[Skorzeny]

Danger Dave:

Your point of Caveat Emptor is well taken. There are now more BJJ and other grappling schools now than there used to be. However, one can reasonably defend against the over-night BJJ schools by checking the lineages from some excellent websites that list all the legitimate BJJ instructors and their lineages.

And, yes, indeed, the popularity of Bruce Lee movies created a huge world-wide "resurgence" of Kung Fu (even though Lee practiced a particular version of Wing Chun and then created his own Jeet Kune Do that are very different from what "lay" people think of as Kung Fu). Note, however, that the popularity derived from movies, i.e. fictional combat.

On the other hand, the Gracies have been involved in real NHB fights for the past 75 years. They popularized their style of Jiu-Jitsu (actually pre-WWII, Kodokan Judo, as practiced by Maeda; vastly different from Nihon Jujutsu, which is more similar to Aikido or Hapkido) through the Ultimate Fighting Championship and other NHB events where they had to deal with actual opponents intent on harming them.

As for the usefulness of Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido and Aikido, I do not deny that they are useful in some circumstances, particularly against those untrained in unarmed combat arts. Here are, however, some problems of why I do not think that they are as effective as, say, BJJ, in actual one-on-one unarmed fight:

1. Tae Kwon Do - In order to get everyone involved in this art and to popularize it as an Olympic sport, TKD has become a sport.
Even at the beginning, it was nothing more than a Koreanized version of Shotokan Karate. The "Korean" emphasis to make it distinct from a Japanese art by adding more emphasis to kicks actually made it more INeffective. High kicks look "cool" in demonstrations and movies, but in a real fight, it makes you unbalanced and vulnerable to a clinch.

I am no stranger to TKD. I studied TKD for over 10 years including several years in ROK itself. I have a Ei-Dan (2nd Degree) black belt that I earned at the World Tae Kwon Do Federation HQ in Seoul.

I find it hilarious now a days when TKD blackbelts try to "chase" me with one foot up. I avoid the first kick, throw a low kick, take them down, and proceed to finish them (either with strikes or with rear chokes when they turtle).

2. Aikido - It is truly a spiritual and beautiful art. Its movements are graceful and pleasing to observe. However, practicing against slow fake punches and kicks, no matter how often one trains, will not prepare one for dealing with actual, unexpected, dynamic attacks by opponents. Since there is no Randori (free-sparring), one does not learn to deal with dynamic movements of the opponent. Besides, most Aikido styles (mainly Aikikai) tell Uke or Tori to "cooperate" with the Nage to make the whole movement smoother. Theoretically, one can eventually become like O-Sensei (Ueshiba Morihei) in being able to move like a butterfly and neutralize any attack from any angle. However, that will take a lifetime devotion to the art (we are looking at 25-30 years here) before one can even begin to have the kind of "sense" to feel the aggression coming.

I also studied Aikido.

3. Hapkido - Hapkido is a bit more utilitarian as it originates from the fusion of Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu (a highly combative Nihon Jujutsu-Ryu) and Taekyon (supposedly an indigenous Korean style though that is very speculative to anyone who is not a Korean nationalist). Hapkido suffers from two main problems. First, there is no randori utilizing the full range of its techniques. Some schools practice TKD-like sparring, which we all know is pretty useless. Thus, like Aikido, its joint-lock and throw techniques are practiced against static, non-dynamic, in essence "fake," opponents. Secondly, HKD never really achieved a full fusion of the Daito-Ryu techniques (joint-locks and throws) and punches and kicks (TKD). In effect, smooth transition from one from the other is difficult because one relies on suppleness and circularity whereas the other relies on strength/speed and linear attacks. Thus, often HKD practitioners of similar "level" punch and kick worse than TKD folks while their throws and joint-locks are not as smooth as Judo/Aikido artists.

So, what about Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu? Surely, it has its weaknesses, but here are its main strengths:

1. Dynamic training - one can practice full-force in BJJ and not get hurt (seriously anyway). That's the nice thing about chokes (submission or painless unconsciousness) and joint-locks of major joints (elbows and knees) as opposed to those of small joints (fingers and wrists as in Aikido and HKD). Thus, one learns to deal with constant and dynamic movements of the opponent.

2. Constant refinement for street-effectiveness. BJJ does not hold its tradition as being "sacred" ancient secrets. If some techniques work, they are kept. If not, they are discarded.

3. Detractors often point out that NHB competitions are still competitions. I respond thusly to that notion. First, NHB competitions are much more realistic than point-contact competitions or having no competitions at all (static practice only). Much like IDPA being more realistic than IPSC or static target shooting. Second, Gracies have participated in challenge fights (much like the old Japanese Ryu's of 18th and 19th centuries) and other, ahem, unsanctioned events where there are no rules of any kind (except of course, one-on-one, unarmed). They have the videos to prove it (for example, a classic fight on a Rio beach between Rickson Gracie and Hugo Duarte, who naturally hates the Gracies, is also a practitioner of a rival style- Luta Livre or Free Style).

I could go on, but since I've already typed too much, I'll await responses before commenting further. My apologies to everyone for a lengthy post.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu