PDA

View Full Version : BJJ - Is it really Jujutsu?



rupert
30th December 2002, 04:22
I have met a couple of BJJ practicioners here in Korea, nothing higher than blue belt, and have been more than impressed with their stuff. I should say, I have done a mixture of Judo, Jujutsu, and Aikido over twenty years. I am a bit rusty at Judo having not done it four four years (injury) and they were all over me on the ground (their chosen territory), but couldn't do much against me standing up, or so I felt. Anyway, my thought is this. No one would call modern sport Judo as Jujutsu nowadays, and from what I have seen of BJJ, it has even less in common with Jujutsu - in the Jujutsu sense that I practiced it - atemi, kicks, throws, weapons and so on. Sure, BJJ is excellent in competition, and I wish I had the time to learn it to improve my groundwork, but is that all it is? Groundwork? If so, can it be really called Jujutsu? For comparison, think of those Aikidoka that say Tomiki Aikido should be called something else - not - Aikido - because of its competitive element (I disagree here as I have seen Tomiki stylists do great Aiki). My limited impression thus far of BJJ is - "wrestling in a keokogi". Please enlighten me to what other stuff (than groundwork) exists in the BJJ curriculum. Any links to informative sites appreciated.

Rupert Atkinson

Qasim
30th December 2002, 06:24
Originally posted by rupert
My limited impression thus far of BJJ is - "wrestling in a keokogi".

That from what I've seen is about right. If you want to add something else to you repertoir, then that would be all you needed to do. I myself would prefer to take some judo to learn more ground techniques (BJJ came from Judo anyway).

BigJon
30th December 2002, 13:49
I'd sure hate to argue the point with a Gracie! Especially Helio, the Grandmaster- He could still probably wipe the floor with some of us youngbucks.

I grappled for about four years, and since we did BJJ- I don't know the exact answer. I have never done straight Judo. I have played with a Judo student once,....they seemed to want to keep upright, but had no problem with going to the ground...


Jon Gillepsie

MarkF
30th December 2002, 14:22
Helio isn't the "Grandmaster" it was taught to his older brother, Carlos. Early on, Helio learned by watching Carlos.

BJJ is Brazilian Jiu jitsu, and is not a Japanese budo, thus the kept misspelling of jujutsu.

Interestingly, if you can find them, the two earliest books on BJJ, written by Carlos Gracie, covers standing technique almost entirely. They came out in the 1940s. I've heard at least one of them is available, but the other is hard to find.

There is nothing in BJJ not found in ground fighting technique of Kodokan judo. Instead of calling it "passing the guard" judoka call it getting around the legs.

If you want to learn groundwork with, depending on who is teaching it, about seven tachiwaza, BJJ or any submission grappling style is fine for that purpose.
*****

Yes, I wouldn't want to argue about anything which would end in another kind of argument, but Royce Gracie was recently beaten by an Olympic Judoka, wasn't he? That wouldn't be the first time a family member was beaten by judoka, either, but making a public spectcle of yourself because you fell "I was robbed" doesn't help one's credability, either.

Other than that, such matches are going to be featured in January or the coming months on HBO. I mean, the NHB/UFC-style contest in a ring or cage.
******

One can always go to a kosen judo dojo in Japan and really concentrate on the technique of newaza (Katame-waza).


Mark

BigJon
30th December 2002, 15:23
I remember when the Gracies started 'appearing' in NHB matches, they looked unstoppable. Now everyone is studying how to fight on the ground, at least a little. It reminds me very much of the ninja boom of the eighties.-Everyone taught "stealth" in their dojo. Now the trend is grappling of some kind. Mark, do you think that BJJ could be considered a "Judo school of thought"? Considering
There is nothing in BJJ not found in ground fighting technique of Kodokan judo.

Thanks for your responses.

Jon Gillespie

Jay Vail
31st December 2002, 01:17
Rupert, I think you've hit the nail on the head. BJJ isn't jujutsu in the sense we're accustomed to thinking about it. It looks to me like another form of judo, although judo itself technically is a jujutsu ryu and was known for decades as Kano jujutsu. I'd like to know where Carlos Gracie got his training. I'd bet it was from a judo guy. I think he just changed the name to JJ to be different.

Hissho
31st December 2002, 01:27
BJJ calls itself jujutsu because back in the day when it came to Brazil, judo and jujutsu (jiujutsu) were used interchangeably. In many ways it is old judo, but they have gone in a very different direction because of the environment in which it has developed.

It can be as brash and physical as wrestling, or as soft and fluid as the softest of jujutsu - just like judo can be. It all depends on who is doing it. The softest FUNCTIONAL jujutsu I have ever felt were at the hands of Toby Threadgill and BJJ black belt Juliano Prado. Their level of softness in application was indeed very close. Juliano's softness was during fully antagonistic randori, I might add.

It may not be a Japanese budo, but it is directly descended from, and another expression of, judo principles, which are Japanese budo.

BTW,

Royce's "loss" was NOT a legitimate one. If you see the video, it is plainly obvious that Yoshida had nothing on him. The stoppage was B.S, and he had every right to complain.

Judo does not need bad calls to "win" against BJJ. Judoka should not be proud of that "win" because it was without merit. I would rather see Yoshida, or any other top level judoka, win convincingly and without question (by tap, unconsciousness, or injury, as the case may be) instead of resting on laurels that were not earned.

Kit LeBlanc

Robc
31st December 2002, 21:39
Well said, Kit.

Rob

rupert
6th January 2003, 03:23
Originally posted by Jon G.
I'd sure hate to argue the point with a Gracie! Especially Helio, the Grandmaster- He could still probably wipe the floor with some of us youngbucks.

Jon Gillepsie

I have to say, I would not like to argue with him either, and I am sure what he learned was Jujutsu. But what has BJJ become? All I hear / see on the net is groundwork groundwork groundwork. What about standing techniques, weapons practice, striking, multiple attackers and the like? Or is it just wrestling in a suit? And with that in mind, a South African acquantance of mine said back home everyone wears T shirts or vests implying, he didn'think training in a keikogi was useful for him.

Rupert Atkinson

John J. Montes
6th January 2003, 05:08
It was asked earlier where Carlos Gracie received his training. Well, according to the latest book and interviews of Rorion Gracie, it goes like this:

The famous story: Carlos Gracie helped a Japanese gentleman by the name of Maeda establish himself in Brazil. Now Maeda was a student of Kano Sensei back in Japan (he was apparently very, very good). Apparently, one of the established rules of the Kodokan was not to compete in contests pitting Judo against other styles, but Maeda was going around the world kicking some serious butt. The theory put forth is that when Maeda taught Carlos Judo, he didn't use the name out of respect for his teacher, Kano Sensei. Additionally, Maeda was apparently re-instituting some of the original ju jutsu techniques that had been removed by Kano Sensei for safety purposes (remember, Kano was a teacher and was making a sport too!)
So what was taught to the Gracie family was Judo but named Jujutsu. Later, with some improvisations by Helio gracie, the art became known as Gracie Jiu Jitsu. According to Helio, all Brazilian jiu jitsu is Gracie Jiu Jutsu, just without the name.

BigJon
6th January 2003, 05:20
Does anyone know if any western wrestling was involved?(In the developement of the art)

Jon Gillespie

Benjamin Peters
6th January 2003, 06:50
Jon, accordingly to a source found here http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/5389/ the art of BJJ may have had some influence in its origins, and perhaps even more recently:
" Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or Gracie Jiu-Jitsu is a martial art indigenous to Brazil. It was founded and developed by the Gracie family. Carlos Gracie learned jiu-jitsu from a Japanese judoka named Maeda who emigrated to Brazil. The art's roots are derived from pre-war Kodokan Judo, western wrestling, and Maeda's own insights into combat."

Further, it is noted that Maeda had various NHB bouts in the west against the likes of catch-as-catch-can wrestlers. http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/5389/maeda.html

I think it is safe to say that because of the amount of development in their expertise, it would have been possible that they adopted elements of western wrestling:
" Between Carlos and Helio, they had many sons and grandsons, all of whom were heavily involved in the practice and development of the family profession. As a result, there were always plenty of training partners in the house or at the academy, providing great opportunities for innovation and the free exchange of ideas. Brothers, uncles, sons, grandsons and students all came together to take part in the development of the art. The Gracies were essentially a large research team that studied and analyzed unarmed combat." http://www.baxiroushu.com/pages/historybjj3.htm

As far as the Machados are concerned, I have heard that they have adopted takedown techniques of the wrestern variety:
" Since basing themselves in the United States, the Brothers have continued to develop their grappling style, branching out into all styles of grappling in search of new techniques and concepts." http://www.machadojj.com/torrance_academy/

As for the effectiveness of the style: does anyone here in the koryu jujutsu forum doubt the effectiveness of the method? Why, in your opinion would it/does it live up to your expectations? How does your koryu compare in a fight?

rupert
6th January 2003, 08:35
Originally posted by Benjamin Peters

As for the effectiveness of the style: does anyone here in the koryu jujutsu forum doubt the effectiveness of the method? Why, in your opinion would it/does it live up to your expectations? How does your koryu compare in a fight?

That is kind of my point. I don't think they can be compared because they have become completely different.

