PDA

View Full Version : BJJ vs. JJJ



John Lindsey
30th May 2000, 22:10
Words have meaning, based on not only its definition, but how the public uses them. Thus, I suspect that “jujutsu” has evolved today to the point that it is often associated with ground fighting skills from South America, and not as a traditional Japanese martial art. For years, people have been referring to “BJJ” (Brazilian Jujitsu) in an attempt to differentiate this art from its Japanese counterpart. I for one feel that the time is approaching that the term BJJ will not be needed, since it will be the “jujutsu” in the eyes of the public and martial artists. What will be needed instead is JJJ (Japanese jujutsu) or TJJ (traditional Jujutsu).

Traditional Japanese jujutsu seems to have a slight “respect” problem, especially in terms of street effectiveness. Just last week I was chatting with a new friend who asked what martial arts I study. When I answered him with: “traditional Japanese jujutsu,” he quickly commented that he studied modern jujutsu and didn’t have much interest in the older, AND less effective arts of Japan. In his eyes, jujutsu is ground fighting that worked, and he didn’t see any use in studying the Japanese koryu forms of it.

All this got me to thinking, and it reminded me how Karate has evolved into meaning “martial arts” in a general sense (do you find martial arts in your yellow pages under karate or martial arts?) and how tae kwon do is referred to “Korean karate.”

So, am I a lone voice in the wilderness or do others see the same thing?

How is it that JJJ is seen as being less than effective compared to its Brazilian offshoot?

Neil Hawkins
31st May 2000, 01:11
John, I agree totally, TJJ is becoming the poor cousin in the eyes of the public. I've even seen people quit training when they found out that TJJ was not the Gracie style they had heard of.

Conversely though, I have had a BJJ practicioner who was training for UFC come to me for some training. He had a low opinion of TJJ but some mutual friends had said to him to give me a try, after all training was training. At the end of our session he had a number of 'tricks' that his BJJ instructors had not been able to show him in the ground fighting area. They tend to lack finesse and have a poor concept of balance, which is important anywhere.

The main thing he said though was that BJJ totally ignored the standing up stuff. They taught get to the ground anyway possible then fight. He was amazed that when we were standing and I took him down to the ground there was little room for him to manoeuvre, I retained control all the way. In the end it was my lack of fitness (must work on that!) rather than his technique that allowed him to get anything on me.

What most people don't understand is that UFC style fighting is not the same as real self defense. Whilst there is strong media representation BJJ, Shute Fighting and others have the public's interest. I believe that as long as we keep TJJ pure and don't change it for the public it will have a place.

Comercialism has been the death of many a style, if you have good Jujutsu but few students, hey to me the problem is in the students not the Jujutsu. http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Kolschey
31st May 2000, 02:42
At a seminar two years ago, I had the chance to talk to a senior instructor of Aikido about BJJ. While he had respect for it's capability as a very effective art for single person combat, he also was quick to point out that it is not an ideal form for all circumstances, or as he put it..
" I heard that the Marines were considering adopting the Gracie System. Now picture this.. You have a guy with body armour, web gear, night vision goggles- the whole works, and he's going to get down on the ground with someone and try to choke them into submission while meanwhile his( the adversary's) buddy comes up with a bayonet and skewers him?! This just doesn't make sense."
I found this to be an interesting evaluation. My own experience with BJJ is that their practitioners are very capable at their preferred range, but I do not know how well they fare against unpleasant terrain, weapons, or multiple attackers. If anyone has knowlege of how they deal with these variables, I would be quite interested to hear more.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

Jeff Cook
31st May 2000, 03:59
Here's the well-kept secret, fellas.

NON-SPORT BJJ IS JJJ!!!!!

More to come....

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Brently Keen
31st May 2000, 04:06
Good observations John. I agree. Although I prefer the term classical jujutsu to traditional jujutsu. Japanese jujutsu also works fine for me.

As for BJJ I spoke with a Gracie family member about combat with weapons, and he told me he also practiced Escrima. Later, he also opened his duffel bag and showed me his new "Glock".

They insist that if you can't prevent one person from clinching and taking the fight to the ground you can't possibly realistically prevent more than one opponent from doing the same, it's a strong point. So they, don't really address multiple opponents in general. However, I was told that advanced students and Gracie family members do practice some multiple attacker drills. The one's he described to me sounded pretty intense.

But, I would argue that their basic operating system is set up for one on one grappling. They'd have to change their basic strategy and thinking altogether for a multiple attacker scenario.

Everything changes for multiple opponents and/or weapons.

Just a few of my observations.

Brently Keen

ericDZR
31st May 2000, 04:43
as far as labels are concerned i think we should leave things as they are and let the public figure it out. when i decided to start training in jujitsu i was really stoked to find out that there were a number of different styles. i can also appricate the fact that the different styles tended to attract different personalities. another pleasant supprise was that fact that not many people outside the dojo seemed to know what DZR jujitsu is (dispite the fact it's supposed to be one of the most popular styles of [modern] jujitsu)

MarkF
31st May 2000, 10:20
John,
You are not alone. I find that it is the general feeling of most people when you say martial arts, it means karate, and that most think jujutsu is "dead." A while back a rather young neighbor and I were talking and the talk got around to MA. He asked if I ever had done that, and I answered "yes, judo." He said "yeah? Do a high spinning back kick!" BTW: I still manage to find martial arts under martial arts in the phone book. Another person said this when I mentioned judo: "Didn't they change the name to martial arts?" No, jujutsu hasn't, to my memory, at least, even been brought up by wannabes.

But I have to comment on something Neil said. I don't know the numbers of arts going commercial and dying, but I hear every now and again how so and so died and "took the secrets with him." This is not a plug for commercialism, indeed, it can be a difficult boil to lance, but sometimes in the attempt to keep things pure, we sometimes lose sight of the thing and we allow it to disappear. I also wonder just how pure things really are when the very idea of classical or traditional must be lost to a great degree over the years. I do think, however, in this new age, it may be easier to do simply because it is much easier to pass along knowledge to others. What ever your opinion, the introduction of judo had at least this effect: it seemed to have saved at least two tjj or jjj from certain death. Today, with the popularization of judo, these two jjs have found a very stable audience. Keeping things pure is impossible. One may try, but things change, no matter how great our vigilence. And in the attempt not to change, we must change something in order to save it.



------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

Kit LeBlanc
31st May 2000, 12:17
Hello All,

Well, I see some of the earlier replies stole my thunder. My two cents:

Traditional Jujutsu, Nihon Jujutsu or Classical Jujutsu seem to already be the appellations the koryu-oriented folks are taking on, perhaps in response to the soaring popularity of "BJJ." In my humble opinion, being a student of both brands of grappling, the classical stuff is better in a self defense or tactical environment where weapons are a reality. I would argue that cross-training in the "BJJ" version helps to develop conditioning (I think Neil brought this up) and transitions against actively resisting opponents better than in those systems that don't do a lot of groundwork or drills other than kata.

The general public is unaware that 1) BJJ is really just Judo focussing on groundwork 2) Judo comes from classical jujutsu, and many classical systems contain some of the very same techniques that are found in BJJ. Many BJJ practitioners are ignorant of this as well. Frankly, when you read EJ Harrison, the newspaper articles and research that Joe Svinth is bringing to light, and stuff about men like Yukio Tani, you can see the very strong link between classical jujutsu and modern combat sport grappling.

I have practiced with guys trained in BJJ/Judo, Judo focussed on groundwork (with a group that is trying to train in the Kosen Judo spirit) and people that blend wrestling, jujutsu, sambo and other grappling methods. Many of these folks have a higher opinion of Judo grapplers than BJJ guys, but lament that Judo tends to over-emphasize the standing stuff.

Also, I see an increasing trend to refer to the modern sport jujutsu as "submission wrestling" or "submission grappling." BJJ, while an excellent system teaching important skills, has its limitations even in the relatively restricted sport jujutsu and No Holds Barred arenas. Many fighters are moving beyond pure BJJ and looking to wrestling, sambo, shooto and other arts to fill out their skills. For example, I have heard BJJ teachers denigrate leg locks and other techniques, based on what I feel is nothing more than the fact that BJJ does not emphasize leg locking techniques. I have heard others criticize BJJ's heavy reliance on "the guard" and more "passive" fighting strategy. While BJJ is here to stay, I think that with time more people will accept that there is other "jujutsu" out there besides the Brazilian kind, that it was where BJJ came from, and that it is sometimes better, and they will gain more respect for these arts and adapt techniques from them.

As an aside, I don't like the multiple opponents argument. I frankly don't think anyone can handle multiple motivated opponents with hands on technique. But at least in classical jujutsu you will find teachings on how to deal with more than one through tai sabaki or other tactical expedients. The modern stuff is sport. Sport that helps develop combatively useful attributes, but sport nonetheless.

BJJ/Submission is also getting big in the law enforcement world. I have personally used techniques directly from submission training on the street in such an environment. I have also used "classical" techniques in the street environment. I can say that the submission techniques I have found useful on the street are generally those that also appear in the classical kata I have studied. Things that make you go HMMMM.

Kit LeBlanc

Ramirez
31st May 2000, 15:21
Neil, your experience with the BJJ practioner confirms what I read on another forum. BJJ , like Judo, has eliminated the more dangerous techniques from classical jujitsu , the reasoning being that you can practice the less dangerous techniques all out. The more dangerous stand up techniques tend to be choreographed because you do not want to kill your partner.

I think this the reason for the success of BJJ, it is not that their techniques are any better (in fact I understand that all of the BJJ techniques are contained in Kodokan judo) but that their method of training is all grappling match based.


In my dojo we do spend about a quarter of our time on ground fighting and grappling and I find it the most physically taxing thing we do. A four minute grappling match can really take it out of you, never mind those 30-45 minute matches that Gracie was involved in at the UFC.

seamus
31st May 2000, 20:44
In the traditional jiujitsu taught in my dojo we train about 50/50 stand up and grappling.
My sensei will bring in video tapes quite often showing all the different JJ systems, as well as Judo and other wrestling/submission arts. We train a great deal of law enforcment as well.

