of years of development the art took to reach such a level.

If it wasn't for that, perhaps Jiu-jitsu could be in the Olympics. Brazilian Jiu-jitsu was and still is an martial method of rowdies, of trouble making people. They are not, I repeat, an example of conduct. This is a veryfiable fact, and mention to this should be made of the main page. It is far from being a method of saints, warriors, monks and educators, as it was back in japanese history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.139.149 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of rowdies, i am pretty sure that every one has seen UFC (which created by Gracies) or any BJJ Youtube video that use a kind of strategy that concentrate on attacking all other Martial Art (Even Judo) which not show over 90% ground techniques, and the advantages of this kind of strategy is alot of peopple makes up his/her minds about a type of Martial Art (Even Judo) as they seen on regular TV or Film, and any other Martial Art that did not show over 90% of ground techniques (either in TV or Film) is classified as uneffective. Thus pointing out viewer should learn a type of Martial art that is over 90% ground techniques. This promotion strategy can be considered as desparated salesman that try to paint every one else black to promote himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.67.47 (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't criticism of the art, it is criticism of the family. It should be under the gracie family page. Sublime8510 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Add a criticism section then. But it has to be sourced. Portillo (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are a sign of bad writing, you should try to interweave criticism if you find it, not create a criticism section and then try to fill it. The obvious major criticism of bjj is its use in real life as it doesn't contain disarms(to my knowledge), has no real curriculum for defedning against multiple opponents, does not teach fighting with weapons, and deemphasizes the problems traditionally associated with the ground(biting, eye gouges, groin pulls, fish hooking, etc). Although BJJ doesn't claim to be an all around fighting system, so claiming that it doesn't prepare people for real combat is less of a criticism and more of an observation. What it does claim to do however it does well and that should be(and is) acknowledged.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

BJJ being ineffective against multiple opponents should be discussed more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.38.118 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No Gi

I didnt read the whole article so i dont know if its mentioned somewhere. But i wanted to know if its true that you cannot get promoted in BJJ if you train No Gi? Portillo (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

depends on the school. times are changing but traditional bjj means grappling with a gi. no gi = submission wrestling. bjj schools typically have no gi days where they do submission wrestling, but whether a no-gi bjj guy is doing submission wrestling or bjj is really just an argument in semantics. but times are changing, and for example 10th planet jiu jitsu (eddie bravo's school) only trains with no gi. he does promote his students, except they have different colored shirts instead of belts. again, it's a question of philosophical semantics as to where to differential no gi bjj and submission wrestling. i guess the short answer is yes, you can get promoted without a gi, but that would depend on your school. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fadda lineage?

BJJ was taught to more people than the gracies, the article states that everyone can trave their lineage back to a gracie family member but there is also the Fadda lineage who obviously isnt a Gracie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Future of Jiu Jitsu (possible edit war)

Okay, some people have been editing this article a lot, with a lot of unconfirmed information and/or flaming.

A previous version of the section 'Future of Jiu Jitsu' stated the following: "Just as Brazilians added to the Jiu Jitsu that was introduced from Japan, so has the world of mixed martial arts contributed to the development of Jiu Jitsu. To continue referring it as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is in contrast to the development and adaptation it has seen over the past few years due to the world of mixed martial arts as greco-roman wrestling, and real life fighting has changed what the Brazilians added to Japanese Jiu Jitsu. It is also known as many names from American Jiu Jitsu, Hawaiian Jiu Jitsu, and simply Jiu Jitsu, and it continues to evolve."

A edit was made with the following: "As history has shown, Brazilians have not only adopted and contributed to the development of modern day "Jiu-Jitsu" but they are also largely responsible for the martial art's fame and distribution to foreign countries through such organizations as the UFC. So whoever edited the last article saying it shouldn't be called "BRAZILIAN Jiu-Jitsu" show some respect and STFU. :)"

First of all, the first text is not sourced. I couldn't find one single reference to this martial art being referred to as American Jiu Jitsu or Hawaiian Jiu Jitsu. Second of all, several sources used in this article state that BJJ is based on Judo, not on Japanese Jujutsu, so claiming BJJ added something to that martial art seems incorrect.