Rupert Atkinson

Benjamin Peters
6th January 2003, 21:42
That is kind of my point. I don't think they can be compared because they have become completely different.

ok rupert, I see your point more clearly now (forgot to read through the previous posts properly).

it's not my place to say (this is not a put down on anyone's contributions here), but sometimes arguing over academic issues like the meaning/spelling and usage words (especially romanized japanese) takes away from what martial arts can contribute to skills.

as far as koryu, i would suggest that through similar training, it contributes a great deal to what context the art was formulated under. for instance, was the art formulated for the battlefield or was it designed for close-quarter-confines; was the art designed to be percussive etc etc. so stylized standup skills are what we normally take from the arts.

same can be said for bjj, why was it made? we can tell it was formulated with one-to-one combat in mind. nothing wrong with that, but to take away what it has added on the basis of words and definitions is a little immature. so submission ground wrestling is what we take most from this aspect.

a question - would it make that much of a difference in your life if they called it submission wrestling instead of jujutsu (and variants in romanji)?

i'm sure then some of you would still be referring back to jujutsu roots if they did change it so what gives? ok - i can hear you say "well, it's not fair, it's like false advertising!" . to that i say, well, what if a japanese master designed the art (setting aside ko-sen judo) and called it jujutsu, would you budge then?

i am sure, both are very effective in their own contexts. all theories are sound in a dojo scenario, and application in defense situations mean modification of tactics. from what little i know, bjj-gracie do cover standup self-defense to a limited degree.

in the end - why worry about spelling? i'm sure the brasilians don't - they probably just concentrate on their methods.

sorry for being such a downer on the whole thread - i mean no disrespect to contributions made by members or to guests who may be offended or disagree

Benjamin Peters
6th January 2003, 21:55
What about standing techniques, weapons practice, striking, multiple attackers and the like? Or is it just wrestling in a suit?

OK - I just picked this one up in one of the above posts.

i'll have to answer this one as it becomes a bit of a misunderstanding tha bjj only encompasses the type and form more popularly seen in competitions. as far as i know, bjj under the gracie banner do at some stage teach self defense standing up ie escapes, evasions and takedowns just as koryu to but with their own little slant on things. it must be noted that sef-defense (if i dare say so) is the equivalent to their standup stuff. if you go a little further in application of the same (as you would also have to in koryu arts) you can utilise (say) a rear-shoulder-hold on an opponent to shield yourself from another (multiple attacker defense).

as for weapons, i personally don't carry a sword, bo or the like around - do you? take a look at the books around, and what they cover and then tell me if they do standing etc yes, go to borders or whatever and have a look at the book, they cover defenses to weaponed attacks.

remember koryu is stylized because of the way it derived ie yagyu-shingan-ryu and its percussive methods, vs (say) takeuchi-ryu for its joint locks. bjj is the same but their emphasis is found in their entry and unique strategy for fighting. kory are unique in their strategies too.

Both of the following books cover bjj in the light of standup defenses to stand up attacks including weaponed attacks.

http://www.invisiblecitiespress.com/publications/brazilianjjsd.htm
http://www.invisiblecitiespress.com/publications/brazilianjiujitsu.htm

now take a look at the video and what the description is http://www.gracieacademy.com/store/home_videos.html:

GRACIE JIU-JITSU: EPISODE ONE
The Key to the Gracie System of Self-Defense (Demonstration Tape)

#557EPI -- GRACIE JIU-JITSU: EPISODE ONE
THE KEY TO THE GRACIE SYSTEM OF SELF-DEFENSE
A "must have" for your video collection, this demonstration video shows HELIO GRACIE for the first time on tape presenting the first 40 classes of the official Gracie Academy Self-Defense Program. Helio, along with his grandsons, Ryron and Rener, demonstrates the techniques he perfected in the specific order he believes is crucial for your introduction to Gracie Jiu-Jitsu.

if you argue that bjj is not jujutsu per se, then what constitutes jujutsu and why can't anyone else (especially bjj) use the name?

BigJon
6th January 2003, 22:24
From what I understand (and please correct me..) Judo in itself is so diverse, that it may look like a different art to an outsider. - I mean as far as Olympic, Kodokan, or any other group. One may stress groundfighting, one atemi & throws, or a little of each. My point is that some Judo groups may resemble trad. Ju-jutsu. While some trad groups may look more like Judo. Am I even remotely correct?


Jon Gillespie

rupert
7th January 2003, 04:52
Thanks Benjamin for those links. I'll check them out later. If BJJ does have self defence in there, then it ought to be pretty good. All I hear about it though is goundwork groundwork groundwork.

Rupert Atkinson

Jason H.P. Yoo
8th January 2003, 20:59
BJJ isn't jujutsu at all. It's zhoozhitsu. Just ask any Brazilian BJJ'er.

Benjamin Peters
8th January 2003, 21:42
In the January 2003 edition of Martial Arts Legend's Presents: GRAPPLING, Royce Gracie is interviewed on his thoughts on various topics. One of the topics dicussed (on page 53) is this exact topic. Not having the exact quotation, Royce relays the fact that when people saw mixed martial arts competitions, they flocked to brasilian jiu jitsu classes. However, people only saw the bjj sport side of things and learned that to add to their reportoire.

Royce then suggests that the reason why people learn martial arts in the first place should never be forgotten (ie self defense). Royce then suggests that the standup component of self defense in bjj is very much important - obviously stressing the methods of gracie bjj standup self defense. Royce seemed to be 'all for' self defense; probably because of his new book covering standup self defense (and others).See book here (http://store.yahoo.com/fightworld2/roychargracs.html)

It seems to be an area of misconception that bjj only has groundwork. Groundwork is it's uniqueness but standup self defense [similar to american jujutsu (ie George Kirby and Krav maybe?)] is also a part of it (important as Royce Gracie suggests - see above reference). It's kinda like saying that Karate only has punches.

vadrip
9th January 2003, 07:15
The thing with bjj just like judo as that most schools tend to focus on the sport side of it and neglect the self defense training. The newaza of bjj is related to the prewar judo with it's banned submission techniques and the kosen judo techniques, though bjj has a distinct way of fighting judoists and uses different rules much like how the judo based art of sambo is different in the same regard.

Alot of bjj schools do the vale tudo training, which is training for NHB and MMA which does teach how to fight a grappler and a striker per se though it's still sport related, although it tends to have more usefulness then some more traditional and even modern schools have taught as self defense in the past.

The thing being most who do those competitions, nowadays are training not only bjj, but wrestling, boxing and muay thai being the primary arts since they quick to learn and get right to the point of fighting so the pure vale tudo bjj training has been replaced so to speak.

In regards to self defense and martials, I hate when people discuss martial arts is that they always say defenses against multiple attackers as if any traditional art has anything romotely similar to a scenario that could use effectively against a mass attack. Sorry folks, but in real fighting people hit back when hit and they rush you all at once if there's a number of them.

So the multiple attach scenario in the dojo may look good, but in real life it might cost you a serious a** whipping or possibly death if you think you can take more than one person at the same time. When I mean the same time that's what I mean, not attacking you one by one.

Benjamin Peters
9th January 2003, 21:57
Orignally posted by Orlando Carasquillo
In regards to self defense and martials, I hate when people discuss martial arts is that they always say defenses against multiple attackers as if any traditional art has anything romotely similar to a scenario that could use effectively against a mass attack. Sorry folks, but in real fighting people hit back when hit and they rush you all at once if there's a number of them.

Good point Orlando, your post was well informed too (from the perspective of sport and self-defense). As for the element of Judo vs BJJ, I must say that the difference I feel is that BJJ is more dynamic in the sense that it's the 'transitions' into positions/submissions that make it more developed from Judo (MY OPINION ONLY _ NOT HERE TO START AN ART v ART THREAD).:smilejapa

Lens
12th January 2003, 23:19
Is BJJ actualy Jujutsu?

Well, an obvius NO. Everyone knows it came out of Judo!

Having said this its still a great art.

1.)But JJ is not brazillian neither american!

2.)Judo came out of jj and was named so.

3.)learning judo and recaling it jujutsu is kinda against the rule. Better call it Gracie Ryu / kan Judo! or just a simple brazilian name!

Kenjutsu, developed kendo....and so on.... kendo will never develop kenjutsu....(from jutsu to do).....

4.) forget names and move t the most important! wich is technique....
Look at Jujutsu and BJJ..... wath a distinction!

still insist its JJ? certanly no one can say Japanese Jujutsu is not good Jujutsu or second best to american or brazilian!, because its the real thing with all its meritorius glory....

so the list goes on.......

i love watching bjj but well some things are so obvoius


Lens:rolleyes:

By the way: im off to west virginia america tomorow... of to se DNBK international division. Im a happy man finally. love you all. Who knows maybe i will start training again. love you all.:)

rupert
13th January 2003, 00:38
In the UK, in the 1970s, Jujtusu was born from a mixture of Judo and Karate - people who were looking for their roots. What they re-created had nothing whatsoever to do with Japan. I know becasue I was mixed up in it at the time. They called their arts Jujutsu,and they included what they thought were all aspects of it - kicking / punching / groundwork / locking / weapons etc. Problem was, it had no substance - and nothing one could call aiki - just a hodge poge collection of stuff. Also practicing Aikido at the same time, I soon realised that Japanese Jujutsu - the real deal as observed in demos done by visiting Japanese - was far more similar to Japanese styles of Jujutsu than anything I had ever learned in UK Jujutsu. That particular style of Jujutsu still exists everywhere in the UK although many have changed their names and affiliations. Thing is, in essence it was created ad hoc. BJJ is created based on what works but to me, nothing like what I expect Jujutsu to be. In fact, I guess it is reverse Judo. I mean, In Judo they want to stand up; in BJJ they want to work on the floor. That is the impression I think most people get about BJJ. Also, on looking at BJJ sites, many of the practicioners sell themselves like professional boxers or wrestlers - mega egos abound. Bigger than mega, I should say, in many cases. To compare, have you ever seen a Judo page where a teacher bothers to list his tournament records, full of pics of himself flexing his muscles, with scowling expressions intended to scare future adversaries? Are they catching the pro-wrestling bug?

BigJon
13th January 2003, 03:00
The French introduced Muay Thai to France and threw in some European style boxing - this became Savate
I think that Savate actually came from a form of Ship deck fighting, that was employed by French sailors. The kicks bear little or no appearance of Muay Thai

Jon Gillespie

vadrip
13th January 2003, 06:55
Yeah, Savate practioners don't chamber their kicks, they just throw them out there, they use the low shin kick like muay thai, but they don't really use the elbows and knee clinching like muay thai employs. They use more traditional western boxing for their hands too.

Mike Williams
14th January 2003, 11:08
Originally posted by rupert
In the UK, in the 1970s, Jujtusu was born from a mixture of Judo and Karate - people who were looking for their roots. What they re-created had nothing whatsoever to do with Japan. I know becasue I was mixed up in it at the time.

That particular style of Jujutsu still exists everywhere in the UK although many have changed their names and affiliations. Thing is, in essence it was created ad hoc.

Hi Rupert,

Could you share some more info on the creation of British jujutsu? I assume you're talking about the British Ju-jitsu Assoc. syllabus put together by Robert Clarke (and Richard (I think) Morris)?

Academic curiosity only - although I train in Robert Clarke's WJJF, I certainly won't flame you if your opinions are critical of the style. I'm just interested in how the style developed.

(NB: from very early on in my training I could tell that this was 'British jujutsu', with minimal links to Japan. I have always assumed that it was developed off the back of judo's long presence in the UK. Stylewise it is heavily judo based, basically judo with added 'nasty' bits. Personally, I think they should drop all Japanese trappings, and claim it as British Ju-Jitsu, much as the Brazilians have done - they could then claim lineage all the way back to Barton-Wright!)

Cheers,

Mike

rupert
14th January 2003, 11:59
Mike,

I did it for most of the 1980s and yes - the same style. BJJA. They used English names for all the techniques because they were made in the UK - that much is obvious, though I know some have now adopted a more Japanese 'look'. They were also infamous for the high grades wearing stripey polka dot hakama of all sorts of wild colours.

Where does it come from? Not entirely sure where the syllabus comes from - you'd have to ask Liverpool about that but they always claimed links to Rod Sacharnosky's group in the states - although he never knew about it. Maybe it is his syllabus - I heard that said, but don't know if its true - you'd have to see what they do and compare it. Incidentally, RS gets a lot of stick on this site but I like what he does technically - the part's I have seen (looks nothing like BJJA really). I also heard that it came from an old UK circus wrestler. Read about Blundell (not sure if the spelling is correct).

Critique? The syllabus is, rather suspect, in my opinion. Quite disorganised and ad-hoc. The main problem was that similar grades always trained together (good for high grades) and only do the stuff on their syllabus - for the next grade - the syllabus was king. So, you never revised anything. Never any 'left handed' stuff either - well, we used to say left handed, but we always started from a left stance, so maybe there was no right handed stuff..? And those stupid badges we had to buy and stick on our Gis. That really irked a lot of people.

There was some good stuff in there though - I did it to black belt and generally enjoyed it / learned a lot.

Rupert Atkinson

Mike Williams
14th January 2003, 12:35
Thanks Rupert!

I remember reading about the Sacharnoski connection (here on e-budo I think). It seems to have been severed a long time ago, Robert Clarke and RS seem to have had something of a falling out - I don't think either the BJJA or WJJF now claim affiliation to anyone (but themselves).

I hear you on the critique. If it's any consolation, most clubs I have seen now make sure that back-syllabus and basics are reviewed every class along with the paired syllabus work. Also, in our club at least, the instructors are encouraged to bring their previous experience into the mix - for example we've got guys from boxing, judo and escrima backgrounds, quite diverse! (I'm quite encouraged by how many folks end up training with us after time spent in other arts).
We also do a fair bit of randori - mostly groundwork, but also standup ('judo style'), random attack drills etc. It all seems well balanced, despite the presence of 'The Syllabus'.

Left handed stuff does now start to creep in from purple belt onwards, but we still do FAR too little. And most of the weapons work seems highly suspect, but then I have no interest in that side of things anyway.

Patches on gis :rolleyes: what can I say? Another annoying feature (thankfully absent from my club) is the tendency to split each belt into two (blue & white, blue, purple & white, purple), which doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than twice as many grading fees.

But overall, it's very good stuff and highly enjoyable.

Cheers,

Mike

rupert
15th January 2003, 00:24
Mike,

When I did Jujutsu (BJJA) there was absolutely no emphasis on competition - how is it today in BJJA?

Rupert

Mike Williams
15th January 2003, 11:41
Don't know about the BJJA, but there still isn't in the WJJF.

The third big JJ group (Ju-Jitsu International Federation) is quite active on the competition front, I believe.

Competition is one aspect I really miss, so I shall probably start cross-training this year. Either judo or BJJ. Probably the latter, as submission grappling appeals more than Judo shiai (or JJIF rules).

Cheers,

Mike

Mark J. Speranza
31st January 2003, 02:09
Hi Guys

BJJ is Jujutsu. The person that taught Carlos was a Jujutsu practistioner. Also Judo came from Jujutsu. Also spelling has nothing to do with it. Jujutsu, Juitsu, Judo, Juido is all the same. Rememeber in the "old" days the Japanese knew nothing about English language. Also the English speaking people did not know how to spell words that are only made from pictographs and not words. So it was all guess work at that time

Mark J. Speranza
31st January 2003, 12:25
Hi
That's pretty much what I was trying to say. You put it better.
Thanks

Qasim
1st February 2003, 03:23
Originally posted by Mark J. Speranza
Hi
That's pretty much what I was trying to say. You put it better.
Thanks

Russ didn't say that BJJ is Jujutsu and he didn't say Judo was Jujutsu either. Nor did he say that Maeda was a practioner of Jujutsu. He said he was a Judoka.

R Erman
1st February 2003, 13:33
I really don't want to turn this thread into "is judo jujutsu", but I will say this: Many "judoka" from the old days called their art Kano Jujutsu.

Now I know Judo has evolved since Maeda's time, but if they were calling what they did judo or jujutsu, who are we to say there is such a strong demarcation between the two(at least in ref to judo of that time)?

vadrip
1st February 2003, 19:40
It was once called Kano jujutsu because that it was Kano originally named it before he called it judo. Judo is jujutsu, but it's the principles(maxims), shiai and the fact of randori being the mainstay in judo that makes it differ from jujutsu. Jujutsu was mainly kata with little or no randori for the most part and consisted of mainly battefield techniques with mainly standing joint locks, strikes, weapon training and throws.

It had very little newaza if any and mainly had holdowns like you would see in aikido. The words judo and jujutsu had been used interchangeably since judo was founded so indeed judo is jujutsu, but judo is also judo. If most people still trained judo the original way with all the katas, banned waza, and weapons like they use to do when it was fairly young they would get a closer idea of judo's jujutsuness so to speak.

Mark J. Speranza
1st February 2003, 23:58
Hi
***the fact of randori being the mainstay in judo that makes it differ from jujutsu. Jujutsu was mainly kata with little or no randori for the most part and consisted of mainly battefield techniques with mainly standing joint locks, strikes, weapon training and throws***:eek:

Hate to say this but you are not correct. Are you also trying to say that since Jujutsu came before Judo that they had no Randori style training?? Come on think logically. Do you relly believe that Kano came up with the concept of person to person matches. If you do the research you will see that that statement is incorrect. I have it somewhere but there is a whole match that was done with Jujutsu guys versing Judo guys to see which style was better.



****It had very little newaza if any and mainly had holdowns like you would see in aikido. The words judo and jujutsu had been used interchangeably since judo was founded so indeed judo is jujutsu, but judo is also judo. If most people still trained judo the original way with all the katas, banned waza, and weapons like they use to do when it was fairly young they would get a closer idea of judo's jujutsuness so to speak. ***


Are you saying there is no Ne-waza in Jujutsu??? Where did Ne-waza come from then? Judo, Bjj. Please research before you speak. Also many times Judo was referred to as "Ippon Judo" to differenciate from submission style fighting.

vadrip
2nd February 2003, 02:28
No, you need to do some research I said jujutsu did randori, but most styles did very little if any at all same goes for newaza too. So you have a problem understanding what the truth is. I never said judo invented these things because they didn't like they just made it their mainstay as way of training vs mainly kata training which was what the jujutsu styles were doing. Judo advanced the techniques of newaza and tachi waza, they didn't invent them they just improved on the techniques and furthered the advancement of them.

Walker
2nd February 2003, 06:51
Just to be a punk add western wrestling to the influences on newaza.

Can you say Prussian influence? Good. :D

Jay Vail
2nd February 2003, 12:40
Orlando is correct about the koryu jujutsu being mainly practiced through kata. This is consistent with all I have read on old jujutsu. However, jujutsuka evidently engaged frequently is true fights, in which they had an opportunity to test technique. At least this was true in the late 1800s, if you give any weight to Harrison’s book, and evidently was one of the reasons that Kano introduced randori and shiai into his jujutsu, to take the fighting out of the street.

As for newaza, it appears they are of modern origin (by modern I mean the last 100 years or so). The koryu jujutsu seem to have relied very little on groundwork. This is consistent with the European practice in kampfringen, or combat wrestling, a fighting art astonishingly similar to jujutsu which was practiced in Europe during the middle ages. Most of the great fight books were set down in the 1400s, more than a century before the founding of the first known jujutsu ryu (takenouchi, 1532). They show little ground work, and some (Fiore, the greatest of them) none at all. Talhoffer and the Gladiatoria show people on the ground, but primarily the daggers are out. The Codex Wallerstein shows a few restraints on the ground, but goes into no detail about groundwork, whereas it is quite comprehensive about what do when you are standing up. (For information on the fechbuchen, see www.thearma.org or www.aemma.org.) This leads one to conclude that the ancients, who engaged in true combats to the death, did not regard groundwork as we know it today as being very useful or important. If they had, they would have covered it in their fechtbuchen. This leads to the second conclusion that groundwork or newaza grew out of submission or sport fighting and not true combat. (It has also been my experience in true fights that wrestling on the ground is largely a waste of energy.)

R Erman
2nd February 2003, 14:54
As some of you surely know the initial influx of newaza came from the kododkan's defeat to the Fusen Ryu(didn't know it was in kata though, cool). They also had an influence from western wrestling(most obvious would be things like morote gari and kata guruma in tachi waza).

Classical jujutsu did engage in randori, particularly during the edo period. Inter-school competitions were known as taryu-jiai. I've also heard that many samurai who practiced jujutsu practiced sumo in their spare time as a pastime. This shows an obvious link between kata geiko and resistance grappling, IMO. It would seem to me that due to the combined effects of the meiji restoration and Japan's later defeat in WWII kata practice became the mainstay of training to deemphasize the combative nature of the arts--at least to outside eyes.