One of the observations we've been making in the NHB/submission type matches is the fighters seem to be spending a lot more time on their feet. When all the UFC tyoes started you saw kick boxers being beaten and swearing to come back next year after they learned how to grappling. There was a movement toward the grappling side of things and an almost neglect of others. The recent videos we've seen came straight out of Japan and there are an almost even amount of fights won standing as on the ground. Shamrocks Lions Den (from the few fighters I've seen them produce) seem to be able to punch and kick just as well as move around on the mat. We seem to see a lot more of the "traditional" Jiujitsu teachings and techniques appearing more often.

BJJ has the advantage only in the combination of a superior fighter (like Neil's fitness case) and concentration on a skill that one has the opportunity to use. Lets face it, they work the gaurd great...but how practical is the gaurd for an officer in full gear, when a suspct is in your gaurd its really easy for him to get @ any number of devices on your belt. And how much fun would grappling be in a parking lot littered w/ broken glass.

Versitility is the key to having an edge. Though BJJ has the plus of being concentrated in one aspect of jiujitsu, there are times where its concentrations are impractical. Many of the traditional JJ arts are very versitile, especially if the insrtuctor is doing what he's supposed to in regaurds to what could happen outside the dojo.

Thats where I think the difference lies.

------------------
Seamus
Shinto Yoshin Ryu
"There is no one way to slavation" -musashi

Aaron Fields
31st May 2000, 21:19
I am not going to be able to add anything new, but..My particular branch of ju-jutsu can trace its roots to a "traditional" school, but is probally really a goshin-jutsu. We practice (and have always practiced) both ground and standing. The system comes from Japan but I live in Seattle and am not Japanese. So, with my tounge in my cheek my ju-justu is now SJJ (Seattle-ian ju-jutsu) and when I live in Mongolia, MJJ. Over the years I have also have practiced judo and sombo (sombo in Mongolia with their national team) and have found that the human body and the way it moves is finite. Ignoring subtle variations it is all really similar. Any sporting event is just that, a sport. I have had numerous Brazilian ju-jutsu guys come into the club swearing that their's was the only effective way. Several successful locks and throws later they were not as sure. Once ne-waza began they also were suprised. The conversation usually goes, "I didn't think Japanese ju-jutsu did ground work." I usually smile and ask "had they ever done Japanese ju-jutsu or Judo prior to this?" Some have stayed in the club because they like the more rounded approach, some go back to the BJJ club because they like the BJJ approach. It is all good, do what you enjoy. For me it is ju-jutsu and judo, focus varies the human body does not and history is to often changed for convenience.



------------------
Regards,
Aaron

Mollberg
31st May 2000, 21:45
When did the brizilians start to speek japanese???jujitsu IS A JAPANESE WORD!!! maybe they should call it a brazillian word?!? but when it comes down to it my favorite "jujitsu" move is haveing my friend come over and stomp my emimes head in.In my opion its best to always stay on your feet. You never know whats on the ground, broken glass,nails,ants,DIRT,germs i think its just a good idea to stay on your feet in my experience when some one is seriously attacking you they will have friends with them.Besides,why do all the extra lundry?

Kolschey
31st May 2000, 22:09
This has been quite an interesting discussion! From what I am told, BJJ is an offshoot of the groundwork that came from classical Judo. I was wondering if anyone could tell me where the groundwork of Judo originally came from. What do we know about those schools and their techniques, training methods and philosophies?

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

31st May 2000, 23:24
Hi guys

Great discussion. Being from a traditional Japanese Jujutsu system (Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu) that focuses much of it attention today on practical self defense, I would like to weigh in with some thoughts.

A common misconception being made here is the assumption that most classical Nihon jujutsu systems were orginally empty hand disciplines which focused much of their attention on newaza. This is historically incorrect. Most classical jujutsu systems employed a variety of weapons in their training. During the Edo period many of these systems adjusted their focus and slowly discarded the weapon applications and waza. We in the Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu however still train in the offensive tactics of weapon use which includes concealment in addition to taijutsu and weapons defense against weapons. The incorrect assumption that jujutsu was originally a weaponless art is a result of unintentional misinformation common around the time of the formation of Judo. Judo’s considerations for safety and it’s ensuing popularity due to it’s inclusion in the Olympic Games led Judo to become the defacto representative of historic Nihon Jujutsu in the minds of the public. Given the publics historical ignorance we should not be surprised that Brazilian Jujutsu has now taken Judo’s place in this regard.

Another misconception is that Japanese Jujutsu systems historically employed only rudimentary striking techniques and was unsophisticated when compared to an art like karate. Classical Shindo Yoshin ryu is noted for it's atemi heavy curriculum including kyusho ate. In fact the late Takamura Yukiyoshi Sensei's ability to employ effective atemi had to be seen and felt to be fully appreciated. He often included devestating head butts as part of techniques intended as counters to virtually any attack. At one seminar I attended in 1989, Takamura Sensei knocked a rather persistent Okinawan “hard ki” stylist cold as a wedge with one of his frightening head butts. For all this gentlemans talk of hard "ki", in a more realistic situation without the opportunity to set up or prepare himself, the Okinawan “ki” stylist went down like a sack of bricks.

While I personally respect and admire the Gracie family and Brazilian Jujutsu, comparison between the two is tricky because they succeed in different environments for different reasons. Remember that the psychological and technical fundamentals of conflict that exist in a street confrontation are completely different from that of a ring fight. It is in the street against a possible weapon ( while possibly secreting your own weapon ) that traditional or classical Japanese Jujutsu will show it strengths. But, only then if your dojo/sensei also addresses the challenge of training you to an intensity level that induces chemical stress which simulates a genuine self defense situation. This is an absolute must! You see, teaching methodology is where Brazilian Jujutsu and sport Judo surpass most traditional / Japanese Jujutsu systems taught today. Brazilian Jujutsu and Judo students train to fight and win in a genuine contest of skill, will and endurance while most traditional Japanese Jujutsu students train not to fight, but for fun. You take your training a lot more seriously when you KNOW for sure that conflict is inevitable and that it WILL HAPPEN. Alternately most classical students of all martial arts train for someday instead of today with the hope or gamble that “someday” will never really come to pass. Thats a dangerous gamble and not the attitude of a serious martial artist. Thats the attitude of someone playing at martial arts as if they were bowling or playing tennis. If you want your art to work on the street for you, you better train as if your life depends on it because it does. Japanese Jujutsu taught correctly should give the practitioner tools to effectively assess and meet surprise, attack or stalking. I know one jujutsu practitioner who while being stalked by a mugger in a park turned the tables on his stalker and started stalking the stalker. You won’t learn the techniques or mindset this gentleman employed by studying Brazilian Jujutsu because they are of no use in the ring. Be that as it may, I respect and enjoy Brazilian Jujutsu as a modern manifestation of Japanese Jujutsu’s ancient roots. Am I disappointed if the public begins to perceive all Jujutsu as essentially Brazilian Jujutsu. Nope! The persons I desire as students will seek me out because traditional Japanese Jujutsu is what they are looking for.......... and thats a good thing for any sensei.

Toby Threadgill
Soryushin Dojo
Dallas, Texas

“ Most dojo’s are glorified social clubs thriving in an environment of emotional stimulation heightened by a false or extremely limited perception of danger. When real danger shows itself in such a dojo the participants run for cover. In a real dojo the participants run towards the conflict! ” - Yukio Takamura

efb8th
31st May 2000, 23:40
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kolschey:
This has been quite an interesting discussion! From what I am told, BJJ is an offshoot of the groundwork that came from classical Judo. I was wondering if anyone could tell me where the groundwork of Judo originally came from. What do we know about those schools and their techniques, training methods and philosophies?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the 1986 rewrite of KODOKAN JUDO (Kodansha) on page 136, the following appears:"While throwing techniques of Kodokan Judo are based on those of the Kito School, striking techniques are, like the grappling techniques, based on those of the Tenshin Shinyo School."


------------------
Ed Burgess

Ruediger
1st June 2000, 00:11
Hi all,

i am not sure, but wasn't the Fusen Ryu the source for the judo groundwork...??

regards

Ruediger Meier

Kit LeBlanc
1st June 2000, 09:53
Toby,

Good post! I for one was surprised at the differences in mindset and application that I experienced coming from a "sport" jujutsu background and then trying to use it , while armed, on the street. Realizing I needed a different approach, I looked for a classical system, as I felt that would teach me the finer points of "tactical" grappling with weapons (either in my hand, in his hand, in both our hands, or on our persons). But here here on the approach-to-training points you make.

The submission stuff had to really be modified when the presence of weapons became a reality, though I keep up the submission grappling for fun, stress relief and skill/conditioning development.

Kit LeBlanc

P.S. I got the chance to meet, briefly, Ken Good when he was teaching the Surefire Low Light class here in Vancouver. Did not get to attend the class, but I hear good things about it. Ken and I spoke about the applications that classical, weapons based jujutsu has for the modern LEO/tactical operator. I hope to take the class when next they come around.

2nd June 2000, 17:38
Kit,

Thanks for the compliment. It's funny you should mention Ken Good. He's a great guy and good frioend. I just spent the weekend with him at a seminar in San Diego. He really knows his stuff. We are definitely on the same page concerning realistic training and the effects of psychochemical stress. It is of paramount importance in training for realistic self defense. Most Jujutsu systems are so subtle in application that the slightest loss of fine motor skills and spatial awareness renders them impossible to apply effectively. Without addressing this aspect of combat you will not have the tools available to be successful on the street.

Definitely train with Ken at your first opportunity. It'll be worth every cent and may save your life someday.

Toby Threadgill

Kit LeBlanc
2nd June 2000, 19:55
Toby,

Right on. This is a discussion I have also had with fellow practitioners-under stress, a lot of the sophisticated "sensitivity to an opponents energy" stuff will go right out the window. While some may denigrate some of the older (Sengoku era) jujutsu methods as "crude," "primitive," or "unsophisiticated..." there is a reason they were like that. The founders of these methods were combat experienced and knew the difference between practical technique under stress versus ever greater refinements of fine motor skills, pressure sensitivity, and skeletal/postural organization.

Now to bring things back on topic, here is a plug for incorporating BJJ/submission training into your regimen if you are a classical jujutsu practitioner. It tests your ability to use your art. BJJ sparring ("rolling" to those who love it) puts you in bad positions, sometimes very bad positions, often with people much heavier and stronger than you are on top of you or crunching you down, restricting your breathing. You learn to calmly use effective jujutsu technique from such bad positions, and can often get your opponent in a control position then submit him.

BJJ/submission focusses on a limited set of competition techniques, granted. But they do tend to be movements which will work under stress. Admittedly not like survival stress, but a helpful stress inoculation nonetheless, through confidence in reversing bad positions. Frankly, I have seen several people PANIC when they are underneath some big guy, can barely breathe, and are having a hard time changing their position.

BJJ /submission can be adapted to the needs of the situation. They are not bound to use competition technique in an actual combative encounter, though muchof it will work. Just like classical jujutsu is practiced in a manner that prevents injury or death (kata), add "kata" to BJJ by adapting more dangerous striking movements, gouges, or drawing a knife for a finish when you have the opponent in a control position and practicing them. Rolling hones other skills.


Kit LeBlanc

Jay Bell
3rd June 2000, 01:38
"Also Brazilian jujitsu is not complicated"

As a cross trainer in Japanese Jujutsu and Brazilian Jui Jitsu, let me first and foremost explain that this comment is quite inaccurate. The stereotype of BJJ is that it's full of bravado and it's just getting on the ground, wrestling for awhile until you can find an armlock or two. This is highly inaccurate. Techniques in BJJ are complicated, yet lack the "feeling" arts Budo arts incorporate.

During my first class, my BJJ instructor explained something quite clear and simple to those of us that were just starting out.

"Don't fool yourself. This is a sport"

I smiled at this. On newsgroups and the like, people boast on and on about BJJ's combat effectiveness, and this man in his vast experiance cleared that question up right off of the bat.

BJJ is incredibly technical when it comes to ne-waza (and yes..they look at you funny when you use the term), but lacks highly on atemi waza and nage waza. Often during tournaments (I've been told by others, as I don't compete) that Judoka will simply throw a BJJ practitioner, step back and make them get up...it's easier to win that way for them.

On the ground, yes, BJJ came from Judo, and like all arts that come from another, is modified.

I guess the biggest thing between studying BJJ and Jujutsu is the fact that 90% of the BJJ people at the school are there to learn to fight, or to learn how to do "full contact" tournaments, while in Budo classes, people are looking for something much deeper, and I believe it was Toby that mentioned, are searching not to fight, whatever that perticular definition means in their individual lives.

Back to the original posting however, to me, honestly, as a traditionalist, it is disheartening to me to even hear my fellow BJJ'ers call what they do "Jujutsu". A handful of times, they will talk to me about Budo that I study. When I say "Traditional Japanese Jujutsu" they ask, "Wow, what sorta stuff do you guys do in that?" which I like very much.

To be honest, I had a negative stereotype of BJJ until training with them. Our end goals are different, possibly, but the people I train with are good folks...and very eager to hear about Japanese Jujutsu, instead of brushing it off as some "weaker" art.

Take care,

Jay Bell

------------------
------------
Banpen Fugyo

will szlemko
3rd June 2000, 07:24
Hi all,

I periodically train with a bjj group and have found that for pure grappling they will typically force a draw and sometimes a tap out. When we grapple jjj style with strikes, pressure points, etc. added in they are generally not able to respond. The local bjj boys are a quick study and have started incorporating many of my "tricks" conversly the have helped me immensely. Diffent goals but they are very good at what they do.

will

Kit LeBlanc
3rd June 2000, 12:19
Jay,

I don't think BJJ is complicated. Sophisticated, yes, but not complicated. Having trained in BJJ methods under students of Rickson Gracie, Marcelo Alonso, and others, I have found the most effective techniques to be basic methods strung together in highly effective and innovative ways. Complicated techniques tend not to work under stress. Having just watched a student police officer I taught perform a BJJ rear mount to a handcuffing technique , a technique she learned earlier just this week, andcompletely control a combative mental subject, I can safely state that I think it is easy to learn and make work under less than ideal conditions. Rorion Gracie stated in an Aikido Journal interview some time back that he can teach someone everything he knows in something like 40 or so classes. It's learning how to make it work like he can that takes the time.

But I think it is sport. I work in body armor and wear weapons. This includes in full tactical gear. I have found some aspects of BJJ useful and very effective in this environment (see above). There are other aspects meant for the ring, and the ring is where they should stay. There are elements which would be ill advised in a weapons-based, armor wearing environment. The Gracie's teach a different curriculum to law enforcement officers requiring separate certification, because they realize that the challenges and concerns are different in a street environment.

Kit LeBlanc

[This message has been edited by Kit LeBlanc (edited 06-03-2000).]

MarkF
5th June 2000, 12:22
To answer the question of grappling of judo and Fusen ryu, you are correct, but only so far. The grappling of judo does come from kito ryu, with a little of everything which Kano could get his hands on. One thing which completes the picture of judo ne waza, is that western freestyle was also included, but not until a later date when Kano was given a demonstration of it. Originally, judo was arranged so that Nagewaza was the first to be learned, then ne waza, and finally atemi waza. That is, Kano put that importance on each. He had said that all waza of judo was to be practiced equally. If one is given the choice, or there is good reason not to practice ne waza, then nage waza is most important. Balance is very important in order to stay away from the mat, but I have never seen a judoka in shiai who wouldn't immediately go for a katame waza technique if that is where both ended up, or when an opportunity presented itself, go to the mat. Pinning is far from the only option.

BTW: Yes, it does say in Kodokan judo that nage waza and ne waza is taken from kitoryu, and atemi from tenjin shinyo, but that hasn't stoppend practitioners of classical judo from adding their spin on it. There were many different stylists of jujutsu at the Kodokan early on. Saigo Shiro was early on so what did a great practioner of daito ryu aiki jujutsu add to the mix? No one since has been able to describe or even say how his "yama arashi" throw was accomplished, and the best guess is hane goshi, but I have also heard harai goshi, seoi nage/otoshi, and others.

Sorry, just wanted to continue the discussion a little http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

Kolschey
5th June 2000, 14:06
Mark,
I would like to thank you for your postings! You have given me a much better sense of the richness of Judo and the depth of it's technique. Have you considered writing a book, or a series of articles based on your correspondence?

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

Mitch Saret
6th June 2000, 05:41
Just remember, if not for a Japanese immigrant to Brazil, there would be NO Brazillian Jujutsu or Gracie Jujutsu. http://216.10.1.92/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
With respect,

Mitch Saret

MarkF
9th June 2000, 11:30
Thank you for the very kind words, Krzysztof. I have been considering a book but those with much more talent than I have problems getting their work published. It also is quite another thing to actually sit down and say to one's self "I am going to write a book." Thank you again. If I do, you will be certain to get credit as an inspiration for doing it.

Mitch,
That is something which has been forgotten along the way. No matter what you call jujutsu in Brazil it was inspired and indeed was taken from several jujutsu practioners who found their way into South America. Maeda, or "Conde Coma" comes to mind. One positive note for BJJ is that they have never accepted challenge matches from JJJers, at least, those which were jujutsu Vs BJJ, or judo Vs. BJJ. They have, for the most part, only done exhibitions and that was fairly early on. The last of these exhibitions was one involving Masahiko Kimura and Helio Gracie. I won't comment on those Gracie's or others who have taken part in UFC contests, as I have not see them, but on the mat, they are difficult, if not nearly impossible to beat, if submission grappling only is the goal. AS to it being a sport, I see no problem with that at all as many fights end up on the ground anyway. There is a commmon misconception concerning judo as well, and I will defend my combative sport "to the death." However, the descrptions of atemi, kyusho (ate), kata ate (kicking, head butts) are also a good part of the complete judo CV. The problem may be found in dojos whose judoka are unaware of the important inclusion of atemi waza, as there is also a lack of judo's original goshin jutsu. The lesson here is: Don't take anything for granted.



------------------
Mark F. Feigenbaum

20th February 2002, 06:03
Originally posted by Neil Hawkins
They tend to lack finesse and have a poor concept of balance, which is important anywhere.

This is plain old WRONG! Sir, you need to train with a BJJ Black Belt!
I doubt you will, or will others that think BJJ is just "judo" or just "sport". Fact is, train with a black belt and you will see how totally wrong the above statement is.


The main thing he said though was that BJJ totally ignored the standing up stuff. They taught get to the ground anyway possible then fight. He was amazed that when we were standing and I took him down to the ground there was little room for him to manoeuvre, I retained control all the way. In the end it was my lack of fitness (must work on that!) rather than his technique that allowed him to get anything on me.

Again with all due respect, WRONG! There are kicks, punches and clinching and throwing in BJJ, i.e. stand up fighting.

This is so common, people dabble in BJJ and then go to others claiming knowledge in BJJ and make a bad name for it. It is simple as night and day, find a black belt, then tell me about your Bjj experience. Because if you do, there will be no need to argue, you will know...

Best,

-Rick

fifthchamber
20th February 2002, 15:59
Hi all,
Just a short point that has no doubt already been done over but to me the point of studying the Traditional forms of these arts is that there is SO much more to it than simply defeating an opponent.
If I wanted to become a good 'street-fighter' then there are now a never-ending amount of ways to gain that goal (Guns for one. The Japanese have already gone through that whole discussion.."Surely I can kill more with Guns" Proven in conflict but calmed down by the Tokugawa period and generally seen as subservient to the 'honour' of the blade).
I have more respect however for the history, the 'Rei' side of the Japanese Bujutsu and although the arts can and are used in defense/attack/submission etc. I have found that there is far, far more to it than this. An art that loses that respect for life loses more than simply 'feeling'..In my mind it becomes a 'simple' tool..Useful for kicking the hell out of someone but devoid of any real sense of 'honour' (for want of a better word).
I am NOT saying that this IS what has happened in BJJ. But the 'general' perception of it is more brutal, harsh, hard and thus "street-effective" than are the original Yawara teachings that I believe in. People who do not know better are therefore assuming that BJJ 'IS' Jujutsu..Whether this is detrimental to the 'Kodo' I truly doubt. There will always be people like those here that care to find out more than waza alone..A search for something deeper that has kept Jujutsu and Bujutsu generally alive and well for over 500 years.
I do NOT mean to put down anybody training in BJJ..I DO respect the art and if there is more to it than I think I would welcome the news.
Abayo.

