A catch wrestlers thoughts

That's a safe assumption. There's not much evidence of leg locks in early bjj vs catch. There was also a ton of commingling in the early days so there's that.

There's plenty of leglocks in early catch-wrestling, toe-holds, knee-bars, Achilles locks...also in Japanese jujutsu, such as in SK Uyenishi's instructionals. Evan Lewis broke a guy's knee when he was barred from using chokes. Paul Prehn goes pretty in depth about leglocks and the toe-hold in particular.

Definitely true that in the early days there was lots of commingling as you say.

As far as the heel-hook particularly, that moves history is hard to trace. It gained popularity in Japan during the 70's via Ivan Gomes. Where did Gomes get it from...? And who was using it prior to Gomes bringing it to Japan? Its hard to really find clear evidence one way or the other but the likelihood is that Gomes got it from a Brazilian catch/luta livre practitioner. If he had gotten it from Carlson Gracie, then the question would be why the technique gained essentially no steam in BJJ at the time and wasn't talked about or really documented.

On one hand, given the toe-hold, knee-bar and Achilles lock's popularity in catch-wrestling, you'd think that people would have at someone point stumbled onto a heel-hook and likewise for sambo. Its hard for me to believe that people who practiced Commando sambo never developed a heel-hook. But again, I haven't found any specific evidence that they did.
 
Last edited:
Far as Strickland, I think he is way over the top when it comes to disqualifying certain styles and athletes as catch-wrestling and not others. He said he didn't think Japanese Combat Wrestling, for example, had any familial similarity to catch-wrestling at all. When Billy Wicks, his coach, praised footage of Gomi in Combat Wrestling on his Facebook, Strickland made sure to note that he didn't believe Gomi was of a catch lineage, to which Wicks replied, "I don't know who taught him but he sure knows his stuff!" or something to that effect.
 
There's plenty of leglocks in early catch-wrestling, toe-holds, knee-bars, Achilles locks...also in Japanese jujutsu, such as in SK Uyenishi's instructionals. Evan Lewis broke a guy's knee when he was barred from using chokes. Paul Prehn goes pretty in depth about leglocks and the toe-hold in particular.

Definitely true that in the early days there was lots of commingling as you say.

As far as the heel-hook particularly, that moves history is hard to trace. It gained popularity in Japan during the 70's via Ivan Gomes. Where did Gomes get it from...? And who was using it prior to Gomes bringing it to Japan? Its hard to really find clear evidence one way or the other but the likelihood is that Gomes got it from a Brazilian catch/luta livre practitioner. If he had gotten it from Carlson Gracie, then the question would be why the technique gained essentially no steam in BJJ at the time and wasn't talked about or really documented.

On one hand, given the toe-hold, knee-bar and Achilles lock's popularity in catch-wrestling, you'd think that people would have at someone point stumbled onto a heel-hook and likewise for sambo. Its hard for me to believe that people who practiced Commando sambo never developed a heel-hook. But again, I haven't found any specific evidence that they did.
I've edited my response to reflect better grammar.

I agree with you entirely
 
That's a safe assumption. There's not much evidence of leg locks in early bjj vs catch. There was also a ton of commingling in the early days so there's that.
I've edited my response to reflect better grammar.

I agree with you entirely

I kinda thought that was the case, for some reason (that we were in agreement).
 
Actually i train sub only no gi. I am a white belt in bjj but have been training no gi for a decade. Some call what I do bjj which is fine but we always just called it wrestling.


That's all well and good, but one wouldn't have gotten that impression reading the post.
 
Far as Strickland, I think he is way over the top when it comes to disqualifying certain styles and athletes as catch-wrestling and not others. He said he didn't think Japanese Combat Wrestling, for example, had any familial similarity to catch-wrestling at all. When Billy Wicks, his coach, praised footage of Gomi in Combat Wrestling on his Facebook, Strickland made sure to note that he didn't believe Gomi was of a catch lineage, to which Wicks replied, "I don't know who taught him but he sure knows his stuff!" or something to that effect.