Mark J. Speranza
2nd February 2003, 15:05
***Judo advanced the techniques of newaza and tachi waza, they didn't invent them they just improved on the techniques and furthered the advancement of them.***

Hi
Since any time in a Judo match if yu are on the ground for more than, I think 10 seconds, you are told to stand up ad start again. Given this, I would have to say that Ne-waza in Judo is very small, not advanced and not looked at as a vital part of the sport. I use the word SPORT. Do you really think that any fighting style would not count falling to the ground and knowing how to fight from there an important part of their teaching? Now also in the above statement you say they didn't invent them but improved upon them. So where did it come from in your opinion?

***Jujutsu was mainly kata with little or no randori ***
And you did say this which is what I was refering to in my last post.

Also, another analogous system known as TORI in some parts of Japan and SHIME in other parts, was an extention of Jujutsu in groundwork and it is more than possible that many of the locks and holds in Jujutsu were originated by exponents of TORI. TORI gave slight importance to "throws" as they mainly confined themselves to falling to the ground and then pulling your opponent down and "struggle for a victorious lock".(taken from Jujutsu by S.K. Uyenishi)

Sounds like Ne-waza to me.

Look at a lot of the kata, although it may not "say" this is how to do Ne-waza it most certainly can be. I will use a very well known technique of Juji-gatame as an example.

vadrip
2nd February 2003, 21:28
Obviously some people don't understand things like Mark, I said what I said and admitted it and had it proved by posts done by others. Jujutsu invented the techniques, judo furthered them by randori vs mainly kata training by jujutsu. Is that so hard to understand, I saying jujutsu did it first, but judo it took a step further.

Also, newaza in a judo contest and newaza done in a dojo are two different things and doesn't mean judo newaza is not advanced or vital. In the dojo you can grapple how you want, while the contest has its rules.

Also, in reference to another post saying newaza being useless wrestling on the ground, sorry but many have found themselves on the ground in real fights either by accident or be taking it to the ground, either way people have successfully choked, armlocked and reversed their positions to overcome their attackers so I wouldn't call that useless.

Just because grappling is used in a fight doesn't mean you automatically put yourself there, you can taken down and have to grapple in order to get back up or have to use a choke or an joint lock to defeat your attacker. So one aspect of training is no better than other, it's just an aspect and the best defense and offense is always common sense so you know when to use it and when not.

R Erman
2nd February 2003, 22:28
I think jujutsu schools practiced mainly kata after the turn of the century. I also think if you went back a little further the kata/randori ratio would be different. I think this is what Mark is saying.

I will say this though, I've cross-trained in judo ne waza, submission grappling, sambo, bjj...etc. Judo has some awesome ne waza. It may not be allowed in some of the competitions because of rules, but Judo ne waza can be just as advanced as bjj. And not all judo is sport, which I believe has been said already. Also, I think japanese schools of jujutsu can be just as advanced. It's all in the training method and what you do with the principles.

And I agree with the above post that considering wrestling around on the ground to be a waste is pretty ridiculous. There are young, athletic, and somewhat hot-headed mixed martial artists training to move in and take people off of their feet on a daily basis. Not preparing for this, and all of the other ground-related possibilities is what is ridiculous. Plus, regularly wrestling around on the ground with a trained grappler would highly improve the odds and speed of quickly gaining a dominant postition and either striking, breaking, weapon deployment, or simply escaping from your attacker.

rupert
3rd February 2003, 00:24
Originally posted by Mark J. Speranza
Since any time in a Judo match if yu are on the ground for more than, I think 10 seconds, you are told to stand up ad start again. Given this, I would have to say that Ne-waza in Judo is very small, not advanced and not looked at as a vital part of the sport. I use the word SPORT.

Might be the rules, but many clubs do a lot of groundwork. I have done it for two hours at a time.

Rupert Atkinson

dakotajudo
9th February 2003, 19:53
Originally posted by Mark J. Speranza

Since any time in a Judo match if yu are on the ground for more than, I think 10 seconds, you are told to stand up ad start again.

This is a bit of misconception. Most refs will not restart until it is apparent there is no progress towards a finishing technique on the ground; but there is no strict limit to the time spent on the ground. If it appears that you've started an armlock or some other finishing hold, the ref will usually give you as much time as it takes, as long as it appears you've got a chance to finish the hold, or your opponent escapes the hold.

Jay Vail
11th February 2003, 10:38
And I agree with the above post that considering wrestling around on the ground to be a waste is pretty ridiculous. There are young, athletic, and somewhat hot-headed mixed martial artists training to move in and take people off of their feet on a daily basis. Not preparing for this, and all of the other ground-related possibilities is what is ridiculous. Plus, regularly wrestling around on the ground with a trained grappler would highly improve the odds and speed of quickly gaining a dominant postition and either striking, breaking, weapon deployment, or simply escaping from your attacker.

Rob,

You are probably referring to my post. I base it in real life experience. I am small and weak. When I was a kid, I was the target of bullies. I got my ass kicked many times in school fights and mugged. When these fights went to the ground, they killed me with superior size and strength. When I was 12, I started judo and learned a few locks and pressure point moves. One day, while a guy was twisting my head off on the ground, I happened to remember a move my judo instructor had taught me not long before for escaping from a standing headlock: pass your arm around his shoulder and press a finger at the hollow of the throat above the sternum. I did this. It was like pressing the button on your seat belt. Magically, the other guy, who was as usual bigger and stronger, let go. After that, whenever I found myself on the ground with someone, I never wrestled them. I went for the eyes or the throat. I rarely had a problem on the ground. I was usually able to get away (though not always). This experience leads me to question the overall utility of wrestling on the ground in a true fight. You can take it or leave it, whatever your personal martial religion happens to be.

That said, however, I have had the opportunity to work with a BJJ practitioner. I wish I had known some of that stuff when I was a kid. It would have saved me a lot of lumps.

a.mlinarevic
21st February 2003, 04:28
hi guys,first time on and still trying to make heads or tales out of this.gracie bjj,machado bjj were and are still geared toward vale tudo style fights.i've played judo here in australia and it's very regulated,no leg locks,no knee bars,pretty much no grappling or it seems to be touched apon but never practised.to say bjj came from judo or there is no major difference is incorrect. judo is judo,aikido is aikido,sambo is free-style wrestling/judo,bjj is bjj
jui-juitsu is judo / aikido.(unsafe to be practised simultaneously hence judo/aikido

Fredrik Blom
21st February 2003, 14:15
There seems to be a lot of concentration on who did invent this or that technique, and using this to put an art in a certain cathegory. What is often is forgotten in this kind of discussion is tactic and strategy.
BJJ have a lot in common with (Kodokan) judo when it comes to groundtechniques for instance, but what about the strategy and tactics compared to that of Kodokan judo?
On the same tangent; Judo share a lot of techniques with koryu jujutsu (You may have to go into the kata of judo to find some of them, but still). But what about the intent of the techniques? Tenjin shinyo ryu, for instance, use some of the techniques for protecting others and capture people. This is not really found in judo, though they still do the same techniques more or less.

Just some food for thought ;)

In the end, each person already seems to have made their mind up, and rarely change their opinion. Still, these threads are really fun to read! ;)

Best regards,
Rico

MarkF
22nd February 2003, 12:56
I must thank Peter (Dakotajudo) for his post on the misconceptions on what those who are not judo practitionrs generally think about judo, and he is indeed correct about today's IJF/IOC rules concerning newaza. In fact, the rules of newaza in contest are similar to freestyle wrestling, that when a hold is broken, or when there is no chance to take it, in both cases they again start from a standing position. If there is a scoring move, or a move close to a scoring move on the ground at the warning limit of the fighting area, both will be moved by an official or officials, making sure to keep them in the same position as they were when the match was temporarily stopped, to make sure they don't go outside the mat. Not all stoppages are due to a lack of willfulness, and there are points gained by another's refusal to fight. This is mostly voluntary. This has been true for a long time, it is just packed into fewer minutes, particularly at the national or international level of play. Passivity penalties are strictly within the perview of the official[s].

The other misconception concerns the so-called "banned waza." The only waza banned in judo are those which are NOT judo. Restricted would be a more precise term, and even then, the ones restricted to kata, or are not permitted randori and those which are not included in kata, are still taught and are part of the syllabus. An example would be the nage-waza (koshi-waza), dakiage. It isn't permitted in shiai, nor is it in randori or kata, but it certainly is known by most by the time one is at the level of sankyu (teachers are independent and when it is learned is up to them). Most call it a "body slam." As far as I know off the top of my head it is the only koshi-waza so restricted.

There has always been newaza in judo, before the Fusen ryu matches and after. Fusen didn't use newaza to beat the judoka, they simply dropped to the ground and stayed there, as newaza was still in development state, the Kodokan players did not know how to deal with it. This did, however, make it incumbent on developing a stonger syllabus of newaza, or actually, katame-waza. But newaza was almost always a part of judo. So you can credit Fusen for instilling the "matches go to the ground more often than one thinks and should be addressed" but Fusen had little, if any, of their own. It isn't so different from chess. Playing for a draw is a different game than playing for a win.

Another misconception: There is more newaza in BJJ than judo. There is nothing in the groundwork of BJJ which isn't found in judo. The only difference is in the submission only part of BJJ, but that has nothing to do with a lack of newaza in judo, just the point of controlling a man on his back for twenty-five or thirty seconds along with submission scoring.

The Judo of the pre-war era is real judo, and modern judo isn't good for anything but the contest, though I'd want to be there when the Chicago Police dojo "call on" another dojo of unarmed Japanese martial art in taryu jiai. This type of match was a major concern for the young Kano. He felt this type of challenge, the way students were "jumped in" a school of jujutsu, or just, plain being a thug was unnecessary and cruel and this was one of his major contributions in that area. Shiai is a symbolic, combative contest where a judge says when a man/lady is beaten. Ippon is the symbol for that.