20th February 2002, 22:00
Ben,

martial arts are adaption to circumstance. BJJ, is an adaption of Ju Jutsu and Judo to a specific circumstance. That is one on one, non-weapon fighting. In that environment, it is exceedingly good! One point is that it has adapted allot from it's roots and is a very unique art onto it's self although an onlooker may see it and think, oh, this is Judo... No it is not. People need to experience i.e roll, with a black belt or higher to really see the smoothness, timing, sensitivity and skill involved, it is a beutiful art!

Also, BJJ is adapting all the time, as late as 1993 the takedowns in BJJ were very basic, most people really can't defend a takedown well unless trained to do so, but as American wrestling and greco Roman (NOT High school which is freestyle or folk style. Which BTW is also good) But I am talking Greco and Olympic class wrestling, I promise you, if you train with an olympic level wrestler (which is like "black belt level")you will be in awe! There is SO much skill there. The BJJ people are now training with and adding wrestling to what they do, just as they have added Boxing and Muay Thai, it is still growing.

But again, for speciffic circumstances! There are people who train BJJ just for sport Jiu Jitsu (no strikes W/Gi) or Vale Tudo (No gi W/strikes) or street (Vale Tudo W/dirty tactics)

In my experience, most people in BJJ, not ALL but most in **MY** experience are not really interested in spiritual training, Japanese culture, tradition etc... Instead, they are after fast self defense, sport, work out etc.. Which is fine of course...

But if you look at traditional Ju Jutsu, look the circumstance it was born in, taking someone down to the ground and keeping them there was not the best idea was it? There situation (traditional) was more akin to what your average person today might face in an assult.

Really, if we ever need our skill, it will be in an assult. Bar fights and the like can be simply avoided! Bars, clubs etc. are a breeding ground for fights, just avoid it... But an assult, almost allways there is a weapon, multipal attackers, or the attacker has some sort of advantage and any way, they plan on doing great harm, this is the home of traditional Ju Jutsu.

Last, how often will we be assulted? Not ofetn say the odds, so then traditional training what is it good for? Many things as well you know. It improves the quality of our life, and us as people therefore society. A sport is a sport, nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is...

I am rambling...

Best,

-Rick

Joel Simmons
21st February 2002, 03:09
Aloha all,

I would like to say that this is a very interesting subject/discussion and agree with many viewpoints that have been put forth.

I would like to give my limited opinion on BJJ in ***MY*** experience with the style.

At the time, I was a former Shorin-ryu student and current Hawaiian Lua practitioner. Several friends of my roommate came to visit us from the Big Island (Hawaii). These guys were dedicated BJJ practitioners, done it for years. I returned from class to find them with my roommate looking up UFC type websites on my computer. At this point, I didn't know they were BJJ guys. I asked them..." oh, UFC, you guys like watching that type of stuff?"

The reply of, "hell yeah...its the only real martial art worth paying attention to. besides, all other martial arts are just a bunch of p***y s**t compared to submission fighting. I'll take on anyone else from any other style and beat ther a**."

Needless to say that was quite an insult to me and the styles I practiced. My roommate about choked on his sandwich when he heard his friend's reply as he knew I was quite upset.

I proceeded to ask him why he thought other martial arts were worthless. "Because. Look at the UFC. Karate guys enter and loose. Kung fu guys enter and loose. etc. etc. BJJ is the only martial art to practice. Why are you so concerned about this?"

My reply: "Well, I happen to think that BJJ is only good at UFC, because the rules of UFC benefit your style. I'd love to see you enter a full contact karate match, or anyone from BJJ for that matter. Know what will happen? You will loose. Know why? The rules will favor karate over BJJ."

Well at this point he was steaming mad. His hands were literally shaking on the keyboard and mouse as he sat at the computer. I know he wasn't just a hothead beginner either, my roommate later informed me his friend was a seven or eight year member of the gym where he learned BJJ. Okay, so that is a relatively short amount of training, but he had attained a relatively high rank, so I'm told.

I wanted to share this experience to bring an important point to surface. We have all agreed that BJJ is something different from Judo and Classical Jujutsu, and we all respect what BJJ is. However, BJJ is overly full of people who do not see things in such an understanding light. I think this is the reason why people have assumed that the "traditional and less effective arts of Japan" are exactly that. BJJ is in the limelight and gives an ill name to ALL Jujutsu styles. They produce too many hothead bullies that are out of control. This is why Classical Jujutsu appears less effective to other stylists. It isn't as blatant and crass as BJJ is. I don't care if BJJ is good for this or that tournament or for this type street fighting or for disarming this type of weapon...that's fine and dandy with me. I care about their attitude(s).

As said before, most of the people searching out BJJ are not interested in spiritual benefits or deepening their awareness of whatever you want to be aware of, but they are interested in an effective and efficient way to beat the hell out of someone. Now, when we were all just beginning in the MAs, what did all of our senseis/sifus tell us? MA is not for fighting. It is for learning how not to fight. It seems to me that BJJ is seriously lacking some mental discipline in this respect.

This is my opinion based on my experience with a few BJJ boys who came to visit my roommate in college. I guess I shouldn't make any gerealizations, but if that is the type of people attracted to the style and that is what they are fostering...:nono:

21st February 2002, 03:31
Mr. Simmons,

I agree with you 100%!

people who are attracted to BJJ and NHB tend to be hot heads, fighters, drinkers etc... Like you said this is just **MY** experience. I am sure not all are like that, because I am not and I know others who are not.

But think about it it, someone comes in the Dojo and says they want to learn to fight ASAP. Hmmm.. Why? In my opinion, BJJ is a beutiful technical art, Nihon Jujutsu is beutiful all around, a life long study of depth and richness.

Anyway, I agree with your experience.

best,

-Rick

Kit LeBlanc
21st February 2002, 04:04
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67


I wanted to share this experience to bring an important point to surface. We have all agreed that BJJ is something different from Judo and Classical Jujutsu, and we all respect what BJJ is. However, BJJ is overly full of people who do not see things in such an understanding light. I think this is the reason why people have assumed that the "traditional and less effective arts of Japan" are exactly that. BJJ is in the limelight and gives an ill name to ALL Jujutsu styles. They produce too many hothead bullies that are out of control. This is why Classical Jujutsu appears less effective to other stylists. It isn't as blatant and crass as BJJ is. I don't care if BJJ is good for this or that tournament or for this type street fighting or for disarming this type of weapon...that's fine and dandy with me. I care about their attitude(s).

As said before, most of the people searching out BJJ are not interested in spiritual benefits or deepening their awareness of whatever you want to be aware of, but they are interested in an effective and efficient way to beat the hell out of someone. Now, when we were all just beginning in the MAs, what did all of our senseis/sifus tell us? MA is not for fighting. It is for learning how not to fight. It seems to me that BJJ is seriously lacking some mental discipline in this respect.

This is my opinion based on my experience with a few BJJ boys who came to visit my roommate in college. I guess I shouldn't make any gerealizations, but if that is the type of people attracted to the style and that is what they are fostering...:nono:

Wow, you sure told him!!! :rolleyes:

CLEARLY you do not respect BJJ for "what it is" because you know next to nothing about it.

I find it laughable that classical martial artists (not just Japanese styles, check out several of the Chinese so-called "battlefield" martial artists too! Chen Taiji and Xing Yi are great for the same attitude) can be so adamant that one cannot understand classical martial arts without an in depth immersion in them (which is true), and yet can pass judgement on an extremely technical and "artful" method like BJJ based on what they see a few times in pro fights and a tense conversation with some of its practitioners.

If you think martial arts are not for and about fighting, it is no wonder you feel the way you do........it is also pretty clear you don't know much about fighting, either.

I will not deny that BJJ does attract a lot of rough types, a lot of fighter types, a lot of guys that would probably be out street fighting if they were not in a training hall, practicing a wholesome discipline (and some that still are, unfortunately).

But BJJ is far closer to what "classical jujutsu" was like around the time that Kano founded Judo than many classical jujutsu dojo are today.

This is also not the sum total of BJJ practitioners. Ever listen to Rickson Gracie wax philosophical on BJJ? Listening to him, or to Helio Gracie would bring you far closer to understanding the rationale of a FIGHTING family and ryu that understands that it is about being successful in combative situations and taryu jiai FIRST. It is also about having a realistic understanding of what it takes to be successful, over time, in a large number of varied confrontations to have a real understanding of what that success is really based on.

All else is fluff if that one simple goal cannot be accomplished. The bushi understood this, if they did not, they DIED. The latter day warrior wannabes, the ones from the numerous ryu that history tells us suddenly began to publicly demonstrate only AFTER taryu jiai were banned and they KNEW they would not be tested, only rest on the laurels of the real fighting men that went before.

Neither of the Gracies I mentioned are anything like the types you mention. Nor are many other people that are highly advanced in the art. Hmmmmm, maybe after training all those years, they DID learn something about self development....they also learned an extremely effective fighting art to boot, one which is far more realistic, and for more practically useful than many traditional arts will ever be in the types of confrontations the average martial artist may get involved in.

I have trained with many practitioners of classical budo as well as BJJ and submission fighting....the guys I would want with me in an actual street fight would be the BJJ guys....they understand violence in a much more direct and immediate way than the theoretical and utterly sanitized version found in most classical martial arts can ever convey. Sad fact, but true. The BJJ guys have also been the ones with the most realistic understanding of where they actually stand in terms of overall fighting ability as well. Compare that with several of the wannabe classical warriors that post on E-Budo and it is clear that many classical martial arts offer NO such realistic assessment.

BJJ as practiced on the mats everyday is no more or less about "combat" than any koryu is, in terms of REALITY. There are useful things to be learned in both, but trust me, most people that don't get in potentially armed confrontations for a living will EVER understand this, BJJ practitioner OR classical martial artist. But BJJ will teach you to be far more effective than any classical martial art will in a far shorter period of time.

This thread might be educational:

http://www.swordforumbugei.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000108.html

Joel Simmons
21st February 2002, 06:28
Aloha Mr. LeBlanc,

I must disagree with you.

