Taken from the Judoforum.com:

This whole....."so and so is just a good athlete" or "athleticism is easier to obtain than technique" argument is such bull------

go read Talent Is Overrated By Geoff Colvin.

And this "ju" [Èá]principle is for the birds.

We all thrive on our ability to apply physics and leverage in the realm of sport. Period.

-Rhadi Ferguson

I think that having a certain degree of natural athleticism, or a natural drive to be athletic, really helps a fighter. Look at rhadi, hes a freakin bull.

To obtain skill and technique, i think that one must believe in what they are learning, and try to apply it in a live situation.

"And this "ju" [��]principle is for the birds.

We all thrive on our ability to apply physics and leverage in the realm of sport. Period."

I dont really know what he means by this, it sounds contradictory to me. "ju" is the ability to apply leverage and "physics". This guy is a superb wrestler but i dont think he knows what "ju" really means.

I agree with Rhadi, and decided when I saw him pick up a 300 pound guy and throw him over his head that being really strong is leverage-enhancing attribute.

Hahaha

I agree Tim, who needs Ju when you can pick up a 300 pound guy who would be 500 pounds easy if he sunk his center of gravity... and throw him over your head!

"Tweet Tweet"

There is this "attribute" bias in martial arts that looks down upon physical strength. It's cool to be flexible, have good endurance, and fast...but don't be strong for it's a sign of "no technique".

True, i think a big factor is the theory that body building can decrease flexibility.

Robert,

Actually, I think the bias begins with the notion that some try to compensate for technique by using strength.

And those without a lot of strength sometimes are beaten by fighters with less technique but more strength.

Good points, if you can develop maximum strength yet practice technique as if you were not strong, you'll have the best of both worlds.

Yeah, the concepts are truly worlds apart. To bring them together is a feat on its own. Luckily im not very strong or technical, so i have to work on both. lol

http://rivercitypc.blogspot.com/2009/04/being-technical.html

see the link. it's linking to an essay Rhadi wrote a few weeks back.

I think it explains what he means about 'ju'. Though Rhadi is very 'athletic' it's no accident. I train with one or two guys that are like that. Everyone tries to discredit their effectiveness on the mat by the sideways 'complement' "oh, he's so athletic". I have trained with Rhadi himself. He and other 'naturals' are from god-gifted; they work harder than you. Maybe not at the stuff that you'd like them to, like uchikomis, but on things that work for them, like squatting and drilling.

Rhadi worked his ass off to have a high level of development on a number of fronts. Even if he didn't have a PhD in education, or a black belt in BJJ and Judo, it would still say more than most can ever hope to in defence of strength to say that his 'strength' is what took him to:

the olympics
ADCC
Mundials

I know that he's not the world's greatest at any of these, but the fact that strength and power were a prime influence in Rhadi's success at a high level in:
Football
Wrestling
Judo
Submission Wrestling
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

says much to the merit of strength alone comprising a great deal of 'athletic' potential.

Combat - sport or real - is the ultimate athletic event. Strength and athleticism are a huge advantage. Skill is a force multiplier.

Don't have it in front of me, but Yokoyama Sakujiro's Judo Kyohan - written by one of the original greatest masters of Judo who trained directly with Kano - states something along the lines that strength, correctly used, is absolutely important and had the masters of old been stronger, their skill would have been greater still.

Three things I've never heard:

"I would have beaten that guy if I'd been a little weaker."

"I lost because my endurance was way too good, if I could have just gassed sooner."

"There's no way I could have beaten that guy, my technique was too good."

Love that quote!

This is what George Hackenschmidt, one of the greatest wrestlers of the golden age had to say about strength:

"He should become strong all over, the stronger the better, for he will often find that he can defeat even cleverer (read: more technical) wrestlers than himself by means of the sheer strength which he is able to exert."

Royce vs Matt Hughes comes to mind.

Strength is so important in the CMA that the Chinese have separate terms for raw strength (li) and specifically trained strength (jing). The cultivation of jing is paramount in all types of CMA. The fundamental concept of jing is that the cultivation and development of strength is a technical skill in itself.

My ratio is a person 100% technically superior will find it difficult to defeat an opponent 50% stronger. In a real fight, the element of surprise will give an added advantage to the person who understands it's use, but in a sport fight, where both fighters are ready at the outset, or if a real fight is not concluded immediately with surprise, I believe my ratio generally holds true.

I use to read about George Hackenschmidt back in the 70s, when I was a kid and always hoped there would come a day when pro wrestling would be "real" again...enter ADCC and BJJ!

I believe your ratio to be true.

Great points Tim, and everyone.

I also believe that ratio is true, with the additional element of surprise, and deception. From the books i have read, i found that some chinese arts specialize in deceptive movements, but i guess that can easily be translated to jing, a skill in deception. I dont know, lol.

Great points also about jing and li, many people including myself forget that.

Imo strength compliments skill, and vice versa. I think its easy to become distracted and obsessed with one, while neglecting the other.

Quote Tim:

"Robert,

Whatever works for you."

lol