The real difference, and I've spoken or written to some of those who were around back then, say that "judo was never the same." I agree. However, there is a good reason for that. Yokoyama states this in his book, "Judo Kyohan" (Japanese edition was published in 1909, the English version in Dec. 1915) though I won't quote him precisely was, after the war was over, and people began straggling back to the dojo, the youngsters were suddenly bigger and stronger due to physical education and just plain better physical health. The oldtimers didn't like it, but these younger judoka were using their strength to their advantage. They were bigger, stronger, and faster. Yokoyama said that you only have to imagine how great judo would have been if the old masters were of better health, stronger and bigger people. That is a good point, IMO.

Anyway, I didn't want to get into an argument over the value of what some call "sport" judo (I believe this to be the first instance of using a noun as an adjective in the nit-picky world of nay-sayers in budo) but I've always considered judo done on the mat all out to be a combative sport, though I may not have used those words way back when.

BTW: It was an old school of what was to become Kito-ryu in the 1700s, Jikishin-ryu, which called its style judo, or more probable, "jiu no michi" or "yawara no michi." It also used "ran" (randori) in its practice, and while Kano's jujutsu was certainly different from this, he chose the term judo to differentiate it from other schools of jujutsu and because he generally agreed that there was more to be discovered in jujutsu. There is also at least one other school called "Kodokan (Mito Kodokan)" though the kanji for "ko" is different, so I'm told. Kano also devised his own throwing and grappling methods from his own research as much as he used many waza of several jujutsu ryu, but had methodically polished them up so that just about anyone able-bodied could do them. He was the first academic to do it in that manner. Not all technique was taken from a style of jujutsu, but certainly his product was one of using what was effective, including a couple of waza from western freestyle or greco-roman. Since most of those who practiced jujutsu back then were of the big, strong, stances with feet set wide apart, the idea of a more linear, softer jujutsu was unheard of (this was the case in many nage-waza), and taking a foot off the ground to complete a throw? Impossible, right? What of kuzushi/tsukuri and kake? A throw was a throw, and of those who utilized them, the majority were big and strong.


Mark

Scott Laking
2nd March 2003, 05:09
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been living and training in japan for 16 years now. I've been training in Koryu styles such as katori shinto ryu, Fusen Ryu and Sekiguchi Ryu. I also train at at Pro Shooto gym in Osaka and we do a little bbj there as well.
From what I've been taught by my koryu senseis, there wasn't much newaza as we know it today, in the old schools. Both Sekiguchi Ryu and Fusen ryu are mostly done from sitting or standing possitions and they all end on the ground with some sort of joint lock or choke.
They also are always attacking the right hand so that a sword can not be drawn. The fact that a weapon (or two) was held by one of both, is what kept the old newaza looking different from modern day newaza (perhaps also the possibility of multiple attackers).
Fusen ryu is a more recent art (Bakumatsu Period) so many empty hand techniques were practiced (not saying weapons techniques aren't done at all). The fusen ryu techniques mostly work just as well standing as in wrestling applications (sekiguchi ryu works ok too).
It seems that many of the older schools didn't do a lot of randori. Most of the practice was kata. Otake sensei once told me that he felt that in budo there is no competition, just life or death combat. If there is competition, it is not budo but just a violent sport. I wonder if many of the Bakumatsu, Meiji period martial artists had that same outlook. I guess, Kano and the Fusen school's didn't feel that way (I'm sure other schools didn't as well).
My Sekiguchi school still to this day, only does kata practice, though there is Judo practice on other nights.
My Fusen school often does Randori or sparring. We start in shizentai. One student stands in the middle of the mat while the rest of the students take turns attacking him. We usually start with hand or foot attacks. But much like the NHB fights of today, it often goes to grappling, a throw and if that didn't finish one or the other, ground work is put into play. The ground work attacks are just variations of the standing and sitting kata. Alot like what we see in Kosen Judo, and BJJ (much of their stuff came from Fusen ryu). I personally think that when it comes to straight ground work possitioning the Brazilians have taken it to a different level. But there is much more to fighting than just ground work, as we all know.
Well anyway, there was my 2 cents.

rupert
25th April 2003, 07:47
The following rules seem to me to be the opposite of what Jujutsu is supposed to be. And this is what a lot of people are training toward these days. If you train with these rules in mind, can you call what you do Jujutsu? I am sure some BJJ schools have a more complete JJ syllabus, but the two I have seen (not many I know) just seem to train for competition. Nothing wrong with that of course, but is such Jujutsu?

The 2002 Ultimate Fighting Championship rules, defined, decided and approved by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, USA.

1. Butting with the head (could cause concussion for both opponents)
2. Eye gouging (any form of attack on the eyes could cause permanent loss of sight)
3. Biting (causes transfer of bacteria)
4. Hair Pulling (Unfair leverage advantage)
5. Fish Hooking (can cause permanent damage or lacerations to sensitive areas)
6. Groin attacks of any kind (can cause prostrate cancer or hernias)
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent (spreads infection and bacteria)
8. Small joint manipulation (can cause permanent damage of weakened joints)
9. Striking to the spine or back of the head (can cause permanent spinal damage)
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow (can cause serious lacerations)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea (can cause asphyxiation)
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (causes unnecessary lacerations)
13. Grabbing the clavicle (damage to the clavicle can cause respiratory problems)
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent (can cause permanent head injury and brain trauma
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent (as in question 14))
16. Stomping a grounded opponent (can cause unnecessary organ damage and or injury)
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel (as in question 16)
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (can cause neck and spinal damage)
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area (unnecessary damage as a result of fall or landing)
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent (unfair leverage advantage)
21. Spitting at an opponent (transfer of bacteria and or temporary blindness)
22. Engaging in an unsports-man-like conduct that causes an injury to an opponent (standards must be set out to maintain the quality of the promotion and the sport.)
23. Holding the ropes or the fence (unfair leverage)
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area (as in question 22)
25. Attacking the opponent on or during the break (as in question 22)
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee (opponent not being in a position to defend himself and or as in question 22)
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of fighting (as in question 26)
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee (as in question 26)
29. Timidly, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury (as in question 22)
30. Interference by the corner (as in question 22)
31. Throwing in the towel during competition (can cause distraction to the official)
Both the Nevada State athletic commission and Zuffa owners of the UFC approve these rules. These rules are set in place to protect fighters and fans, to keep the action going and to maintain the quality of the promotion and the sport.

Rupert Atkinson

Mike Williams
25th April 2003, 11:02
Originally posted by rupert
These rules are set in place to protect fighters and fans, to keep the action going and to maintain the quality of the promotion and the sport.

And there you have it. It seems ludicrous to me that having rules in place for competition or randori (or even partner drills in the dojo) somehow implies the watering down or ineffectiveness of an art.

All MA training has rules. Nobody goes around slamming on kote-gaeshi with the intention of breaking uke's wrist. No one goes around altering the angle of their throws with the express intention of dumping uke on their head. Nobody actually trains eye-gouging or throat-ripping or joint dislocation - at least nowhere near at full intensity.

Having a sport element to an art creates an environment in which core principles (maai, kuzushi, positional strategy on the ground) can be applied full force against fully resisting opponents, with a limited number of relatively safe techniques to ensure no-one gets badly hurt. All the nasty stuff can be drilled separately, with compliant partners or at low intensity. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

But I would argue very strongly that the best way to learn how to apply core principles is through randori or sporting competition. I study jujutsu - I know heaps of ground submissions. So how come since I started BJJ (at a purely sport-oriented school) I have been tapping like a typewriter? And how come I can (with just a few months BJJ) go back to my JJ club and dominate most people on the ground? Because BJJ has given me the strategies and principles to deal with live opponents that were lacking in my JJ training.

These principles and strategies have been developed through competition. Just to put the above into context, at my jujutsu club we regulary do newaza randori - but it usually consists of people randomly scrambling around until they can find an opening for a submission. Nobody has considered that the best way to 'win' at newaza is to look for position first, and then work towards the submission. This is because it hasn't been pressure tested in competition.

Now, does pure 'sport' BJJ qualify as jujutsu? Probably not. It's probably not even a martial art in the traditional sense. The same goes for olympic Judo. Or greco-roman wrestling. Or western boxing. Do these arts teach you principles that are applicable to jujutsu? Absolutely.

Cheers,

Mike
(sport budoka and proud of it)

Qasim
25th April 2003, 17:37
Originally posted by Mike Williams

But I would argue very strongly that the best way to learn how to apply core principles is through randori or sporting competition. I study jujutsu - I know heaps of ground submissions. So how come since I started BJJ (at a purely sport-oriented school) I have been tapping like a typewriter? And how come I can (with just a few months BJJ) go back to my JJ club and dominate most people on the ground? Because BJJ has given me the strategies and principles to deal with live opponents that were lacking in my JJ training.

I'm assuming the Jujutsu training you're receiving is focused on fighting multiple opponents. If so, then being on the ground doing submission techniques wouldn't be your training focus as multiple attackers aren't going to wait for you to finish them off one at a time.

If anything, the ground techniques are good to know when you only have ONE opponent and you know that you will only have ONE opponent to deal with. Are BJJ's submisson techniques effective for single opponents? Sure it is, saying it isn't would be lying. But it isn't Jujutsu, it has it's roots in Judo, but it isn't Jujutsu. :mst:

Hissho
25th April 2003, 22:40
Mike-

Wise words. I must say I really enjoy reading your posts - several times I have thought to chime in on a thread here and there, I read one of your posts, and realize I don't have anything to add.

Good Show,

Kit LeBlanc

MarkF
26th April 2003, 00:23
Kit, Mike,
I have to agree, and practice what I preach more often. If you just follow a good thread, and wait a bit before considering a post, much of the time, someone else will say it for you, and much better than I.


Mark

Mike Williams
26th April 2003, 00:47
Kit -
Thanks! Funnily enough, I tend to think the same about your posts (you too, Mark) :D

Uriah -
Yes we train multiple attacker drills (& randori) at my JJ club. We don't do that at my BJJ club. We don't do any striking in BJJ either. Or much in the way of takedowns. That's not the point. BJJ is a subset, a specialisation of jujutsu. Ergo it is jujutsu. So are judo and aikido. I see jujutsu as a pretty broad umbrella term. Your mileage may vary.