Now, this martial art is called Brazilian Jiu Jitsu by both the Gracies (who invented the martial art) and the International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Federation, so it's safe to assume that is the name it will continue to use.

With that said, I took the liberty of removing that section. That will not only remove the unsourced information, it will also avoid an edit war. Smertios (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tone of the Article

As it currently reads, this article sounds like it belongs as a subsection of Judo. Need there be constant references to Judo and Kano's philosophies in every section of the article on top of a "Comparison with Judo" section? And why is there said section when the Judo article does not have a "comparison with Tenshin Shinyo and Kito Ryu" section, and indeed no other martial art article has such a section of comparison with its originating art? Why is there at least as much discussion of Judo as Brazilian Jiu-jitsu in the article supposedly about Brazilian Jiu-jitsu?

Considering there is nothing near a consensus (or even a significant fraction) of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu practitioners who consider themselves a "style of Judo" and the aforementioned abundance of unnecessary information that belongs in Judo, the article as it stands is decidedly NPOV and fraught with original research. If links to interviews and articles substantiating this approach of BJJ as a subset of Judo could be produced, that would of course merit inclusion. Until such references can be produced, however, I hold that the article merits significant re-writing. FlowWTG (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In the history section discussion of Judo is essential, but breaking up the comparison section, moving Divergence from Kodokan rules to the history section Ground fighting to the style section and making the Gi section a standalone, would be a good 1st step. --Nate^t/_c 09:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, misdirected focus and some poor writing. There are a couple of sections that I really can't figure out. Hutcher (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done the section moves, will need some smoothing out but flows ok for now. Insert non-formatted text here

I am considering whether removing the "Divergence from Kodokan Rules" section would be appropriate. There is no records of BJJ competitions or schools ever using Kodokan rules. This seems more loaded language the more I think about it. Any thoughts? FlowWTG (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, as no one seems to object. It was unsourced in its premise and only seemed to be present to support the slant that mentioned Judo more than BJJ in BJJ's own article. I think a suitable replacement section would detail the original rules (continue until submission, I believe) and the formulation of the modern competition ruleset. Mention Rolls's original system, the small changes, the reasoning behind it the positional hierarchy. The removal is open to discussion, of cousre, but I can't see why this was ever allowed to be present to begin with. FlowWTG (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it as BJJ started originated in Judo it^^{The Gracies} would have used the Kodokan Judo rules of the time originally, it could do with a bit of a re write to make it clear that it was as much the kodokan changing the rules and BJJ not following as it introducing it's own but it is useful info on the history. (sorry for not commenting earlier I've been on holiday) --Nate^t/_c 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is still no evidence that the Kodokan rules of the time were used. Since its inception, the Kodokan has awarded the ippon (win) one of three ways: 1) Powerful, controlled throw ; 2) Osaekomi (pin), though the duration has changed ; 3) Jointlock or choke. I have never, ever seen any evidence or even loose stories to support the notion that 1 and 2 were ever used in BJJ. Win by submission seems to be the only rule ever mentioned, and to suppose that BJJ must have used Kodokan rules because it used Kodokan-derived techniques is not really a convincing argument. Until there is some evidence presented to show that the Kodokan rules were ever followed at all, I continue to hold that the section's premise is flawed. Some of the information is certainly useful and should be included, but the section as a whole gives the reader an impression that is not based on facts. At least not facts that I've seen, and certainly not facts sourced in this article. In the meantime, I think it's better to remove the section pending re-write rather than let it stand in its flawed state. Will hold off until hearing back before removing it, though. Let me know what you think! FlowWTG (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding the Gracies were taught Judo, not just a bag of tricks but full detail (Helio held a rank with the Kodokan), but then took it and adapted it to their needs so creating BJJ. I probably phrased it badly but what I feel should be covered 'is that transition, both the changes in the Kodokan rules and the changes in the style used by the Gracies, how they went from being taught Judo to creating what would become modern BJJ (By the time they anyone called it Gracie jiu jitsu let alone BJJ it was very different again). I did not mean to imply that BJJ had used those rule only the when someone was metaphorically sat at a table writing "The rules of BJJ" they would have had "The rules of Judo" on the table as a reference. Hope that makes sense, a basic re-write or commenting it out would be a good step but removing it means someone coming to edit that section had no starting point, or sources, to help.--Nate^t/_c 11:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Marcelo Rezende

