Rowan the issue I don’t think you’re seeing friend is that I’ve been doing this since 1995. There was no reason to get a belt then because we all knew that the belt meant nothing and it was about the skill learned. I’ve never been given a white belt and my true start time was in 1995. Truly and even before I got my blue belt from my instructor I was already doing rolling and teaching. For years! There’s literal video and photo evidence throughout the years but that’s not enough for this community. So you tell me did you start riding a bike before or after the training wheels came off? Or were you riding a bike the whole time?

There’s lots of back and fourth about this but something I’ve encountered while being here is seeing the lack of value given to catch wrestling and international styles of wrestling within this community. How can soo many blackbelts and other belts claim their wrestling history and knowledge and more without batting an eye. But when verifying history and experience but not with newer belts, why wouldn’t we use the original grappling art that helped in the creation of Bjj? What’s your take on why catch and international styles of wrestling aren’t accepted? https://www.scientificwre[...]zywJu7ZsZg

There was this dude Aristotle living some 2400 years ago. Came up with some rad basic logic that was later explained with the example that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. That might be the dude you actually have a beef with.

Anyone else noticed that the "My previous experience in Grappling art XYZ should count" argument only seems to be in reference to BJJ? I did judo for about 5 years and I never once thought they should just grant me a belt because I was already training in BJJ for several years before that and I've never met anyone who did. For that matter, no one would think a BJJ World Champion should be considered a D1 Wrestler either. This whole discussion just feels baffling. And in the end, the whole thing boils down to one simple question, if I did 10 years of BJJ and 10 years of XYZ, would I have the same skill set. If that answer is no, then you're not doing the same thing. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, just different. Perfect example is Judo and BJJ. Despite BJJ having the most direct connection to Judo, if you did 10 years of, for example, just Kodokan Judo, you'd have a different skillset than 10 years of IBJJF BJJ. The Judoka wouldn't know how to guard pull. He wouldn't know leg locks. No single leg. No double leg. And the IBJJF BJJ player wouldn't have anywhere near the throwing ability of the Judoka, if they knew any throws at all. Sure there overlap, but that doesn't make them the same. Humans and apes share 98% of our DNA and so one is trying to say they are the same thing. Now, I'm going to sit back and watch the chaos. Need to get some popcorn. This is going to be entertaining. 🤣🍿

Your point is well taken, but actually single legs and double legs are a part of Kodokan judo (morote gari, kibisu gaeshi). However they are currently not legal in Olympic judo, so often are not taught, and the approach is rather different than the wrestling versions. Similarly leg locks (and hip locks) are incorporated in some judo katas. So a judoka who wasn't limited to "sport judo" would actually know a lot of the techniques which we currently associate with BJJ, although he might approach them differently.

Your point is well taken, but actually single legs and double legs are a part of Kodokan judo (morote gari, kibisu gaeshi). However they are currently not legal in Olympic judo, so often are not taught, and the approach is rather different than the wrestling versions. Similarly leg locks (and hip locks) are incorporated in some judo katas. So a judoka who wasn't limited to "sport judo" would actually know a lot of the techniques which we currently associate with BJJ, although he might approach them differently.