As far as multiple attacker randori is concerned, I suspect any judoka with experience of shiai could come in and do very nicely without much modification of technique or strategy - mainly because they are used to the pressure of competition.

Come to think of it, doesn't Tomiiki Aikido feature multiple-attack in competition? My money would be on those guys.

Cheers,

Mike

Mekugi
26th April 2003, 02:18
I think that there is a good point in these posts, maybe "overlooked" but seemingly hovering. "Jujutsu", was an umbrella term that is not in use anymore. That was Edo/Meiji jidai speak. Now, the same can be said for Judo; being unspecific, "Kodokan Judo" is a different beast than other "Judo" (been there done that). SOOoooOOOoo I think the question is, is BJJ "Koryu Jujutsu"- to that I think the answer is a big "no". Does it come from Koryu Jujutsu? I would say not directly- or even to say remotely. Is BJJ Gendai JJ? Yes, it sure is- why wouldn't it be?
Is it "The most effective martial art on the planet"? I would say "Ever heard of a CarpetBagger??"

Whatyall think??

Asia
27th April 2003, 11:10
Whatyall think??

I think Royce will get a kick out of my:

BJJ = Basicly Just Judo T-shirt

This is in good humor but I know SOME fanboy will get bent out of shape about it. I just think of BJJ as Braziallian Judo. That what Kimura called it when he went there and that is what others have reffered to it as. As far as Maeda teaching then Jujutsu. This is most likely do to the fact that Maeda was doing things the the Kodokan may not have liked and since he added some other material he used the term jujutsu to distance himself. Mochizuki Minoru did something similar (he wrote a book on his martial practices and called it JUJUTSU)

Michael Price
27th April 2003, 14:18
Originally posted by Hissho

Judo does not need bad calls to "win" against BJJ. Judoka should not be proud of that "win" because it was without merit. I would rather see Yoshida, or any other top level judoka, win convincingly and without question (by tap, unconsciousness, or injury, as the case may be) instead of resting on laurels that were not earned.

Kit LeBlanc


Theoretically it is not the art but the practitioner who "wins" the fight. For example a kickboxer 'should' be able to take down a grappler every time because they should never be able to get close enough to grapple but this is not the case. It all depends on the mindset of the two competitors in my humble oppinion.

Cheers
-Michael Price

Asia
27th April 2003, 17:48
Originally posted by Michael Price



Theoretically it is not the art but the practitioner who "wins" the fight. For example a kickboxer 'should' be able to take down a grappler every time because they should never be able to get close enough to grapple but this is not the case. It all depends on the mindset of the two competitors in my humble oppinion.

Cheers
-Michael Price

How DARE you say something that is truthful and logical. We all KNOW it the STYLE that matters not the person.:D

Hissho
28th April 2003, 00:57
Originally posted by Michael Price



Theoretically it is not the art but the practitioner who "wins" the fight. For example a kickboxer 'should' be able to take down a grappler every time because they should never be able to get close enough to grapple but this is not the case. It all depends on the mindset of the two competitors in my humble oppinion.

Cheers
-Michael Price

Everything sounds good in theory. I would disagree slightly and say that with "mindset" being equal, the training method makes a great deal of difference.

Still Royce/Yoshida means a lot more to many in the Judo/BJJ community because many judoka, even some highly experienced ones, tend to cite it as an example of the superiority of Judo over BJJ, regardless of the relative merits of the practitioners. That is what I was addressing.

Kit

Kimura
28th April 2003, 09:11
I just read this thread and found it to be a very interesting topic.I would like to add a new angle or twist on my beliefs on why the gracies developed Newaza(groundfighting) to a high level and why this became their main focus.


It's called the "Latino Macho culture",unlike the society of feudal japan were samurais fought with weapons on horseback to death
or even in the urban cities of the USA were gangs are prevelant and warfare is usualy administered thru guns,knives or surprised assaults.


The latin macho culture,settles disputes between two people a little different and this might have been a contributing factor in how and why bjj focused more on groundfighting.Most disputes end up being a pride test of manhood in most south american countries as both drawing a weapon or getting outside assistance would be frowned upon as a cowardness act and very much looked down upon.


Of course this does not apply to all instances as brazil especially today has it's own amount of urban crime just like any other major US city but back in the day of carlos/helios and even carlson eras of the 40 & 50s a fight or challenge was taken as a test of manhood and mostly contested with almost no rules and definitely with no interruptions until someone surrendered.

Fights in most South american countries between two combatants are usually allowed to continue with no interuption usualy ending up on the ground until there is a clear winner.That is not the case here in this country as most people jump in to help or try to stop the assault and weapons are fair play.


The emphasis on ground fighting in these mano a mano scenarios with no weapons involved and with mostly no outside interference from society to halt a dispute or challenge forced the gracies to develop a great effective ground attack ,Under these conditions the high percentage ratio of a fight ending on the ground was very high and the gracies made this their forte.

Hector Gomez


PS:This is not a fact just my opinion.

Hissho
28th April 2003, 16:44
Hector -

I would only ask, then, what about the newaza matches against the Fusen-ryu, spreading the fame of the "newaza of the Kansai?"

Or the early JJ matches which were decided by osaekomi and submission rather than throws?

Much of this arose in Japan prior to and independently of any development of a groundfighting emphasis in Brazil - prior even to Maeda's going to Brazil.

Also, what of Kosen Judo?

I think the emphasis on newaza comes from a focus on challenge match style fighting, PARTICULARLY when you have smaller fighters contesting against larger fighters of some skill. This seems to me to dovetail into your comments on mano a mano fights over honor in the Latin cultural context - they are "challenge match" style fighting.

It is easier for the smaller man with greater skills to defeat a larger man on the ground, especially if there is a strength deficit on the part of the smaller and a skill deficit on the part of the larger - notably, submission skills. Much easier than it is standing. This seems to have been a factor with Yukio Tani as much as with Helio Gracie (and later Royce against wrestlers like Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn). The Gracies in general are not large men, so it makes sense that they stayed with such a system.

It was when wrestlers started learning how to defeat submissions and capitalize on ground and pound that this has started to change - and incidentally bring newaza back to more combative roots - submissions are not as all-important for actual fighting.

With Kosen Judo they wanted lesser skilled newer guys to have a better chance at hanging in team competitions against other schools - by drawing rather than fighting only for ippon - since newaza is learned relatively quickly this is possible. As you know I'm sure, a six monther with hard training could at the very least be effectively defensive for the time of a match against someone with a lot more experience - if that was all they wanted to do.

My .02, whatever its worth.

Kit LeBlanc

hector gomez
28th April 2003, 17:20
Kit,

Excellent point, I agree totally on the fusen-ryu,JJ matches,maeda and kosen judo all being there way before BJJ.I was simply trying to make a direct line connection as to how the culture and society of south america"In this case Rio" could have provided a breeding ground for the development of their groundfighting art to continue to develop.


Example,take a innocent Cuban teenage baseball game in Cuba and have a
altercation develop on the field between two players,9 times out of 10
this dispute will be settled later in a open field with everyone gathered around as witnessess,including Sr. authority.

Only when things have been completely "settled"(meaning a real a#$%w whooping has ocurred) will anyone step in to prevent a maiming or killing.Try settling things like that in a suburban American city park in the Usa............It will not happen,authority is going to either break it up,opponents are going to pull a gun,bat knife or have friends jump in to save them.


This is not the case in most latin american countries as brazil back in the day adhered to this macho protocol which could have been a great breeding ground for the continuation and development of having groundfighting play a big role in the outcome of most dissputes.


Hector Gomez

rupert
29th April 2003, 02:21
I'd like to throw another spanner in the works here ...

It is repeatedly stated that many fights end up on the ground and therefore BJJ is the best etc etc. I wonder ...

Having done quite a lot of Judo myself, it is certainly not easy to get your opponent on the ground. Of late I have been watching NHB / Pride / K1 on cable and when people go down it is mostly because they were purposefully taken down by those who like to fight on the ground. This is not really a case of a fight "ending up" on the ground by accident - rather, it is a ground fighting specialist drawing the stand-up fighter into his own territory. Simply, good tactics. Nowadays I see that many top fighters are more resistant to being taken down - they have learned to avoid it to keep the fight at their own level (standing up).

Many police arrests end up on the ground. It's true. It's safer to put the hand-cuffs on that way. Again, a purposeful tactic.

Think about boxing, 100% of KOs end up on the ground. It's true! Also, the guy left standing does not follow him down to the ground, but continues to punch him from a standing position until the ref stops it. OK, so in boxing they are not supposed to fight on the ground... But there are similar scenes in those NHB / Pride / K1 fights I am seeing. Look at Judo, many wins come from standing positions. Some people favour ne-waza but the fact is that Judo has both tachi-waza and ne-waza, yet most people prefer to fight from tachi-waza - that must mean something. OK, so the rules between BJJ and Judo differ so it's not easy to compare...

Where are the stats that say most fights end up on the ground? I have seen quite a few fights (school-days / pubs / streets - not me!) and most ended after a short scuffle. Occasionally, they go down, but it is not the norm by any means.

BJJ is excellent stuff and a great compliment to any art, even Judo, nay, especially Judo. Hell, it is Judo! Get me one o' those T-Shirts!

Rupert Atkinson

Hissho
29th April 2003, 14:32
The stats came from LAPD, based on their 1988 arrests. The rough percentage was that 63% of arrests with altercations (i.e. where there was an actual fight, not just minor resistance) they ended up with both officer and suspect on the ground and the officer finishing with a joint lock and cuffing.

And to the contrary, it is very normal for civilian fights to go to the ground. I dont think there are statistics for it, (you can't apply the PD statistics to civilian altercations) and I dont think as many go to the ground because it is not an arrest situation. But handle enough fight calls and see enough video capture of real fights and you will see that it is not uncommon at all for at least one person to go to the ground, often with the other person standing over them and stomping, kicking and hitting them, or sitting on them and striking them.

