why do people say bjj is just a sport? the same can be said about karate, taekwondo & judo too?

Well, it's like this:

I went down to a local MMA/BJJ school to try it out while I was still training at my school. (Tai chi/Escrima) I didn't have a lot of grappling experience and couldn't use my striking, (their house, their rules) but I did pretty well and was able to roll with some of their more experienced guys. As I was rolling with one of the guys, we got to the point where I was in his guard, and he started teaching me how to pass the guard. I pointed out that, where I was at, I could just grab his testicles and twist. He laughed and said, "yeah, you could, but that's not MMA."

It happens any time you have a martial sport. You've got things that are effective for self-defense that you can't do in the ring, which creates a bit of a conflict. If you keep doing competition, you'll develop techniques that work in competition which you can definitely use for self-defense; but if you train self-defense techniques that aren't legal in the ring, you have to fight yourself when you compete. At the speed things go, the techniques you train to instinct can pop out without you thinking or willing it. Great when it's a chin jab, but not so much when it's an eye jab or monkey steals the peaches. If you tried to do Greco-Roman wrestling, you'd probably run into the same problem. You've got wrestling skills, you can win, but you'll start going for submissions without thinking about it. Just imagine a Hsing Yi guy who's trained to slip in headbutts whenever he can trying to go into the UFC where headbutts are illegal. What's the point for that guy? His style, essentially, is outlawed by UFC.

Competition and sparring are good, and learning effective techniques in a competitive environment will make you a solid and confident fighter, but it's not the end-all be-all. Even though MMA has fewer rules than most competitive venues, those rules still skew what is and isn't effective.

Look at boxing. There's not a lot of kicking or elbowing in boxing, and it's not because it's an ineffective way to knock someone's head in. There's also nothing wrong with fish hooking, soccer kicks, headbutts, downward elbows, or anything else barred in different MMA rules. Those are skills that can be developed just like what's legal. The rules also make some things that aren't a good idea better, like shrimping from the guard. It can work even if a guy is raining blows on you, but it doesn't work so well if the other guy has a knife, or even a rock.

Different strokes for different folks. It's the reason I prefer sparring to competition; I'm not really worried that I'm going to accidentally throat jab someone (which HAPPENS) when there's not a lot of pressure on, but I still get a chance to experience how other guys fight and to learn how to adapt to what they do and new situations. Then, I can go back to other guys from my style and go hard with them, because we both have an understanding that we can throat jab each other.

Also, most MMA guys I've met are pretty good fighters with solid non-lethal skills, in a "continuum of force" way. It's a great skill-set for the modern world of detainment and strict escalation of force rules. I actually considered it a hole in my training until I did jiu-jutsu in the Army. Until that point, I could talk a conflict out or put a knee in someone's throat without a whole lot inbetween. Now I can keep someone on the ground until they've been restrained or choke someone out and get a nice couple seconds of breathing room. Most MMA guys already have their continuum of force; they can talk, they can restrain, and they can bounce someone's head off the ground. It's solid.

Anything can happen in a fight. Skill is an incredibly important factor, but so is reaction speed, decision making on the fly, and the ability to react to new moves. I don't like the people who go off about "it's like comparing apples and oranges", because even though this is an apples and orange question, it's also a realistic scenario that bears thinking about. My opinion is that striking is better than grappling at a higher skill level, but grappling is more effective than striking at a lower skill level. What would probably determine the outcome is whichever fighter is more skilled, but the basis of striking is to strike your opponent. Keep them at bay from closing in on you, since that's exactly what a grappler wants to do: take you to the ground where he's at home and you're not. Meaning you start with the advantage, but you must keep that advantage. Grapplers tend to absorb a couple hits, since they generally aren't able to take down a fairly skilled striker right off the bat, which is where the striker holds the advantage. Still, you need to be quick, focused, powerful, and above all, decisive in those first few opportunities, otherwise you lose the advantage. I'm not going to say that striking will always win or that grappling is definitely better. As a martial artist myself (I do Taekwondo and Wing Chun, looking to take up BJJ in a couple months), I personally prefer striking because I prefer hitting hard and fast rather than going for a ground game. However, it'd be stupid to ignore the ground game and not learn at least a couple counters to it, if not how to fight on the ground as well. If you're looking to take up a martial art, I suggest beginning with a striking martial art since striking will always be a part of any prolonged fight, even between two grapplers. After all, you begin standing up, not on the ground in a clinch.

