Which martial art style has more effective techniques in pure ground fighting practicality? Judo or BJJ?

Question

Because I have this friend that does BJJ that is really pissed off over this Judo guy and I dunno which of them will get badly beaten up when they'll get into a real school fight.

Answer 1

Judo was created to get your enemy to the ground. JJ was invented to finish them once they were on the ground.

Answer 2

Definately BJJ. Go watch Renzo Gracie or Bj Penn and you'll see why ;)

Answer 3

They both have grappling. Judo has ne waza (ground techniques) and Brazilian Jujitsu cam from Kodokan Judo so I'd say that it depends on the practitioner.

Answer 4

Every technique in BJJ has existed in Judo way before BJJ was even formed, and this is coming from someone who studies BJJ and Judo as well so I have no biases.

Judo people are generally VERY tough to deal with whether standing up or on the ground.

True, in a Judo tournement, Judo players have an advantage because they can't spend too much time on the ground thus effectively minimizing the chances for any sub work, but these rules won't apply in a real fight and an a Judoka can apply a RNC just as quickly as a BJJ student.

This said, BJJ has added a lot of sophistication to the art of submissions by focusing on transitions, combinations and the introduction to no-gi fighting.

In the end none of this will matter because like Frank said above, your friends would be morons.

Answer 5

Like Frank said... "A Real School Fight" is for losers, and will ultimately gain nothing.

Most BJJ vs. Judo players end with whomever the better fighter is... art vs. art doesn't matter as much.

Ask Helio Gracie why his arm aches when it rains outside..

Ask Royce Gracie whether he was out in the Yoshida fight...

Keep in mind Helio beat a few Judokas before Kimura came to avenge Judo.

And Royce beat a few as well, as Remco Parduel can attest.

Either one is very good in real practicality, because they both train with resistance.

Having BJJ doesn't give you a leg up against someone with Judo, and having Judo doesn't give you a leg up against someone with BJJ...

Both have plusses and minuses and are on even keel.

That being said, a Judo person controlling the takedown is everything. When you are starting off in a bad position, against someone who has to hold people in a bad position (Judo has to maintain dominant position for 25 seconds) usually things aren't going to go well for you.

But that all doesn't matter, because ultimately it is the fighter in a match up like this, who trains more, who is in better shape, who has the best skills at their chosen art, and the ability to use it.

Hard to say... but style vs. style doesn't really do anything in a match up of two similar styles.

BJJ isn't a magic garunteed victory art... as tons of BJJ blackbelts with more than enough losses under their belts can attest.

Answer 6

BJJ for sure, BJJ is one of the most powerful martial arts ever, just check out most UFC  champions were BJJ trained.

Judo is just for grabbing, throwing and other stuff.

Answer 7

it can go either way.

but generally speaking...the edge goes to bjj...because thats where they spend most of their time.

kimura was not your run of the mill judo-ka either.

they are really quite similar...they both come from japanese jujutsu.

bjj is just judo with an emphasis on ne waza.

dont get me wrong, it has developed into its own monster.

get a judo guy, vs a jujutsu guy, where they both have the same amount of time on the ground, and it'll be a great match!

alas...i agree....a school fight is just stupid.

i have often said, and i emplore everyone to listen.

we too often concentrate on the wrong part of the word(s)....brazilian jujutsu, judo, japanese jujutsu....they all have ONE thing in common....."JU" which is the principle they are ALL based on and ALL strive to follow. they are more similar than different.

who cares what "ju" is surrounded with? so what if it has "do" on the end of "ju"....so what if it has "brazilian" before and "jutsu" after? ...so what if it has "japanese" before and "jutsu "after....they all have "ju''...thats the important part!

Answer 8

If they ever fought, they'd both be morons and both would lose, that aside........ this is my opinion:

Considering they are of equal skill level, it'd be a pretty even fight.

The Judoka would most likely pin down the BJJ practitioner, as they have alot more throws in their repertoire. From there the BJJ guy would be home (provided he can withstand the pain of being slammed to possible a hard surface).

From there the BJJ guy would probably go for submissions, and the Judoka has a great chance to defend them. If they are skillfull, they'd go back and forth.

Answer 9

mate try mai thi thiland kick boxing that S**t is frickin nutz if not watch the ufc

Answer 10

BJJ definately covers the ground fighting territory. Judo is essential when getting a person TO the GROUND, like slamming them to it. the average Judo practitioner will have a disadvantage ON the ground. but one thing about a Judo warrior is that a streetfight is more likely to end when he/she slams the aggressor on the cement, letting gravity and the ground do the damaging. BJJ is the way to go on the ground when the guy on the floor is still conscious

Answer 11

BJJ i feel is more for ground, where as Judo is better for standing.

Answer 12

Most definetly BJJ...it is mostly ground where as judo is flipping and counters on the feet.....

BJJ is basically all ground besides the moves you use to get your opponent to the ground from standing up.....guard, side control, mount...there are some moves like standing choke holds and armbars that you dont have to go to the ground for.

But for the most part Judo is mostly stand up.

who would win in a fight ...Judo or BJJ....it isnt the martial art...it is the martial artist

it depends on who is knows more techniques, who is more skilled! not what martial art they practice in.