Strickland in my opinion is a guy who could help Catch Wrestling grow a TON but right now he is doing a LOT for it to still be considered a niche sport.

I have read a lot of his posts and what he says and the main thing that I got from him is that for Catch Wrestling to be considered Catch Wrestling, its main emphasis must be in the Wrestling part and if what you do isn't something that he like, you are not doing Catch Wrestling. That is why he said that about Japanese Combat Wrestling.

He along others has this elitist way of thinking, which alienates a lot of people to become a part of the Catch Wrestling world.
 
Strickland in my opinion is a guy who could help Catch Wrestling grow a TON but right now he is doing a LOT for it to still be considered a niche sport.

I have read a lot of his posts and what he says and the main thing that I got from him is that for Catch Wrestling to be considered Catch Wrestling, its main emphasis must be in the Wrestling part and if what you do isn't something that he like, you are not doing Catch Wrestling. That is why he said that about Japanese Combat Wrestling.

He along others has this elitist way of thinking, which alienates a lot of people to become a part of the Catch Wrestling world.

Yeah, I think a lot of that attitude really came to prominence after the rise of Jake Shannon, with Scientific Wrestling. He seemed to start whole thing of focusing on people's lineage and what was and wasn't "authentic" catch-wrestling. Then you sort of had Strickland and some of his fellows give Shannon his own medicine, attacking him and those affiliated with him as being inauthentic.

You sort of have two broad groups, in my book. Those people who fell in love with the exciting, dynamic style of luta livre, Japanese catch and shoot-style professional wrestling or old school professional wrestling and wanted to adopt that style or at least incorporate elements of it and these people who want to attempt to revive something to early 20th century catch-as-catch-can, who often seem to focus more on being authentic than being good.

I actually think trying to recreate what an older style looked like is a fascinating and worthwhile endeavor, but the way people in the latter group, the "catch revivalists", often act is almost fanatical, the way they are so eager to attack people as phony or whatever. Its probably one of the biggest turn offs people have to catch-wrestling, which should be the most beloved, fan-favorite style, if you look at guys like Tokoro, Sato, Sakuraba, Minowa, Imanari, Funaki, Suzuki, Sudo, etc. etc. and then the Nogueira brothers (Pequeno and Leozado), Cacareco, Reiner, etc.

The most ironic thing with Strickland, is that he was a collegiate wrestler and I believe something like a purple belt under Marcelo Garcia. He benefited from the very things that he now dismisses (depending on his mood).

Long story short--I agree with everything you said.
 
That's all well and good, but one wouldn't have gotten that impression reading the post.
Maybe, i think those with biased intent are the people I talking about.

Despite what anybody says BJJ is the standard for grappling. Why? Because the real set isn't as restrictive especially if you go to nogi route. No random pin rule, or no restriction on chokes just good old-fashioned tap a dude out
 
Yeah, I think a lot of that attitude really came to prominence after the rise of Jake Shannon, with Scientific Wrestling. He seemed to start whole thing of focusing on people's lineage and what was and wasn't "authentic" catch-wrestling. Then you sort of had Strickland and some of his fellows give Shannon his own medicine, attacking him and those affiliated with him as being inauthentic.

You sort of have two broad groups, in my book. Those people who fell in love with the exciting, dynamic style of luta livre, Japanese catch and shoot-style professional wrestling or old school professional wrestling and wanted to adopt that style or at least incorporate elements of it and these people who want to attempt to revive something to early 20th century catch-as-catch-can, who often seem to focus more on being authentic than being good.

I actually think trying to recreate what an older style looked like is a fascinating and worthwhile endeavor, but the way people in the latter group, the "catch revivalists", often act is almost fanatical, the way they are so eager to attack people as phony or whatever. Its probably one of the biggest turn offs people have to catch-wrestling, which should be the most beloved, fan-favorite style, if you look at guys like Tokoro, Sato, Sakuraba, Minowa, Imanari, Funaki, Suzuki, Sudo, etc. etc. and then the Nogueira brothers (Pequeno and Leozado), Cacareco, Reiner, etc.