The majority of modern BJJ IS only practiced for sport. Karate, Taekwondo and Jujitsu are more practiced for self defense and military purposes more than they are for sport. There are actually less competitors in Karate and Taekwondo than there are practitioners of BJJ.

Karate and Taekwondo as a whole are not sports, but they are practiced in sport. Judo is infact a sport.

BJJ has an official sport and is better known for that. There are very few gyms that do teach it as a martial art. Even the Gracies don't teach it for self defense anymore.

forgot to add that Helios Gracie intended for BJJ to be for self defense and not for sport. The others intended to use it in Wrestling and Judo competitions and for competitions only. it is widely a sport first and martial art second.

EDIT: It's good to be back. Study has kept me away mostly. That and my new video game addiction, hah!

Now, BJJ isn't the baseline for the US military combatives system, the CQC in the military is so much more different. Sometimes, MMA and Martial Art programs will come by to the military bases and teach their system for a few days and thats it. Martial Art taught in the Army and Marines, etc, its less for self defense and more for harm. Its to eliminate the enemy as quickly as possible. You don't learn to grapple with the enemy, you learn to knock them down and break what bones you can or even kill them.

If BJJ is an official martial art in any military organization, then I feel sorry for whatever country those soldiers will serve because it will not be so effective for what the military wants, not in the slightest bit.

I am speak from my own experience in the New Zealand military and from what I experienced training with special forces and my current training with the Police in University.

What we learn in Martial Arts and what is taught in the military are two completely different things.

BJJ has become massively popular THROUGH sport as did TKD/JUDO via the olympics...and this was a bit of a poison chalice for both - therefore people assume or like to assume iits 'just' a sport.Anything can be used to aid self defense boxing isnow a sport/hobby but is excellent in self-def too.

IN NO WAY OTHER THAN 'TRAINING' is BJJ the base MA for the military!!!!!! the soldiers train in it as part of conditioning and its is also valuable but..the basic training/CQC is lethality not dominance....soldiers when faced with 2/3/4 v 1 are taught to kill just one as it makes it 'easier' for others/following troops.Its all about the quick kill

I guess some say something like that because they are just looking at it with a narrow view in mind or only from one perspective perhaps. Many of the martial arts have a sport aspect to them but along with that they also have a self-defense and even a fitness and wellness aspect to them usually as well. I never understood why some had such a narrow opinion or view either and at times have discussed or even argued the point. I generally don't do that anymore though as no amount of discussing it with them or even arguing it will change their way of thinking and then FIDO applies. (forget it and drive on)

I agree with you I think a lot of it comes from Royce dominating and all the bjj trashtalk that came out of that and a lot of ppl said jiu jitsu isn't as effective when you poke eyes whitch is true so some ppl kida spin it I out of proportion and say bjj is only for sport also im sure you heard the saying theres no ground on the street

The answer is simple. It was made for competition (vale tudo), which is tough as it gets, but it intends to fight. That makes it a sport.

No martial art intends to fight, period. There is nothing sporting about karate, all my MMA friends discount me because I always win by "cheating". Sports can be used to defend. Running being the top protective sport. Karate aims to maim or kill if needed. Your sport won't tolerate, or even teach that, and reasonably so.

edit: Exactly my point. Kano Sensei removed protection technique from jujutsu to make judo (gentle way) to be taught as a sport and as school training for kids. And Kano Judo is far more violent than what is taught today. Karate, and all martial arts retain ALL their martial technique, and are not suitable for children. I will freely give you that most things calling themselves karate are

surely not karate.