I do respect BJJ for what it is. I admit I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of the style as I have never studied it. Just as a BJJ person who passes judgment on another style without having any knowledge of it...they should admit that they don't know enough to comment on the effectiveness of any particular art. I'm not trying to say BJJ is not good in respect to how they fight or whatever. I'm just putting my experience with BJJ out there for people to take it for what its worth to them.

Mr. LeBlanc, lets not start making assumptions about people's knowledge of fighting either. Martial Arts ARE for fighting as you stated. Martial arts are NOT for going out and STARTING fights because you have some sort of inferiority complex or feel emasculated for some hidden reason. You said yourself that most of the people attracted to BJJ are the ones who would be out street fighting if they weren't in the training hall. I propose that very few of these same people are the type who put in the time and dedication to reach the level of understanding that you say some of the Gracies have reached. I'm not saying that classical MA have more dedicated people, I'm just thinking that classical MA attract people who probably look at the training as a lifelong pursuit, rather than a quick way to learn how to pummel someone.

I agree with you that BJJ is probably as physical as jujutsu was around Kano's time, but I disagree that it is more like classical jujutsu as a WHOLE than classical jujutsu is NOW. Many earlier posts have spoken about how BJJ doesn't address the more subtle principles and techniques that traditional jujutsu still adheres to. BJJ appears to focus highly on the physical development of a person. I've had a statement driven into my head by various sensei, sifu, and kahuna that MA is 90% mental and 10% physical. That is a point where I think BJJ lacks.

I agree with you on the "fighting family" mentality of the Samurai and the Gracies. However, I think to assess the wholeness of a tradition, we must look at the results of its existence. BJJ as promoted by many Gracie INFLUENCED schools, sow many out of control, violent, and disrespectful people. Who cares how effective they are in a fight. They're not people that other people enjoy being around. Samurai families on the otherhand, knew if you drew your sword first, you would probably die in the fight. Yes, you had to be good at your art or you would die in a fight, but in order to reduce those chances the Samurai tried to create a refined society of people who would not go about blowin' sunshine up everyone else's skirts.

As to you wanting to have the BJJ guys on your side in a fight, hey...that's what you're comfortable with. I'd rather have someone who doesn't shoot their mouth off. Maybe there wouldn't be a fight then. And if there was, I'd rather have someone who could stay on their feet and handle more than one guy. Or someone who could grab a broomstick and know how to use it in relation to bojutsu or naginatajutsu. Someone with a far broader knowledge of the realities of a fight rather than what is preached in the majority of BJJ training halls. I do not think they understand violence in a more realistic way. That is why they are so prone to it. If a person understood the results of a highly violent conflict...I doubt many people would really want to start a fight with anyone. Not because you might get hurt, but of what you might end up doing to another person. Yes, I would defend myself and family if we were attacked, but afterwards, I would feel horrible for any damage I caused on whoever attacked. That is where classical martial arts are FAR superior to the people of BJJ that I have had experience with. I've never heard Rickson Gracie philosophize, however, it is obviously not getting through to the drones of hotheads who worship him. You say yourself that BJJ will teach a person to be far more effective in a shorter amount of time than any classical art will ever be able to do. I agree. This is why I believe people who have an affinity to violence and just want to beat the snot out of someone are attracted to BJJ. That is not the mentality condoned by any of the Samurai families if that is what you're trying to compare it to. You would probably be killed or ordered to committ seppuku if you were so out of control and rash like the boys I had an encounter with.

I must also say that "koryu" are more about combat than BJJ. I forget who posted it, maybe it was yourself, but the quote was something to the effect of ..."my first day at a BJJ gym...the instructor said, 'don't fool yourselves, this is only a sport." end quote. If this is how it is viewed by the seniority of the style...how can it be just as much about combat as an art that stems from a warrior society? Classical jujutsu includes a barrage of weapons (at least the tradition I study), combat tactics that can be used not only in one on one fights but in any board game, car chase, whatever you like.

Well, I feel I am getting out of my element here as I'm starting to make assumptions about BJJ that I have no grounds to make, other than I can tell you what I know my art to be compared to what those BJJ boys I met were not.

One last thing I'd like to say. Have you ever been to a UFC or NHB event? The people that go to those things are there to see VIOLENCE and watch someone get seriously injured. They don't give a second thought to who it is or how its done. AND, if they don't see it there in the ring, they want to see it in the parking lot. You can just feel the hatred in the air. Who dominates these events? BJJ. Where do these violence saturated people go when they want to learn how to do the things they see? BJJ. Its the same with anyone who has a role model. You like fast cars and racing? You want to be like Michael Schumacher? You go to a racing school that preaches his polciy.

Like I said before...I don't care about any of the techniques or fighting skill or whatever you want about BJJ. I'm just trying to say that the attitude of this style and the people who are attracted to it is the reason why people THINK classical jujutsu is "weaker." People see BJJ more than they see koryu. As you said, the ones who go public and demonstrate are probably not going to be tested by any other schools (not just in Meiji Japan). There's a guy here on Kaua'i who practices a NHB he calls jujutsu. He'll challenge anyone...on his own mat and by his rules. Several people have challenged him, only to be attacked the second they step inside the dojo...hardly a "challenge." Whether you like it or not these are the people that are making a name for BJJ...whatever name that may be.

Kit LeBlanc
21st February 2002, 07:14
People think classical jujutsu is weaker because they do not practice realistically, in general. Seems more time is spent debating why Judo and BJJ and kendo have nothing to do with fighting arts. And fooling themselves that it is anything like real fighting. Who has problems with emasculation, then?

Go roll with a BJJ black belt and then we'll talk about subtlety.

I'll pretty much just post this link to a thread in the Aikijujutsu section, since I'll end up saying the same things:

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9898

Now, I gotta go teach an edged weapons survival class to some fellow officers. People who DO put their lives on the line instead of simply having the luxury of intellectualizing about it.

I must remember to remind them that the BJJ stuff we have adapted in the curriculum is only sport, won't work for real fighting, and that we would be much better off teaching them to use a broomstick against multiple opponents.

Joel Simmons
21st February 2002, 08:52
Aloha Mr. LeBlanc,

Really, is this the place to make assumptions about my so-called lifestyle of intellectualizing compared to the service of police officers? I don't think it is.

To me, it seems that we're arguing about two completely different topics. I'm trying to make a point about the attitude of the people who practice BJJ. You have very good points about the effectiveness of the art. I respect that. You've trained in it and know a hell of a lot more about the techniques than I do. However, I would still like to know your opinion about the attitudes of BJJ practitioners.

As far as subtlety goes...the previous link you included in your previous post states some explanations of BJJ derived manuevers that are useful in police situations. I believe one of these includes gouguing someone in the back of the neck with your knee as you handcuff them. It may be me but I find a lack of subtlety in that explanation. Maybe you decided not to include it, but if there were some discussion of the particular nerve, pressure, or joints that could be manipulated with that manuever then that would display somewhat more subtlety to me than just brute force. Maybe my definition of subtlety is different than yours???

I don't think most people in the classical arts feel that they have to argue about Judo, Kendo and BJJ because they feel emasculated. I think it has more to do with trying to dispell the notions of ineffectiveness that are widely preached by naysayers from other styles. People who have the need to physically dominate someone else in a violent, hurtful way are the ones who have inferiority complexes. Go look at a schoolyard playground. I'm sorry but I see the same schoolyard bullies in the BJJ boys I had a conversation with.

As for your link to the Aiki discussion...I agree with the vast majority of what you posted. I really don't think you and I have a disagreement on what works/fails or on the realities of a fight. Am I wrong?

MarkF
21st February 2002, 11:09
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
I don't think most people in the classical arts feel that they have to argue about Judo, Kendo and BJJ because they feel emasculated. I think it has more to do with trying to dispell the notions of ineffectiveness that are widely preached by naysayers from other styles. People who have the need to physically dominate someone else in a violent, hurtful way are the ones who have inferiority complexes. Go look at a schoolyard playground. I'm sorry but I see the same schoolyard bullies in the BJJ boys I had a conversation with.


Even though you are right, you are wrong. Dispelling the myth that judo and/or BJJ are ineffective because they are considered sports and sports only has been going on since I've been invovled in judo, a comparative grappling art such as jujutsu or Gracie jiu-jitsu (since 1963). These days I try to ignore that argument, but only a couple of weeks ago in the Koryu section here, I read comments concerning judo (since I can't recall it specifically let's just say it was a negative statement concerning judo's effectiveness in saving one's a$$ in a "combative situation"). When I attempted to correct the mistatements, I was referred to as "the judo police (I asked if it were similar to a "koryu kop.)";)

The nay sayers of koryu grappling are as irritating as the nay-sayers of judo/bjj. Waxing poetic about your experiences with BJJ on the words of a few is the same as the kata v. randori argument and which prepares one for the real thing, and when it gets down to basics, that is what it is. Which is the one which prepares a person for the modern combative arena? Probably both, and most probably the one in which you have the most experience.

Contests such as NHB most surely took place in the day of the samurai just as sure as I'm typing this. This too, is explained away as "not being the primary goal." The differences were most probably to work on battlefield technique as the modern forms are for the same reasons. The landscape has changed some, but when you get down to it, it is for the same reasons. The reason so many can't tell the difference between styles or schools is fairly obvious. Contests. Steal from the winner and stop losing. It still goes on, it is just done on the Internet these days.:eek:

There were bullies around then, too. Today's bullies don't all reside in a single manner of fighting/grappling schools, some are right under our noses.

Mark

Mike Williams
21st February 2002, 11:13
OK, I'm probably not at all qualified to enter this thread, but I would like to comment on some of the issues that Joel raised about attitudes and morality in BJJ vs JJJ.

The big problem is really that we are all living a paradox. We are all studying violence in a society that (mostly) abhors violence. This places all MA practitioners in a moral dilemma, and how we deal with it depends on each individual. Most will realise that the skills learnt in the dojo will probably never get used in reality and will do everything they can to avoid violent confrontation.