The most ironic thing with Strickland, is that he was a collegiate wrestler and I believe something like a purple belt under Marcelo Garcia. He benefited from the very things that he now dismisses (depending on his mood).

Long story short--I agree with everything you said.

Speaking of Jake Shannon, I get what he did with Catch Wrestling, he found an oportunity to get involved with a style which at the time was growing in popularity and had a ton of people wanting to learn it, at the height of Kazushi Sakurabas popularity, and he found people who were eager to work with him (Billy Robinson and Karl Gotch) and in a way he was able to organizate and create the image of what Catch Wrestling was for him. The thing is that he was wrong in calling out Tony Cecchine, who at the time was the leading guy in Catch Wrestling, what is more, Cecchine was endorsed by Lou Thesz but after Shannon came into the picture he managed to get Thesz on his side.

John Strickland did to Shannon what he did to Cecchine, call him out and say that what he did wasn't Catch Wrestling, but went a step farther by calling out Josh Barnett, saying that because he had "shitty wrestling", he wasn't a true Catch Wrestler, and a ton of stuff who did nothing to help the growth of Catch Wrestling.

The SnakePit in England are the only ones who are trying to keep up the style as was originally taught, but at the same time they are negating work from the back. Erik Paulson said that he was once contacted by them to do a seminar, and when he started to show things from his back, they started to say: "that is useless, you are going to get pinned" and he answered: "yes, but if the other one doesn't care about pins, you are going to get your face smashed".

What I am trying to get with all this wall of text, is that you mainly have three main camps who have their own vision of what Catch Wrestling is all about and if you do not align with any of those visions, you aren't a Catch Wrestler. Leading to a shit-ton of beefs between camps, people not wanting to learn it because of stupid politics and most importantly, not making the style grow. After Barnett submitted Lister, the style got popular again, now it went back to obscurity and it was all because of stupid beefs.
 
Speaking of Jake Shannon, I get what he did with Catch Wrestling, he found an oportunity to get involved with a style which at the time was growing in popularity and had a ton of people wanting to learn it, at the height of Kazushi Sakurabas popularity, and he found people who were eager to work with him (Billy Robinson and Karl Gotch) and in a way he was able to organizate and create the image of what Catch Wrestling was for him. The thing is that he was wrong in calling out Tony Cecchine, who at the time was the leading guy in Catch Wrestling, what is more, Cecchine was endorsed by Lou Thesz but after Shannon came into the picture he managed to get Thesz on his side.

John Strickland did to Shannon what he did to Cecchine, call him out and say that what he did wasn't Catch Wrestling, but went a step farther by calling out Josh Barnett, saying that because he had "shitty wrestling", he wasn't a true Catch Wrestler, and a ton of stuff who did nothing to help the growth of Catch Wrestling.

The SnakePit in England are the only ones who are trying to keep up the style as was originally taught, but at the same time they are negating work from the back. Erik Paulson said that he was once contacted by them to do a seminar, and when he started to show things from his back, they started to say: "that is useless, you are going to get pinned" and he answered: "yes, but if the other one doesn't care about pins, you are going to get your face smashed".

What I am trying to get with all this wall of text, is that you mainly have three main camps who have their own vision of what Catch Wrestling is all about and if you do not align with any of those visions, you aren't a Catch Wrestler. Leading to a shit-ton of beefs between camps, people not wanting to learn it because of stupid politics and most importantly, not making the style grow. After Barnett submitted Lister, the style got popular again, now it went back to obscurity and it was all because of stupid beefs.


Great Post. The drama just seems unnecessary in my opinion.

While I was researching Catch Wrestling and Tony Cecchine I found out that he learned from Stanley Radwan :


6579583097_c5a8a89c75_b.jpg




I kind of wish that we could find a breakdown / encyclopedia of which moves came from where and that people regardless of what particular style they train would just give props to where the moves originally came from.

Kind of like this :

• Toe Hold - Catch or Luta Livre
• Heel hook - Catch
• Triangle Choke - BJJ
• Bow and Arrow Choke - BJJ
• Knee Bar - Sambo
• Suplex - Greco Roman Wrestling
• Ezekial Choke - BJJ / Gracie Jiu jitsu
• Kata Guruma - Judo

Etc. Etc.