Rezendes article is up for deletion. Does anyone have any sources to make it notable? Thanks for any help. Portillo (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Belt pictures

I believe the belt pictures should be inverted because the correct way to tie a BJJ belt is to have to tabs on the left side of your body. If you are looking at someone from the front it will look as if it on your right and their left. Right now all the belt pictures show the tabs on the left of the picture so you'd interpret that as on your left and the right side of their body. If anyone with media permission wants to fix this or discuss this further it'd be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.57.221 (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of word "jiujitsu"

I have seen all sorts of variations on spellings of the word jiujitsu, jiu-jitsu,jujitsu, etc. and there seems to be no universal consensus on how it should be spelled in English. I must ask why then, has the "Jiu-Jitsu" variation been used as the title of this article? Was there a previous consensus established? There are some sources such as http://www.alljujitsu.com/jujutsu.html which are adamantly opposed to the usage of hyphens in spelling jiujitsu and I was hoping to get some feedback on this topic. — Shaolin Samurai (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

=== == There have ben many spellings of Jiu-Jitsu, both in the past and present. In summary, the original word is jujutsu, which means gentle technique. The word was changed to Judo, gentle way, by Jigoro Kano who invented Judo and thought the techniques of the art should be applied to one's life, thus becoming principles and not just techniques. Present day the spelling is Jiu-Jitsu or Jiu Jitsu. In Japan, it is a law that the art must be called Judo, but that law does not extend to other countries and so each country calls it something a little different. The word is a Japanese word and there are other forms of jutsu's such as Naginatajutsu, Ninjutsu, Sojutsu, and Shurikenjutsu. None of which are hyphenated. There are Japanese Arts that end with Do or Justu. 'Do' being a way of life and 'Jutsu' meaning Technique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts

Kodokan Judo was founded by Jigoro Kano, who as a youth began practicing jujutsu* as a way to strengthen his frail body. Kano studied both the Tenjin Shinyo-ryu and Kito-ryu styles of classical jujutsu, eventually mastering their deepest teachings, and supplemented this training with an avid interest in other combative forms as well. Integrating what he considered the positive points of these with his own ideas and inspirations, he established a revised body of physical technique, and also transformed the traditional jujutsu principle of "defeating strength through flexibility" into a new principle of "maximum efficient use of physical and mental energy." The result was a new theoretical and technical system that Kano felt better matched the needs of modern people.

• Close-quarter fighting systems

"Seiryoku-zen'yo";"maximum efficient use of energy"(right), "Jita-kyoei";"mutual prosperity for self and others"(left) written by Prof.KanoThe essence of this system he expressed in the axiom "maximum efficient use of energy", a concept he considered both a cornerstone of martial arts and a principle useful in many aspects of life. Practical application of this principle, he felt, could contribute much to human and social development, including "mutual prosperity for self and others", which he identified as the proper goal of training. What Kano had created transcended mere technique to embrace a set of principles for perfecting the self. To reflect this, he replaced justu (technique) in the word "ju-jutsu" with the suffix do (path) to create a new name for his art: judo. His training hall he named "Ko-do-kan," or "a place to teach the path."

The first American book of the 'gentle art' was called “Textbook of Ju-jutsu” in 1905. The first American to receive a diploma from Japan, got his diploma in the "Gentle Art of Self Control...", prior to 1902, exact date unknown. The school, Handa, in Japan, where the first practitioners were trained is said to be a jiu-jitsu school.