Others, unfortunately, will seek out any opportunity to put their skills to the test and will become aggressive bullies. This is entirely regardless of the art they study. It applies equally to BJJ, Judo, Karate and for all I know, Taijiquan. (Read "Angry White Pyjamas" for an account of a group of high-ranked aikidoka getting involved in a bar brawl)

The BJJ-ka that Joel referred to would have had exactly the same attitude whichever style he studied, IMHO. Cliche-mode on: It's not the style, it's the person.

On the subject of the UFC: I love watching it. I like to think I watch it for the skill, bravery, athleticism and grace. I hate it when fighters get injured - but still, a part of me does get a thrill out of the danger. I do object to some of the marketing of the UFC (the videos available in the UK are particularly bad: "the bloodiest sport in the world", "modern gladiators", etc.). And of course some of the audience will watch out of pure bloodlust.

But the same applies to boxing too. Does this make everyone who steps into a boxing gym an imbalanced psychotic?

We have to be honest with ourselves: we are learning to fight. Along the way we will meet people who enjoy violence. Sad but unavoidable.

Cheers,

Mike
(sorry for the ramble)

MarkF
21st February 2002, 11:22
Mike,
Don't worry about the rambling. I'm an expert. I just wish I had read yours before writing mine. I wouldn't have had to write it.;)

But you are correct, sir! Thanks for making it so easy.

Mark

johan smits
21st February 2002, 12:48
Hi to you all,
Great discussion! Although pressed for time I would like to donate my two cents.

In my opinion jujutsu (which is a general term) suffers from a lack of identity. True there is TJJ, JJJ, BJJ. These are all terms or subdivisions used to clearify things. There is a difference between these subdivisions, but why don’t we look at the things these systems share with each other?
Technically there’s no big difference (you find the same techniques, more or less within all these systems). There’s a difference in training methods.

There’s also a difference between practitioners. Why do you train? Why learn a martial art? Do you want to learn to defend yourself or do you want to learn to fight? There’s a big difference. Is is jobrelated or not?
In my experience, most koryu practitioners I have met were not the greatest fighters they don’t have to be, they are as I am civilian. We are not supposed to fight. They practice the arts as a hobby not to use in their line of work. Technically they reach a certain level, yes they do, they become quite good. It doesn’t mean they can fight. Why certain things can’t be learned they have to be experienced. You have to be in danger to experience certain aspects of the fighters trade. So they, and I never become professional fighters. We will always be limited that way. Than comes the question what do we need as selfdefense as civilians in a reasonable safe environment (or so it seems). We need systems where we can train in a
But you never are in danger when training! Well yes and no. In koryu jujutsu you train in a controlled environment for an uncontrolled environment. In modern jujutsu you train in a controlled environment for an uncontrolled environment (what’s the difference?). But it’s just training.
Agressiveness, what is more aggressive? Hitting someone on the body with your fists, heavily and repeatedly or learning (without contact) to slash someone’s throat without a lot of display. A lot of people I know (maybe I’m seeing the wrong kind of people) would opt for the heavy hitting.

It’s may seem an easy way out but that is not how I mean it. Train in both ways. Learn koryu jujutsu and brazilian jujutsu. Find what’s useful for you and don’t forget, that if you are not a professional using the arts in your line of work you are just approaching the essence of the arts.

This will cost me my ears for sure.

Best regards,

Johan Smits

Kit LeBlanc
21st February 2002, 17:44
Joel,

It's good fencing with you, this is stimulating a lot of good discussion.

RE: BJJ practitioners. I train with a regular group (more submission grappling, not pure BJJ) but have trained with purely BJJ guys and instructors.

My opinions? The BJJ guys are much better to train with, in general. They have a much more realistic assessment of what they are doing and how it relates to real fighting/sport, they are constantly reminded of their level of ability and what they are capable of, and have nothing to prove. The most honest, in all areas, training partners and sessions I have had were in BJJ.

It appears the traditionalists are those that have something to prove. Go to BBs on Japanese, Chinese, and many other "fighting arts" and you are treated to endless BJJ bashing, how it doesn't work for this, isn't good for that, why it isn't really fighting. Then why are the traditionalists constantly losing when going against them? BJJ considers it to be the utmost in bad logic to assume that if they cannot defeat a man in a fight with many, but granted not all rules removed, that if you remove the rules even more, the man who was soundly defeated will then be able to turn the tables and come out on top. Give them both knives, or okay, broomsticks, and I would still bet the BJJ man. Arguing who would win a sword duel is childish....


The BJJ guys are training against fully resisting partners and making their techniques work, they are getting into street fights and self defense situations and doing the same. They are also watching their aging teachers, 5'8 and 165 lbs, spar with the entire attendance of a seminar, fully resistant, and defeat them all subtley, fluidly and technically, regardless of size or age difference.

They hear only talk about how devastating the traditionalists are, that they can't spar at all because it is too dangerous, and how what the traditionalists do is much more about real fighting than actually grappling full contact is. They watch the traditionalists being taken down, trying a lame pressure point technique (we call them titty twisters :p ) that the traditionalist doesn't know won't work because he has never tried it against a truly resisting opponent, and they watch him struggling on the bottom, unable to mount even a token defense, and clearly not knowing what to do on the ground. When he is allowed up he makes some ridiculous statement about how his art is meant more for dealing with multiple opponents. And the BJJ'er thinks "multiple opponents? You couldn't even handle ONE guy two inches shorter and 30 lbs lighter...?"

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that full contact training is engaged in ..they get their asses beat on a regular basis and that is a humbling experience that it is obvious many traditionalists never get the benefit of. There is no arguing "shoulda, coulda, woulda's" when you are pinned to the floor, submitted repeatedly, or placed in such a position that the man on top of you can strike you with impunity, and hold a conversation with those on the sidelines while you struggle unsuccessfully to extricate yourself. If he can do this he can just as easily pull a knife and begin surgery when you can't even mount a defense.

They also train FAR harder than in any martial art I have personally experienced except Judo. You also quickly learn in a BJJ club that the 5'2 140 lb guy may just wipe the mats with the 6'4 230 lb guy, in a very decisive, full contact and resistive manner, and this tends to make people much more respectful of the PROVEN ability of others.

I think your encounter with the BJJ-ers would have gone differently with the BJJ guys if you had started with more of an open mind and realized there are many things useful in BJJ and that it doesn't "only work in the UFC." You said you agree with my posts on the other threads, so this must be true.

Them too. I think all that would have taken would have been mentioning that in a real fight , in earnest, you would rather use a stick or a knife to hit someone with and only go to grappling if you had to...but that you would be glad to have it to fall back on. The conversation would have been totally different then. And in reality that is the best way.

Bad aspects: these are not choir boys. They have a lot of tattoos, they are loud, many have been arrested before or come from less than stellar backgrounds. I train with a guy who is open about the fact that he hates cops in general. Two of us at the dojo are cops and he has no problem with us. Why? The training goes beyond that.

Have you ever spent any time with any Special Forces, Navy Seals, or serious tactical operators? There is a lot more of the BJJ practitioner in them than the (present day) koryu practitioner, despite what all the articles say about the "warrior brotherhood" of the classical arts.

Remember, too, the professional fight biz is a different thing entirely and draws out aspects that are sensational on purpose. For some the attitude is just a show. Talk to them one on one and they are different people altogether. Plus I have personally witnessed and heard from classical MA instructors FAR too much about psychologically unbalanced, bizarre passive aggressive behaviors, and downright backstabbing, dirty dealing and lying and cheating that has happened in koryu organizations or within traditional dojo to entertain the notion that training in classical martial arts has any effect on a person's character if that person does not care to embrace the character lessons.

Don't get me wrong, I still seek out a traditional/classical art. I think that the two in combination is really the way to go. Because the classical arts are more than just about physical fighting, and DO provide a way into a much deeper study in the way of life of the armed professional, for the present time or the past. I don't think most people doing koryu, despite the many authoritative opinions offered on it, have any inkling of that beyond an intellectual/historical one or pure fanstasy, because by and large they are not armed professionals. The legit combat vets are different, and those are really the people I look up to. Their warrior illusions were long ago dispelled and they see the inherent vulnerability, NOT invulnerability, that training for and walking on that edge represent. Many classical martial artists seem to have this backwards, and their concept of using martial arts in the real world is evidence of this. Again, the BJJ guys I have trained with have none of that. But granted, many do not view it as a professional Path, but more about self defense and recreation and, perish the thought, SPORT. The same holds for the traditionalists, minus the sport, and of course any realistic assessment of what it is they actually are training, however.


You argue that my approach is not subtle. Guilty as charged. I am usually more concerned about what weapons the guy might have, if he might have some help and this is an ambush, or if he really wants to take my gun and murder me with it or is just lashing out to make his bid to escape than being subtle. More the "martial" than the "art." Usually the real world confrontation in earnest is not subtle, unlike in the idealized world of the dojo where all the pressure points work (they don't in real life), all the locks stop fights (ditto) and ki controls his mind and body. **

Then again, I have been in many altercations, with mentally ill individuals, escaping felons, you name it, and taken them down, pinned them with knee in their neck, and wrapped 'em up and brought them to jail without any injury to myself or to them. Still wasn't subtle, but it very much worked.

BJJ has given me the tools to have far more control, and guage much better damage I do to a combative subject, than learning pins which I have never tried against legitimate resistance, or how to smash his head or cut his throat ever has.


** It should be understood that the comments RE: using the knife, striking the back of a subjects head repeatedly with the elbow, etc. which I posted on the other threads were dealing with MILITARY combat. and how groundfighting would apply, NOT everyday arrests of even highly resistive suspects that are NOT rising to the level of tactics involving lethal force/serious body injury. If a suspect raises to the level of lethal force, the tactics for military and police can very much be the same.

While it is not always easy to be able, under the stress of the moment, to know when a non-lethal assault may turn lethal, or go back down to non-lethal (which is what makes police combatives more difficult than military kill-or-be-killed), what I described is not appropriate in the majority of incidents involving combative suspects.