So pretty much the most well known Catch Wrestling People / Groups right now are :

• Curran Jacobs
https://www.youtube.com/user/Captain20America/videos
https://twitter.com/CurranJacobs?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

• Scientific Wrestling
https://www.scientificwrestling.com

• Tony Cecchine
https://catchwrestle.com
https://www.groundfighter.com/Tony-Cecchine-Instructional-DVDs/

• Snake Pit USA
http://snakepitusa.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/SnakePitUSA/videos

• Snake Pit Wigan
https://www.snakepitwigan.com

• Catch Wrestling Alliance
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMQQU3lJAcs0-WE3WlO-Djg/videos

• Neil Melanson over at bjjfanatics
https://bjjfanatics.com/collections/dvd/MC_Catch_Wrestling

• Josh Barnett and Eric Paulson at CSW
https://www.budovideos.com/search?q=Josh+Barnentt
https://csw-store.com/collections/erik-paulson



If you guys know of more please add them to the list.
 
Last edited:
Here's Billy Wicks showing some variations of grips and details about some Catch Wrestling moves. He coached John Strickland :

GvNkIxyIY6SVD41IanKfdmHFiGcvUCcmf-jY6bgU8t6UfDuUPJbVYVI9W-M56Ja5XTd1-vHInxP_ANUf7ErtwJFbz-XneyVNHYmZ6-gD9jxr6kAwWHqj4P1Vvv3-sHy0naE59w862vRl






Apparently Catch wrestling came from J. G. Chambers in England in 1870 :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_wrestling

So from the research that I've gathered some prominent names from the past in Catch Wrestling were:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-HDi6rK1NH4Ctd7guqe9cA/videos


• Billy Wicks
• Lou Thesz
• Billy Robinson
• Martin Burns
• Frank Gotch
• Ad Santel
• Billy Riley
• Karol Nowina
• Karl Gotch
• J. G. Chambers
 
Last edited:
I think people like Erik Paulson, Matt Hume, and josh Barnett have the best grasp of how to implement catch into modern rules grappling. Paulsons old videos from the early 2000s are all over YouTube and he was teaching a lot if shit that people are now starting to use as “new”. He trained with the gracies extensively, especially Rickson, got his bb from rigan machado, and trained with fujiwara too. That’s a sick combo
 
I think its hard to trace catch-as-catch-can back to any one single source. One of its defining traits was how eclectic it was. Certainly, Lancashire wrestling was a major influence, but so was Indian kushti, Japanese jujutsu, etc. etc. A lot of the wrestling that went on with Coal miners, so-called Rough and Tumble, is almost impossible to write a systematic history of.
 
I think its hard to trace catch-as-catch-can back to any one single source. One of its defining traits was how eclectic it was. Certainly, Lancashire wrestling was a major influence, but so was Indian kushti, Japanese jujutsu, etc. etc. A lot of the wrestling that went on with Coal miners, so-called Rough and Tumble, is almost impossible to write a systematic history of.

Also, Pankration from ancient times :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration
 
Maybe, i think those with biased intent are the people I talking about.

Despite what anybody says BJJ is the standard for grappling. Why? Because the real set isn't as restrictive especially if you go to nogi route. No random pin rule, or no restriction on chokes just good old-fashioned tap a dude out


An ideology is at it's most dominant when it is unconscious; id est, when it is no longer seen as 'an ideology', but 'just the way things are'. You stated earlier that you did not consider yourself a 'bjj guy'; yet you have absorbed, and repeat here, a quintessential 'bjj guy' weltanshauung.

To wit;

It's ruleset based.

Indeed they are.

Sambo, catch, judo etc all have rules that enforce certain skills.

Supposing that bjj is somehow exempt from this; perhaps the ibjjf is just a collective hallucination?

The reason bjj is the bar is because for the most part if a move is effective then it's far game.