In 1905, ju-jutsu pioneer Sadakazu Uyenishi and his students issued the “Textbook of Ju-jutsu”. It was partly illustrated with “cinematographics” produced by the Gaumont Film Company, here re-animated for the first time in over 100 years. http://counterpointmartialarts.com/random-martial-arts-link/textbook-of-ju-jutsu-1905-re-animated/

According to a 1904 "Health and Strength" magazine interview with pioneering London jiujitsu instructor (and challenge wrestler) Sadakazu Uyenishi, both himself and his colleague Yukio Tani were trained by a sensei named Yataro Handa at a dojo in Osaka. The article also contains a portrait-style photograph of Yataro Handa. "The other school of jiu-jitsu is called Handa, and its great teachers are at Osaka, where I learned. Handa is more particularly the kind of jiu-jitsu used when two men are on the mat, as in catch-as-catch-can. The jiu-jitsu tricks of the tiny Japanese policemen, which have been written about so much by travelers, embody the elementary principles of the Kodokan method, and some of the policemen are quite good at them. As I have said, there is little stand-up work in catch-as-catch can and Handa experts are the ones to offer a comparison between the Japanese and American methods..." http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37917

Speaking of [U.S. Army Military] Intelligence, there is now attached to the Military Police a man who until Spring [1918] was Instructor of Jui-jitsu [sic] in the [91st] Divisional School of Intelligence, Capt. Risher Thornberry, the First and Only foreigner to obtain a diploma from the Japanese government for the practice of its national "Gentle Art of Self Control," which gentle art can cause instant death, if need press, with no other weapon than hands and body. [EN1] The Japanese samurai, nobility, could defile their swords upon no man not equal or superior. The Ninety-First was again most fortunate in securing a master of the difficult system, a man who was chosen to teach Jui-jitsu to the Japanese themselves. Curiously, and wisely, they will not issue a diploma to a student who has but proved himself proficient, he must teach others, for a set period, successfully. It is something, then, to be instructed by a man who holds that curious scroll. Capt. Thornberry published a series of illustrated books upon Jui-jitsu several years ago. [EN2]

"The principle of the system is simple, that of the lever," he explains. That may seem simple to him and clear to you, but to me there are still several points unillumined about this "wrestling kit which no soldier should be without." http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_henderson_0600.htm

H. Irving Hancock, who in the early 1900's wrote several books on the history of Japanese physical training & Jujitsu. I will start with his book Japanese Physical Training written in 1903. "Subsequently he studied in Nagasaki, under Inouye San, instructor of Jiu-jitsu in the police department of that city"... Col. Risher W. Thornberry. Thornberry wrote several books on jujitsu from 1905 to 1933. In his first jujitsu book written in 1905, the first page is very interesting. It shows a picture of Prof. Kishoku Inouye, "Instructor to the Nagasaki Police". At the top of the page it reads, "Jiu-jitsu - As taught by Prof. Inouye to over 2,000 Officers and Soldiers now at the front line." Reference to the Russo/Japanese war. http://www.jujitsufightingstyle.com/Old_School_Jujitsu.html

Etymology The word “jujutsu” (柔, “ju,” gentle, flexible, or versatile; 術, “jutsu,” art, practice) in Japanese means "gentle (or flexible) art." There are several romanized spellings; jujutsu, the current standard spelling, is derived using the Hepburn romanization system. Before the first half of the twentieth century, however, when Japanese martial arts first became well known in the West, "jiu-jitsu" and then "jujitsu" were preferred, and these earlier spellings are still used in many places. Jiu-Jitsu is the standard spelling in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

The literal translation of the word jūjutsu means "gentle art." In Japan, jujutsu can be used as a broad term encompassing all Japanese martial arts such as jujutsu, judo, and aikido, or it can refer to schools that follow the tenets of old school jujutsu, as opposed to other divergent specializations such as those denoted by the "aiki," karate, or kenpo prefixes. The prefix "ju" in jujutsu means softness, suppleness, or flexibility. Jujutsu techniques are used to react to an opponent’s attack rather than using brute strength to overcome him. A small person may overcome a larger person by means of stratagem and effective technique. The analogy of a bamboo tree, whose flexible trunk bends in high winds to avoid being uprooted, describes how jujutsu conceptualizes the art of fighting. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jujutsu == ===

Gkornegay (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Glenn Kornegay NYC 2011

Perhaps we need a Wikipedia:Standard on romanization for Japanese, Korean or other Asian martial arts terms, when they are used as loanwords in English. I've always heard karate pronounced as ka-RAH-dy instead of ka-rah-teh; and I wince every time I hear taekwando pronounced as tai-KWAN-do instead of tae-gwuhn-do.