Ellis Amdur
21st February 2002, 18:05
The genius of judo (continued in offshoots like sambo, BJJ, etc.) is the ability to chain and link techniques. "Modern classical jujutsu," having lost the randori component, lacks the wherewithal to foster this. There is no doubt that sets of kata that focus on use of a weapon while pinning and stabbing are more directly applicable to close combat with edged weapons than judo (et al), as far as the techniques go. BUT - speaking as a practitioner of classical methods who has also studied some level of judo (not enough, sadly) - without a randori component, which most "modern classical jujutsu" now lacks, the classicist is not prepared for the wiggling, thrashing chaos that is, so I am told, real combat - not fights - combat to the death. A combat veteran discusses this in the Winter, 2002 issue of Hoplite, where he describes, among other things, stabbing himself in the process of killing an enemy.

Kano's genius, in "eliminating the dangerous techniques," as the cliche goes, was to make a method of training that allows one to really chain techniques and go all out. Variants, such as sambo, and BJJ strive to set up different parameters (called rules) which hopefully bring the training closer (one aspect) of the real thing. There is no doubt that when koryu was "genryu" ("now ryu"), they sparred. The methods were crude. These days, people in both police and separately, in military circles, are trying to make training methods which develop the fluidity and responsiveness needed - with the weapons and clothing etc. required. Judo/BJJ and koryu conceivably both offer components for this - the components in neither would be sufficient alone. One way to think of it is kata is the letters on the page - randori is the 'white' - the spaces between the letters. A good combative system must have both. I believe that a genuine koryu system - at least as far as grappling goes - must have a randori component (or the randori practiced elsewhere - sumo, judo, BJJ, etc), or it gets dessicated.

One thing that proved this to me. One line of Yagyu Shingan Ryu was headed by the estimable Muto Maso, and seconded by Fujisada ???. I think Muto got the leadership role, among other things, because he was a few days senior. Muto was a very good weapons man, as was Fujisada. YSR has a strong grappling section, dealing with kumiuchi - "battlefield" grappling. There was no doubt that Fujisada was several major levels above Muto in this area and, also, any area of the ryu that had close contact, with weapons or without. The difference? Muto was a koryu man, exclusively. Fujisada a sixth dan in judo, very old school judo (I became friendly with him, and very much regret family and work responsibilities did not allow me to train judo with him.)

There was, BTW, a criticism of an example Kit made, of kneeling on the neck. The writer said, "I believe one of these includes gouguing someone in the back of the neck with your knee as you handcuff them. It may be me but I find a lack of subtlety in that explanation. Maybe you decided not to include it, but if there were some discussion of the particular nerve, pressure, or joints that could be manipulated with that manuever then that would display somewhat more subtlety to me than just brute force. Maybe my definition of subtlety is different than yours???" First of all, the SUBTLETY would be getting a struggling, aggressive, maybe drug-intoxicated or berserk individual on his stomach so you could "get" a knee on the neck!! And it's far kinder to put on a decisive technique to immobilize someone rather than a half-assed one that allows them to continue the fight, perhaps necessitating a less "subtle" and more damaging level of force.
More generally, my system of koryu grappling has kyusho - nerve, pressure points, etc. In fact, the proper attack to the neck IS a knee or elbow.
I've probably told this story before, but what the heck. Fooling around, I told a judo instructor friend of mine in Japan that, due to my koryu skill, I was unstranglible. He, of course, challenged me. I lay on my back and he put a cross-collar on me. I can take a good strangle for a few moments, and I used forceful pressure on points in his rib cage with my knuckles, and he shot over my head in agony (note this is a form of hypnosis - I set up conditions whereby, as will be seen, he 'forgot' what he could do). He was majorly upset. I was laughing - Kirin beer fuels such whimsey - and I said, "O.K. Let's do it again. You're pissed, right? So let's imagine I just raped your sister. C'mon, bro, get into it. Imagine my judo-defeating hairy gaijin self on your sister. Strangle me again!" See, I really wanted to see if this kyusho pressure stuff worked under real conditions! He jumps on me, slams the cross-choke home, I'm resisting all my might, and I'm already starting to go out. Put on the pressure points hard - NOTHING! Spread my arms wide, knuckles out, and with all my might, slammed them home, right in the prescribed points. (He had bruises for weeks, and I might have slightly cracked his cartilage at one point). Next thing I remember is the revival. We both started laughing and poured another. The point being that a) pressure points, as most people conceive of them, are really are not combative moves they go with the Klingon Death touch. b) the proof of this only comes up in free-style, which includes what happens to the body when you are enraged, and totally committed, and don't care about pain.

BTW - the other side of the equation is that a REAL kata encodes what actually happens/happened to someone in the heat of battle - passed down as a training method to those of us who, in addition to needing the training, don't have the real life experience. It's got incredible depth of info - but it dries up if the practitioner is dried up - which is what happens if kata is ALL you do.

As for the attitude thing - one writer complained about the "attitude" of a couple of BJJ guys. Generally, I've found more comfort and trust among men who actually measure themselves - boxers, kick boxers, grapplers - than in the more sterile arts. I recall, in Japan at least, far more incidents severe enough to make the newspaper among Shorinji Kempo and aikido folks than from kick boxing or NHB-type gyms. Gotta watch out for those idealists!

With respect

Ellis Amdur

Zoyashi
21st February 2002, 18:14
Hello All,
As a long-time karate practicioner who has turned into an avid Jujutsuka, I can say that there is a hard edge of reality that drives a lot of the bozo "We're number 1!" boasts found within the jujitsu community. Not to say that it isn't obnoxious, because it definately is. But it probably stems from the fact that ground fighting is traditionally ignored and denigrated by the karate-kung fu community, and it really, really shouldn't be. My dojo is in a rough part of town and a lot of people come through the door looking to prove themselves. A lot have had some form of martial training - boxing, TKD, karate. And they all get schooled. They may have a great punch or a blinding kick, but the one-punch kill is a myth, and after they've landed their one hit, they're toast. I know. I was one of them.
Yes, it's obnoxious when some thick-necked meat-head tells you you're wasting your time with stand up fighting. And he's wrong. Budo is never a waste of time. But keep in mind he's probably seen five hundred stand up fighters assume it couldn't happen to them, then end up tapping flat on their backs ten seconds later. If he could re-phrase his statement as "Ground fighting is an enormously important part of one-on one combat and and every style should address it's advantages and limitations," well, wouldn't that be something we could all agree on?

Josh Gepner

Joel Simmons
21st February 2002, 22:26
Aloha all,

Well...I must say that this has been a very enlightening conversation. Congratulate yourselves in the fact that I'm considering going down to (whichever Gracie it is here in Honolulu) the BJJ gym and seeing what they're all about.

I admit, I was probably just as inconsiderate in my conversation with those BJJ boys. However, I think most people would react in the same manner.

Since many of you have insisted on the fact that BJJ is much more realistic in the sense of training, could either of you give me an example of another art form that addresses this? Ummm...let me clarify. Another art form that embraces another aspect of fighting besides almost exclusively on groundwork. Ex: kempo? kajukenbo?

I enjoy the koryu I train in because of the mental aspects of it, but I guess in this discussion I have realized that maybe there is something more physical that could be added to it. I guess what I'm saying is that I want to find THE art for me...so I can just train...and forget about any stupid arguments about effectiveness or the validity of the style. Okay...I'm rambling now.

Joel Simmons
21st February 2002, 22:29
Aloha again,

I guess the reason I don't like those BJJ guys is the attitude. Some of you say that they are actually more humble than they appear due to getting pounded in the gym. Well...you think they could show it outside the dojo as well.

mahalos,
Joel Simmons

Kit LeBlanc
21st February 2002, 22:48
Joel,

You have my admiration. Not too many people can take a step back and take a second look at things.

By all means check out the BJJ. Other arts that don't emphasize groundwork but give similar benefits would be Judo (you still get some of the groundwork here), Muay Thai, some of the Kyokushin and derivative karate styles like Enshin or Ashihara...but for real world application and for an excellent art to blend with your jo (you are a member of Shindo Muso-ryu, correct?) I would go with Judo, probably. RESISTIVE grappling at least.. Training in jo will give you the eyes to see what can be made to fit in with more combative forms, and what is probably better left on the training mat, as well as what from the jo would probably work in a real knock-down drag-out and what is wishful thinking.

Happy Trails.

Kit

Joel Simmons
22nd February 2002, 00:10
Aloha Kit,

I actually train in Takeuchi-ryu. Not necessarily a "jujutsu" but they call it that because its easier for people to recognize that name.

I was thinking about some of the Kyokushinkai schools. There's supposedly a really good sensei here in town, Bobby Lowe, ever heard of him? My Takeuchi sensei knows that I still want to develop my karate skills and he actually reccommended the kyokushin guys. Judo is big down here as well. My sensei is also a dan holder (don't know which dan) in Judo. Needless to say, he likes Judo as well.

I honestly think I chose to train in Takeuchi-ryu because the dojo is walking distance from my house, doesn't charge through the roof fees, the sensei is smart and very personable. Plus, I just have a respect for people who hold to tradition for some reason. At least in MA.

The BJJ here in town is taught by Relson Gracie. Just FYI.

Kit LeBlanc
22nd February 2002, 00:29
You must train with Wayne Muromoto.

Check out the Tantojutsu thread in the Sword Arts section, I think. He had some interesting things to share there. I have seen a very little of Takeuchi-ryu and only on video, a couple of the knife/grappling moves looked really interesting. Add some resistive trainng experience with Judo, BJJ and/or Kyokushin and that would be an excellent combination for real fighting, I think.

Actually there are a couple guys in my area that studied some with Relson in Honolulu...nothing long term though.

Dan Harden
22nd February 2002, 02:02
Hi Guys

Joel, I don't know the guys you know, but are you sure your not equating confidance with arrogance? There is a distinct difference and most people have trouble differentiating twixt the two.
I have met many NHB, BJJ and Judo types who have little regard for martial artists abilities in general-since most of what they do doesn't work in a direct confrontation with a fighter (their own little neck of the woods). Of course fighting a fighter is a rather narrow scope of business. But all in all, if you were one of them and you pretty much had little trouble taking MA apart- why Listen to what they say anymore? Fair is fair.
Its tough when what you do is considered "just" a sport-and what the guy that you just threw and choked out does is supposed to be "ooh so deadly."
It makes a boy go Hhmmmm...... And they do just that.

Of course I can change hats and argue the other side of this to my hearts content- I offer this in hopes that it contributes to a better understanding of where some people are coming from.
Most arts have some interesting potentials. But it depends on who's hands it's in- like most everything else.
I say do it all.