This is a common thought-form of those pwned by a memeplex; the equivocation of the cardinal meme with whatever it desires. The canard (in this case, 'bjj') is at once something specific, yet at the same time, can be anything one wishes it to be for the sake of discussion. At the limit, the canard may simply become a synonym for 'the form of the good', or 'the universe', or 'the godhead', and et cetera; anything the subject considers valuable may be claimed under the aegis of 'bjj', which means everything and nothing (the natural corollary being, anything they don't consider valuable would be 'no true bjj'). This is, what they would say, 'pure ideology'.


In reality of course, brazillian jiu-jitsu too has certain trends and characteristics and particularities; that there is such a thing as a 'bjj style' that one may possibly speak of; it also is not exempt from being shaped by it's outlets for competition, and shaped it has been; forms of behavior that may better bring success under such competitions, but which would also be more antithetical to success in other sorts of competitions, such as more 'no holds barred' venues (and that the more one would adapt to better succeed in such other sorts of competitions, the less 'bjj style' they become).
 
Last edited:
An ideology is at it's most dominant when it is unconscious; id est, when it is no longer seen as 'an ideology', but 'just the way things are'. You state that you did not consider yourself a 'bjj guy'; yet you have absorbed, and repeat here, a quintessential 'bjj guy' weltanshauung.

To wit;



Indeed they are.



Supposing that bjj is somehow exempt from this; perhaps the ibjjf is just a collective hallucination?



This is a common thought-form of those pwned by a memeplex; the equivocation of the cardinal meme with whatever it desires. The canard (in this case, 'bjj') is at once something specific, yet at the same time, can be anything one wishes it to be for the sake of discussion. At the limit, the canard may simply become a synonym for 'the form of the good', or 'the universe', or 'the godhead', and et cetera; anything the subject considers valuable may be claimed under the aegis of 'bjj', which means everything and nothing (the natural corollary being, anything they don't consider valuable would be 'no true bjj'). This is, what they would say, 'pure ideology'.


In reality of course, brazillian jiu-jitsu too has trends and characteristics and particularities one may possibly speak of; it also is not exempt from being shaped by it's outlets for competition, and shaped it has been; forms of behavior that may better bring success under such competitions, but which would also be more antithetical to success in other sorts of competitions, such as more 'no holds barred' venues (so common in these sorts of discussions).

Plus, you see guys like Gary Tonon in NoGi grappling use Whizzers and borrow heavily from wrestling and other styles not just bjj.

You really can see little bits of Sambo, Wrestling, Luta Livre and Judo sprinkled into their matches and styles.




 
Last edited:
Free Catch Instructional from Snake Pit USA :


 
An ideology is at it's most dominant when it is unconscious; id est, when it is no longer seen as 'an ideology', but 'just the way things are'. You stated earlier that you did not consider yourself a 'bjj guy'; yet you have absorbed, and repeat here, a quintessential 'bjj guy' weltanshauung.

To wit;



Indeed they are.



Supposing that bjj is somehow exempt from this; perhaps the ibjjf is just a collective hallucination?



This is a common thought-form of those pwned by a memeplex; the equivocation of the cardinal meme with whatever it desires. The canard (in this case, 'bjj') is at once something specific, yet at the same time, can be anything one wishes it to be for the sake of discussion. At the limit, the canard may simply become a synonym for 'the form of the good', or 'the universe', or 'the godhead', and et cetera; anything the subject considers valuable may be claimed under the aegis of 'bjj', which means everything and nothing (the natural corollary being, anything they don't consider valuable would be 'no true bjj'). This is, what they would say, 'pure ideology'.


In reality of course, brazillian jiu-jitsu too has certain trends and characteristics and particularities; that there is such a thing as a 'bjj style' that one may possibly speak of; it also is not exempt from being shaped by it's outlets for competition, and shaped it has been; forms of behavior that may better bring success under such competitions, but which would also be more antithetical to success in other sorts of competitions, such as more 'no holds barred' venues (and that the more one would adapt to better succeed in such other sorts of competitions, the less 'bjj style' they become).

Jesus christ who the fuq talks like this?
 
Back
Top