And I am not in any way slamming the value of judo, just putting it in proper perspective.

edit2: as I stated, many things called karate are not. What Funakoshi Sensei did was more to make karate more Japanese. There is no doubt it was "watered" a bit for the Japanese by the Okinawans. This is of course, a moot point. So I will put it this way. Karate the way I teach it is no sport, and it contains no element of sport. We are strictly concerned with protection, and we will always "cheat" to get home safe. The karate I teach to adults is certainly not suitable for children.

No, all those are traditional arts that CAN be taught as a sport. It is all how you train. Are you training to compete, or get home safely. That is the question. You are wrong in assuming that TKD, Karate, and Judo are just sports. They are umbrella terms for the vast amount of styles, some of which have no sport focus.

BJJ people that I have met tell me that they are only training for sport.

My original Kajukenbo instructor opened up an MMA training center. Some people from the training center competed in UFC and did very, very well. No one from the Kajukenbo program of course. We used to watch each other train. The BBJ tell us that compared to Kajukenbo, they are only training for sport. They think we are the crazy people trained to kill.

I asked some BBJ people, what have you been taught to do to defend against someone who sucker punches you, or tries to hit you with a stick or tries to stab you with a knife? And they reply, they don't know, they are only taught to fight within the rules. And these are serious BBJ guys, part of the group that produced UFC competitors.

And fortunately Kajukenbo has a good reputation in my area, so when I meet BBJ people from other gyms, they will tell me that compared to Kajukenbo, they are training only for sport. They will tell me that Kajukenbo people are weak in the ground game, and I will agree with them. A BBJ person will outwrestle a Kajukenbo on the mat. But BBJ people admit that they probably won't be able to take on multiple opponents or people with weapons like we are trained to do.

So as long as there is mutual respect, I don't have any beefs with BJJ people.

BJJ is a sport. It has removed the traditional aspects of self defense. The purpose for which they created it was to compete against other arts. They figured because their focus was on ground fighting it would give them an advantage over those that didn't know what to do on the ground. They had a point. Later some instructors have attempted to add self defense to it because they know that is a strike against bjj. The problem with that most of those that has tried have never been taught self defense and have made some things up as they go along using some techniques from bjj.

Jim R> Kano never removed the self defense concepts from judo. He made it where it can be taught to the age appropriate. There was no need to teach a 8 year how to kill or destroy a limb as this is not what they can do mentally and responsibly let alone physically for most. But the self defense techniques were meant for adults as most original traditional martial arts.

Many mistake judo for being soft or not as hard core as other martial because of its name the gentle way. But the name goes along with his philosophy. Minimum Effort with maximum efficiency. It is no so much as gentle as in the English definition. It is more to yielding or giving. In other words you do not meet force with force. You yield to the force being applied by your attacker and use that against them. Too many people have gotten too caught up saying judo allows you to compete against a fully resistant partner. The objective to not compete it was to not to resist what your attacker does in order to gain an advantage over them. It is very similar in concepts with Aikido, but still different. The Westernized mainstream version of judo is about about sport. Unfortunately many people try to use brute strength like an athlete to throw their opponent. But in reality you should not use any strength. He he/she push you pull and throw them. If they pull you then push and help them throw themselves (minimum effort with maximum efficiency). Then you finish and eliminate the threat with some strikes, choke, or limb destruction. If you know and understand judo you should know that ippon seo nage (one arm shoulder throw) was developed to throw a person that is attempting to strike you. You simple redirect the strike and allow it to continue forward and you use their momentum and arm to throw them.

Edit:

It is my understanding that Kano sent representative all of the world to teach his new martial art "Judo". As it was being taught in Brazil it became know as BJJ. It was changed or modified from the original judo to fit the needs or desires of those in training. The goals was to focus more on ground fighting to give them an edge or advantage over other arts that doesn't know how or teach ground fighting. That is not self defense. That is the mindset of those that want to compete. The Gracie family introduce their sport to the world. The did a great job of marketing it. It wasn't until later that people began to call what was being taught Gracie jiu jitsu. In the early days of their underground fighting the Gracie family called what they taught as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. They appeared to be very patriotic about their training. It was Brazil's. Yes it's origin was judo. But it had been modified specifically for them with heir goals in mind this making it no longer judo or Japanese. It is Brazilian.