American English usage has long been to spell and say jiu-jitsu although I don't know how the middle vowel of jujutsu got changed from 'U' to 'I'. Americans say joo-JIT-soo instead of joo-joo-t'soo.

It's always interesting to know what a government wants, especially when they have international influence. Ivory Coast's government decreed a while back that the (French) name of their country - Côte d'Ivoire - should not be translated into English, even by European or American writers!

Compounding the problem of official terminology may also be the desire of some teachers or schools to emphasize or (perhaps even) to exaggerate the differences between their style and others. This can be confusing for the observer or prospective student, much as someone wanting a portable phone might be thrown by Sprint's "alternative to cellular" slogan which they used to market their cellular network. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I can only add that almost all Brazilian jiu jitsu academies use the "jiu jitsu" spelling, correct or incorrect. I think that changing the title of the article would create unnecessary confusion. Systemet (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article relevancy and conclusions

My compliments to all who have submitted information to this article and to the authors. By reading the initial article as well as using all of the links to the references and the Discussion board I am able to get a very complete and almost overwhelming understanding of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. The controversies, arguments, disagreements, and factual disputes are all apart of what makes this article great. Yes, there are mulitple spellings of Jiu-Jitsu. Yes, many people in Jiu-Jitsu have almost a brotherly relationship to Judo or consider it much of, if not completely the same thing. Yes, there is open half guard and closed half guard. Jiu-Jitsu is a world unto itself. There are literally thousands of moves and positions available, over 2000 in side mount alone, as well as the constant and unlimited scientific research into new techniques and perspectives everyday. Good luck to the persons who attempt to define it, as it is constantly growing both in the present and the past as we realize that open hand combat is as early as caveman days when the first guy was RNC'd over a dinosaur egg. The best we can do is take a snapshot of what we know, right now, and keep adding information as we better understand what this art means. However, I do not believe at all that you should be completely deleting information once you gain a new perspective or backed opinion. Having it available, what you deleted, in the Discussion board is also highly beneficial to the reader. I'm not sure if this will get posted, but to whomever is reading this. Thank you. Happy Training.Gkornegay (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Glenn Kornegay 2011 NYC Ref: http://www.renzogracieacademy.com; Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, Helio Gracie; Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu series) by Renzo Gracie, Royler Gracie, John Danaher and Kid Peligro (Oct 1, 2001); Jiu-Jitsu University by Saulo Ribeiro and Kevin Howell (Nov 17, 2008); Mastering Jujitsu (Mastering Martial Arts Series) by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher (May 22, 2003);Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: For Experts Only by Carlson Gracie and Julio Fernandez (Aug 1, 2004); Kodokan Judo: The Essential Guide to Judo by Its Founder Jigoro Kano by Jigor? Kan? (Jul 15, 1994); 2000 YEARS Jiu Jitsu Kodokan Judo Early American Judo - by Dennis Helm by Dennis Helm (Feb 2, 2008); Illustrated Kodokan Judo by (ILLUSTRATED KODOKAN JUDO) (1955)

Fedor Emelianenko a barrier for BJJ.

Who deletes Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira from section Famous practitioners?? From that its Fedor has beaten it for that??? And Werdum leave as he has won great Fedor!

Nog is being removed from the list because, as described in the section when you edit it, it is reserved only for practitioners who are famous for success in sport BJJ or as great teachers of BJJ. Nogueira is not famous for any accomplishments in sport BJJ competition; he is known for his success in MMA. This has been explained many times in comments by editors.

Werdum is known for his accomplishments in fostering BJJ's popularity in Europe and for his sporting accomplishments in grappling competitions. That is why he is listed.

I understand that there may be a language barrier issue here. Please, if you attempt an edit which is repeatedly removed by many other editors, make sure you are not missing anything, such as the request in the "Famous Practitioners" section of the article to limit the list only to those people known for their competence in pure BJJ. FlowWTG (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Chokes & Strangles section

This section has been edited to read that the baroreceptors are the sole reason for loss of consciousness due to strangles. However, there are no references provided for this claim. Can references be provided? If not, I will rewrite for more general language which does not try to explain the exact mechanism of action for strangles, which AFAIK is still a matter of debate. FlowWTG (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)