Most civilian "fights" are pushing and shoving, chest bumping kinda things. Not a fight in my book. Or somebody gets some licks in and the whole thing gets broken up by the bouncers, or bystanders, or buddies.

In serious altercations where one or more people are intent on actually hurting someone, in my experience there seems to be more of a tendency for the thing to go to the ground and be finished there.

Kit LeBlanc

Mekugi
30th April 2003, 00:26
Hey again!!

Raining here...couldn't be happier. Hope you're staying safe out there
Originally posted by Hissho

"Also, what of Kosen Judo?

I think the emphasis on newaza comes from a focus on challenge match style fighting, PARTICULARLY when you have smaller fighters contesting against larger fighters of some skill. This seems to me to dovetail into your comments on mano a mano fights over honor in the Latin cultural context - they are "challenge match" style fighting."


Kit LeBlanc [/B].

As a point of interest (I agree with your point of view, this is a subset), while working on the translation for the Kosen Judo tapes put out by Quest with my GF, the newaza matches were originally fought as "groups". It would be Highschool 6 against say, the Kansai Commercial Highschool (The school that Hirata Kanae was the captian of before WWII took out the Kosen school matches.) Kind of like wrestling meets in the west. Off the subject but interesting.
Also, they would win by lottery at the event of a draw.

Interesting little factoid.
Also:

With Kosen Judo they wanted lesser skilled newer guys to have a better chance at hanging in team competitions against other schools - by drawing rather than fighting only for ippon - since newaza is learned relatively quickly this is possible. As you know I'm sure, a six monther with hard training could at the very least be effectively defensive for the time of a match against someone with a lot more experience - if that was all they wanted to do.

That is for sure. These kosen students (highschool and university) would sit up late at night thinking of ways that they could win a match by two Waza Ari or by a draw, then hoping for the lottery in their favor. It was simply impractical for them to try anything other than that because they would be overpowered in a sense of tachi waza, which was (perhaps still is) considered something you are either naturally talented at or you have to learn through endless hours of repitition. By that time, your schools name was drug through the mud and your students (who were only there for a short time) have graduated. Also, they came to realize that a submission was a way they -could- win without the bother of a full ippon from a throw- which was a lot harder/more work to do for a little guy. Shime waza- for instance; namely sankaku jime- which is one of their most famous trademark techniques, was used a great deal it seems.

-Russ

MarkF
30th April 2003, 03:26
As far as Maeda teaching then Jujutsu. This is most likely do to the fact that Maeda was doing things the the Kodokan may not have liked and since he added some other material he used the term jujutsu to distance himself. Mochizuki Minoru did something similar (he wrote a book on his martial practices and called it JUJUTSU)

Maeda taught Kodokan Judo. That he called it "Jiu Jitsu" makes no difference, it was judo. The Kodokan may or may not have liked Maeda, I do not know, but it wasn't so with Jigoro Kano. Kano graded him twice while he was in Brazil (middle grades). Everyone called it Jiu Jitsu at that time and is why the Brazilins called it Jiu Jitsu. The reasons for his "field promotions" is said to be due to his teaching and spreading the art of Kodokan Judo.

The point made by calling it Brazilian Judo is just fine, but you won't find judoka of Brazil calling it that then or now, but it certainly has its roots in Judo.

Wasn't it Rorion Gracie who went into a judo dojo and asked to work out, but when he barely touched his partner and dropped to the floor immediately a few times, he was asked to leave by the teacher who said "This is not Judo." It may have been another Gracie, as it happened in modern times, but I am fairly sure it was Rorion. If I am wrong, please correct me.

According to a letter Rorion wrote to the WHOFSC when he was "honored" as the "Soke" of Gracie Jujutsu, he wrote to advise them: "Please stop calling it Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. What I practice is Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. It is my academy which is called Gracie Jiu Jitsu Academy and is copyrighted, but it is still Brazilian Jiu Jitsu." It may be slightly paraphrased but it was published on their web site (the WHOFSC's).

As Maeda wasn't there all that long it is probably the reason groundwork was the basis for BJJ (relatively easy to learn and as stated here shouldn't take very long to learn the basics), and he probably did not teach any rules of Judo shiai at that time so submission only could very well go back that far but after Maeda left. The interesting thing about Carlos Gracie is that in his two books written in the 1940s, are almost exclusively concerning nage-waza.

There are the chronicles of Sarah Mayer, who was at the Kodokan when a bust was unveiled of Maeda, and by two of the leading newaza specialists of the time. You can find her letters/journals at http://EJMAS.com . This unveiling is toward the last of her Journals.

MarkF
30th April 2003, 03:36
I like the tee-shirt idea as I had something in mind for another...

"Only judoka..."


Mark

Joseph Svinth
30th April 2003, 07:01
Other things to keep in mind when considering all this is the influence that Vale Tudo and capoeira had on the development of Brazilian jiujitsu. For example, sensible folks do not try to outkick capoeirista. Thus, going to the ground makes a lot of sense in that context. Meanwhile, Vale Tudo has a lot more in common with US and Australian professional boxing than it does with judo, which for its own historical reasons evolved in a direction closer to US high school (and later, Olympic) wrestling.

Anyway, while a throw is a throw, whether judo, wrestling, sambo, or BJJ, the context is different, and that does make some difference in how, when, and why a technique is used or not used.

Asia
30th April 2003, 13:36
Maeda taught Kodokan Judo. That he called it "Jiu Jitsu" makes no difference, it was judo. The Kodokan may or may not have liked Maeda, I do not know, but it wasn't so with Jigoro Kano. Kano graded him twice while he was in Brazil (middle grades). Everyone called it Jiu Jitsu at that time and is why the Brazilins called it Jiu Jitsu. The reasons for his "field promotions" is said to be due to his teaching and spreading the art of Kodokan Judo.

I agree that Maeda taught the Gracies Kodokan Judo. But I don't think he called it Jiu Jitsu because everyone called it that. There are several references to JUDO, eventhought Judo was sometimes called Kano Jujutsu. And many Japanese called the Brazialians JUDOKA. This is just a thought.

You're also right that most of the Gracies books deal more with Standing techniques instead of groundwork. Helio himself has said that since so many pple first saw BJJ in competition, where they do a lot of groundwork, they thing it all about the ground. He says very few schools are teaching what true BJJ Self Defense is, which is staying on your feet and putting the other guy down. In GRAPPLING magazine it highlights parts of Royce and Renzo's Self Defence book and you see very little ground work most of it look like Judo Goshinjutsu.

El Lobo Mas Solitario
11th July 2014, 14:13
of all places a book on Aikido a friend gave me last month examines this issue at length. Japanese moving to Brazil in 1908 bringing their MA and other culture with them. BJJ = Basically Japanese Judo ... but cool details and history are explored.

Very fun read in general. Highly researched and surprisingly well written.

Aikido in Japan and The Way Less Traveled

author does/did BJJ and Judo too apparently...

Kingbedlam
12th August 2014, 14:05
I would certainly consider Bjj to be Juijutsu. It is a Brazilian form of a Japanese martial art. It definitely isn't traditional Japanese Juijutsu, but there shouldn't be an issue with considering Bjj a modern form of Juijutsu.

As for Judo vs. Bjj, I think the two styles have diverged to the point where calling Bjj "Brazilian Judo" would be a big ridiculous at this point. The two are quite different from each other.

The Judo Researcher
29th July 2015, 04:36
Since this thread started around 12-13 years ago, here's for me the final answer: BRAZILIAN JIU-JITSU IS NOT JUJUTSU!! BJJ cannot be classified as a ryuha, nor it can never be considered part of the bujutsu bugei system.

Brazilian Jiu-jitsu stems from the line of Traditional Judo (original Kodokan Judo), not the 1925-present/contemporary Judo of today. BJJ are sister arts of both Kosen Judo, and Russian Sambo. Why? Because all 3 arts stem from their Mother art, which is the traditional Kodokan Judo started in 1882 and perfected during the 20th century. Also, BJJ cannot be jiujitsu because the martial art stems from Budo, NOT Bujutsu!! If we were to consider BJJ as jujutsu, we must consider the ramifications of what this martial art do. Evidently speaking, BJJ does not posses the same characteristics of any of ryuha of the old Jujutsu practised by Bushin/Samurai warriors from Edo to Tokugawa periods.

Therefore, this topic should be concluded like this: Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a part of traditional Kodokan Judo and is not an authentic jujutsu-ryu. Case close.

The Judo Researcher
29th July 2015, 04:51
Bjj a modern form of Juijutsu. - But that's the issue! Modern 'form' of jujutsu does not exist! Whether it is from Atemi/French-style, Small-circle, Kyushu, or even Gracie/Brazilian jiu-jitsu, these arts were formed out from the ideas of Budo and they represent the change of what the Meiji-era flourished.

In essence, Jigoro Kano was right in quashing people's opinion naming his system "Kano jujutsu" and rather, he officially named it to Kodokan Judo!

Brian Owens
30th July 2015, 00:03
...Modern 'form' of jujutsu does not exist!

Excuse me for being blunt, but...nonsense!

B.Finn
30th July 2015, 02:45
In essence, Jigoro Kano was right in quashing people's opinion naming his system "Kano jujutsu" and rather, he officially named it to Kodokan Judo!


And the Gracies/Machados officially named their art Brazilian Jiu-jitsu..

You seem to be quite taken with the whole budo/bujutsu dichotomy, per Donn Draeger. This topic has been discussed in some depth before by folks far more qualified than you or I - a search should produce many results

It seems you are saying that no one is entitled to use the term unless they are doing koryu jujutsu? What of those 'grey area' schools such as Daito Ryu? other post-meiji schools like Hakko Ryu?

Do you think it's your place to tell others what to call their art?

The Judo Researcher
30th July 2015, 18:03
And the Gracies/Machados officially named their art Brazilian Jiu-jitsu..

You seem to be quite taken with the whole budo/bujutsu dichotomy, per Donn Draeger. This topic has been discussed in some depth before by folks far more qualified than you or I - a search should produce many results

It seems you are saying that no one is entitled to use the term unless they are doing koryu jujutsu? What of those 'grey area' schools such as Daito Ryu? other post-meiji schools like Hakko Ryu?

Do you think it's your place to tell others what to call their art?

- You seem to be like you're the authority to say that the term 'jujutsu' can be used in some guy who will make a school and calls its own martial art as Jujutsu. From how I understand you, the difference between bujutsu and budo is irrelevent and it places no value. So that, people who was trained in any budo art can claim theirs is also Jujutsu. Therefore, histoy is invalid if that's the case. Sorry, neither I, nor a Judoka who will defend its history, will agree with it. The dichotomy is valuable in the distinction with regards to what's bujutsu and what's not!

To be honest, one is not entitled to call its own a jujutsu school if the ryuha doesn't stem or began from the koryu before the meiji period.

One more thing, just b/c you call your art 'jujutsu' does not mean you are jujutsuka. The Gracies and Francas alone do not practice such characteristics that embody the koryu. The last time I checked, Mitsuyo/Esai Maeda taught them Kodokan Judo. So my question to you is, are you in of such stature to officially claim any modern or post-meiji art as Jujutsu?

Brian Owens
30th July 2015, 18:28
...one is not entitled to call its own a jujutsu school if the ryuha doesn't stem or began from the koryu before the meiji period.

Why not? What do you believe is inherent in the word jujutsu that implies pre-Meiji lineage?


...So my question to you is, are you in of such stature to officially claim any modern or post-meiji art as Jujutsu?

Are YOU of such stature to officially claim that modern or post-Meiji arts are NOT jujutsu? Please provide documentation of that official recognition.

The Judo Researcher
30th July 2015, 18:41
Are YOU of such stature to officially claim that modern or post-Meiji arts are NOT jujutsu? Please provide documentation of that official recognition.

- Are you of such stature to officially claim post-meiji arts as Jujutsu? Please provide documentation of that official recognition. I don't have to provide nor give any documentation b/c I have none and its practically useless. But then again, why did Jigoro Kano refuted those who call his martial art "Kano Jujutsu" and officially named it to "Kodokan Judo?" You tell me and that's my final answer to you.

Cliff Judge
30th July 2015, 18:49
- You seem to be like you're the authority to say that the term 'jujutsu' can be used in some guy who will make a school and calls its own martial art as Jujutsu. From how I understand you, the difference between bujutsu and budo is irrelevent and it places no value. So that, people who was trained in any budo art can claim theirs is also Jujutsu. Therefore, histoy is invalid if that's the case. Sorry, neither I, nor a Judoka who will defend its history, will agree with it. The dichotomy is valuable in the distinction with regards to what's bujutsu and what's not!

To be honest, one is not entitled to call its own a jujutsu school if the ryuha doesn't stem or began from the koryu before the meiji period.

One more thing, just b/c you call your art 'jujutsu' does not mean you are jujutsuka. The Gracies and Francas alone do not practice such characteristics that embody the koryu. The last time I checked, Mitsuyo/Esai Maeda taught them Kodokan Judo. So my question to you is, are you in of such stature to officially claim any modern or post-meiji art as Jujutsu?

Have you ever talked to a native Japanese speaker about this issue? Japanese folks do not tend to use terms like jujutsu, judo, aikido, kendo as what I would call "proper nouns" in English. They are looser terms, descriptive. I practice Yagyu Shinkage ryu. My Japanese mother in law says I do "koryu kendo." One of my Daito ryu sempai once asked me what drew me to "Daito ryu aikido." Both meaning....I am a guy who does these things as a serious lifelong practice, it's a thing I train constantly in an open-ended fashion, rather than a course I would take in a semester. And certainly not referring to specific martial arts by the use of the terms "kendo" and "aikido".

Furthermore, few of the koryu jujutsu schools were termed jujutsu until the Meiji period! And a lot of the schools that were termed jujutsu in those original surveys were unhappy about it, because almost all schools known as koryu jujutsu these days were originally sogo bujutsu. It's just that by the late Meiji period they had lost a lot of their weapons and were best known for their empty hand training.

Last but not least, would you try to say that Nihon Jujutsu is not?

The Judo Researcher
30th July 2015, 19:04
Have you ever talked to a native Japanese speaker about this issue? Japanese folks do not tend to use terms like jujutsu, judo, aikido, kendo as what I would call "proper nouns" in English. They are looser terms, descriptive. I practice Yagyu Shinkage ryu. My Japanese mother in law says I do "koryu kendo." One of my Daito ryu sempai once asked me what drew me to "Daito ryu aikido." Both meaning....I am a guy who does these things as a serious lifelong practice, it's a thing I train constantly in an open-ended fashion, rather than a course I would take in a semester. And certainly not referring to specific martial arts by the use of the terms "kendo" and "aikido".

Furthermore, few of the koryu jujutsu schools were termed jujutsu until the Meiji period! And a lot of the schools that were termed jujutsu in those original surveys were unhappy about it, because almost all schools known as koryu jujutsu these days were originally sogo bujutsu. It's just that by the late Meiji period they had lost a lot of their weapons and were best known for their empty hand training.

Last but not least, would you try to say that Nihon Jujutsu is not?

- Thank You for the insight. I haven't asked a Japanese before regarding the names but you did picked up an interesting fact concerning the term 'koryu jujutsu'. Well, I would not claim Nihon Jujutsu is not. No disrespect to all Japanese Martial arts. I do love them. However, the direction of this thread is the question "BJJ - is it really jujutsu?" - Honestly, I am Judoka and I believe that Kano's system was in fact the martial art that is to be placed as bearers of what the Gracies, the Francas, and their students are doing. So to make a claim that what the Gracies and Francas were doing as Brazilian Judo, yes it is Judo! I will make a claim of it and so can other Judoka also.

Brian Owens
30th July 2015, 19:56
- Are you of such stature to officially claim post-meiji arts as Jujutsu? Please provide documentation of that official recognition.

It doesn't work that way. I don't have to have authority to claim there are post-Meiji arts that teach jujutsu; the schools themselves call themselves such. You, on the other hand, are saying that those schools have no right to use that name, and so it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence of your authority over those schools.

B.Finn
31st July 2015, 05:56
- You seem to be like you're the authority to say that the term 'jujutsu' can be used in some guy who will make a school and calls its own martial art as Jujutsu. From how I understand you, the difference between bujutsu and budo is irrelevent and it places no value. So that, people who was trained in any budo art can claim theirs is also Jujutsu. Therefore, histoy is invalid if that's the case. Sorry, neither I, nor a Judoka who will defend its history, will agree with it. The dichotomy is valuable in the distinction with regards to what's bujutsu and what's not!

To be honest, one is not entitled to call its own a jujutsu school if the ryuha doesn't stem or began from the koryu before the meiji period.

One more thing, just b/c you call your art 'jujutsu' does not mean you are jujutsuka. The Gracies and Francas alone do not practice such characteristics that embody the koryu. The last time I checked, Mitsuyo/Esai Maeda taught them Kodokan Judo. So my question to you is, are you in of such stature to officially claim any modern or post-meiji art as Jujutsu?

I certainly never claimed any sort of authority - in fact I specifically mentioned that others who are authorities on this subject, have discussed it at length here in the past. In short, like Mr Judge said above - you don't seem to understand much of the language, nomenclature or history of these arts. Which makes your decision to declare that "one is not entitled to call an art a jujutsu school if.." strange. Like Mr Owens said - if you expect to impose your view on others and how they behave, YOU are the one who will be expected to provide a justification for that.

I have no interest in modern jujutsu - I made no attempt to "officially claim any modern or post-meiji art as jujutsu"

I asked you why you feel you have the right to tell anyone what to call their art? I note that you didn't answer my question regarding other 'less modern' but still decidedly post-meiji arts - are Daito Ryu, Hakko Ryu, Danzan Ryu etc not entitled to call 'their' arts jujutsu?

To return to my original suggestion - please do continue to research and learn. Maybe a little bit more before you try to impose your views on others. There are many threads here at e-budo discussing the budo/bujutsu dichotomy as presented by Draeger. Although it does provide the layman with a basic introduction to the differences between koryu bugei and gendai budo, to apply it as some sort of dogmatic law can seem strange, particularly to those who actually know a bit about the arts.

Cliff Judge
31st July 2015, 16:00
- Thank You for the insight. I haven't asked a Japanese before regarding the names but you did picked up an interesting fact concerning the term 'koryu jujutsu'. Well, I would not claim Nihon Jujutsu is not. No disrespect to all Japanese Martial arts. I do love them. However, the direction of this thread is the question "BJJ - is it really jujutsu?" - Honestly, I am Judoka and I believe that Kano's system was in fact the martial art that is to be placed as bearers of what the Gracies, the Francas, and their students are doing. So to make a claim that what the Gracies and Francas were doing as Brazilian Judo, yes it is Judo! I will make a claim of it and so can other Judoka also.

Kano's Judo is jujutsu though. :)

Tripitaka of AA
31st July 2015, 21:04
Having read a few threads on here over the years I have learned one or two things.

Sometimes people who know the most, say the least. Sometimes those who know the least, speak the loudest. I tend to talk a lot, but I have learned that I know nothing. I believe that Research is usually an activity where reading and listening are preferred. Some of the most well-qualified authors and scholars of the martial arts have made contributions on this forum. I don't remember any of them being quite so determined to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Many of them make a point of accepting that there are alternative interpretations, but give citations and references to back up their own position.

Still, it is nice to see some activity here, isn't it.

jdostie
1st August 2015, 04:47
The other night, a guy I practice Aikido with asked me about a 'move' he saw, and if it was jujutsu.

Well, the technique wasn't exactly a technique I have done, but it was close to techniques I have done in two different jujutsu schools. I said, "well yes, and no," I could see this technique performed in jujutsu, karate, perhaps even in some aikido schools, maybe many more. $.02.