Dan

Joel Simmons
22nd February 2002, 08:31
Aloha everyone,

Yes, Kit, I do train with Wayne Muromoto.

I went and watched Sensei Bobby Lowe's Kyokushin class tonight. His dojo is right down the street from my apartment.

I was impressed with the physical exertion those guys go through. They sure as hell don't play grab ass with each other. However, one thing I noticed is that Sensei Lowe and many of the senior students who were only in their mid 30's had horrible knee problems. When they were trying to execute mid to high level kicks, the would wince in pain. Many of the kicks were "top of the foot" strikes. One shodan had his toes taped up as if his tendons were "worn out." ??? Even so, I thought it was impressive how they trained.

Another thing I noticed was their technique when sparring. Only 3 or 4 kicks and 1 or 2 punches were utilized in pummelling the hell out of the other person. From my perspective, there were many opportunities for them to execute a throw or joint lock...but they never capitalized on the opening. Maybe I'm inadvertantly looking for criticisms. That's why I'm going to go to another class to watch. Maybe I'll see it in a different light on Monday.

As for the confidence/arrogence thing with those other guys at the dorm room...I agree that there is a big difference between the two. When someone comes to me and thinks they are better than ANY other style just because they practice a certain style, and they don't have ANY experience with the style they are criticizing...that is arrogance. Although I guess you can be confident and arrogent at the same time. If he were to say to me, "oh I've seen karate" or "i've trained with friends who practice karate, and I feel my way of fighting is better" then I would have to respect his opinions and experiences. I would call that confidence in his own abilities. Of course, now that I reflect on it, I was probably just as arrogant as he was from his perspective. I didn't have any experience with BJJ other than seeing UFC fights and exchanging words with these guys. But I strongly believe the attitude of practitioners reflects the core of any art.

That's just my opinion on it though.

22nd February 2002, 12:06
Dear all,

when judging the "attitude" of the practioner, please consider the AGE of the practioner... Teenage and 20 something boys and men who engage in full resistence training and competition tend to act a bit agressive and stupid (Not all of course {PC mode off})

Find some people in their 30's and see the difference, also "gracie" jiujitsu" is not the ONLY type of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, sometimes the "family" might have something to do with the attitude.

If in Honolulu, PLEASE check out Egan Inoue for BJJ! If you do, you will see GREAT skill and GREAT person. Also Check Burton Richardson in Honolulu JKD Unlimited, one of the most beautiful people I know of, GREAT martial artist and BJJ for street defense, not competition. Tell him Rick Ray sent you.

If you vist these people, I promise you will have a great experience!

Best wishes,

-Rick

Kit LeBlanc
22nd February 2002, 16:26
Joel,

If you can find Muay Thai try to see it as well. They have the hard hitting aspects of Kyokushin but tend to be far more relaxed and fluid, at least what I have seen, and particularly the Thai's themselves. The Thai's also have turned knees and elbows into an art form. They should do some Muay Thai at Burton Richardson's AND Egan Inoue's mentioned above. (Though Burton Richardson should also have a weapon's awareness and focus that would go hand in hand with Takeuchi-ryu..stick and blade stuff.)

Also, I don't think of pure striking as necessarily the best way to deal with an actual combative situation. Real fights are not like kickboxing, just as they are not like pure sport BJJ, or pure kata jujutsu....there is a place in there, where, correctly applied, the classical jujutsu stuff will come into it's own when forged alongside contact striking and grappling training.

You said you noticed a lot of openings for locks and throws? The kicks and strikes may open up the locks and throws for you if you integrate the tactics.

If you end the confrontation with a solid kick or elbow, why grapple at all?

Meynard Ancheta
22nd February 2002, 17:06
Hey Kit,

How is it that you get to post so many times? I figured that you should be out arresting someone or training. :D You must have the coolest job in the world. You get to have your cake and eat it too. I'm jealous. :)

You've been the voice of reason in many of the post I've seen. Keep it up. I really enjoy reading your post. :toast:

Kit LeBlanc
22nd February 2002, 17:16
Meynard,

I am in the enviable position of having to work only 15 or so days a month. Our contract negotiators are just awesome!

Get this....often several of those days are training days where I either do defensive tactics, or SWAT.

Ain't life grand!

:D

22nd February 2002, 17:21
Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc
Joel,

If you can find Muay Thai try to see it as well. They have the hard hitting aspects of Kyokushin but tend to be far more relaxed and fluid, at least what I have seen, and particularly the Thai's themselves. The Thai's also have turned knees and elbows into an art form. They should do some Muay Thai at Burton Richardson's AND Egan Inoue's mentioned above. (Though Burton Richardson should also have a weapon's awareness and focus that would go hand in hand with Takeuchi-ryu..stick and blade stuff.)



Hello,

Burton is a full Instructor under Chai Sirasute, his list of full instructor credentials are pretty long. Also his weapon program, stick and knife fighting, is outta sight! EVERYTHING is based on sparring, meaning get a stickor knife, head gear, hand protection, cup and thats how we train. Even drills are done with resistence. He threw out most of the fancy kali he used to do because it never came out in actual fighting. Same with his unarmed stuff, he is a full instructor in Pentjak silat, Jun Fan JKD, Muay Thai, Kali of many styles from many teachers, has boxing training, about 12 years of BJJ and just about everything in between.

What we are left with, is what He termed JKD unlimited, and most of the stuff he learned he tossed out, again because it didn't come out when someone was really fighting back!

Burt is a great guy, meet him and you'll see. A fantastic teacher with zero ego! (see for yourself) and I KNOW you will come away with a whole new outlook on the martial arts as far as combat is concerend.

best wishes,

-Rick

PS. I should note, we spar eye shots, groin shots, all the x-rated techniques. We have developed equipment to allow this while maintaining safety, while we use NHB "type" of training, it is beyong the "sport" it is about real life encounters, but most of all, searching for truth and becoming a better person.

Meynard Ancheta
22nd February 2002, 17:21
Kit,

It doesn't get any better than that!!! :laugh: Holly...

You do have the coolest job in the world! I'm going to start planning for a career change.

Kit LeBlanc
22nd February 2002, 17:34
Originally posted by RickRay


He threw out most of the fancy kali he used to do because it never came out in actual fighting. Same with his unarmed stuff...

-Rick

PS. I should note, we spar eye shots, groin shots, all the x-rated techniques.



Cool, it's the clicky-clacky "kung fu theatre" stuff that has always turned me off on Kali. We have a guy that did Latosa Escrima and that stuff is cool, very direct and powerful. but I don't think they spar.

X rated techniques LOL, I gotta use that one. Whatta ya wear goggles or fencing masks like the Dog Brothers? Those boxing outside groin protectors?

22nd February 2002, 17:50
Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc


Cool, it's the clicky-clacky "kung fu theatre" stuff that has always turned me off on Kali. We have a guy that did Latosa Escrima and that stuff is cool, very direct and powerful. but I don't think they spar.

Hi,

Yeah, burt's system is very simple technique wise, but then we apply the five ways of attack from JKD and other strategy etc.. It's all about performance...



X rated techniques LOL, I gotta use that one. Whatta ya wear goggles or fencing masks like the Dog Brothers? Those boxing outside groin protectors?

LOL! Yeah JKD term for the nasty stuff ( I know you knew that ;) )

When we stick or knife spar, we use padded sticks, which is basically a Kali stick with pipe insulation and tape etc... We wear Macho face cage head gear, or if we are turning up the heat we use Stick sparring head gear for the P.I. much like Kendo head gear.

For hands we use Hocky gloves to keep our finger nails on ;) regular cup, mouthpiece and that's it! We hit pretty hard most of the time, and all out hard about once a month, we stay safe. There is really no need to use heavy sticks hard strikes and light gear, what IS important is resistence, meaning the partner is fighting back.

The whole system is based on High percentage moves, meaning those techniques most people can get most of the time when someone is fully fighting back. Being so bare bones tecnique wise, it is like a mirror, your diet, conditioning, ego, how much you practice your fears all that is laid out in the open, again only performance....

I really do feel the process makes better people. As an aside, bringing it back to topic, I notice all the time, the punks drop out. It appears they don't care much for hard work or getting hit back ;)

Best,

-Rick

Joel Simmons
22nd February 2002, 21:52
Aloha everyone,

Thanks for the information about Burton Richardson and Egan Inoue. I've heard of Egan before. One of my friends at UH used to train with the guy. This kid was on the swim team and his coaches didn't want him training with Egan...I guess they were right in their concern...my buddy came back from training one day with the entire left side of his face turned black and blue. Apparently Egan introduced him to his right foot. :)

By the way, where did your friend Burton learn his JKD/Jun Fan? I thought most of the people that trained with Bruce Lee or his immediate students have been pretty reserved about training people.

Also, I don't know a thing about Muay Thai except for what I see on ESPN every now and then. Who is Chai Sirasute?

Kit - I want a job like yours. I'm cursing the day when I finally have to get a real job...instead of being a professional student.

22nd February 2002, 22:02
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
Aloha everyone,


By the way, where did your friend Burton learn his JKD/Jun Fan? I thought most of the people that trained with Bruce Lee or his immediate students have been pretty reserved about training people.

Burton studied with Sifu Dan Inosanto, the man Bruce left in charge of JKD. He has been training with him since 1980. Burton has about 20 videos on the market, about 10 of them for unique publications, he also writes for inside kung Fu and has since the mid 80's.


Also, I don't know a thing about Muay Thai except for what I see on ESPN every now and then. Who is Chai Sirasute?

Ajarn Chai is one of the very first men to bring the art to the USA

Best,

-Rick

jerry davis
28th February 2002, 00:50
Seems like this thread has just about run the gauntlet. I can't see that anything at all was decided which is pretty typical of martial arts these days. I waded through this whole thread and all I see are people who think the world revolves around their particular "vision" of the martial arts. Well, it doesn't. Everyone has there reasons for doing things and, if they are happy and not hurting anyone else, their views should be respected. My observations: Where are the actual Japanese and Brazilians who could actually address these issues, rather than marginal people who just talk around and around them? Obviously, JJJ, by BJJ's own admission, is the root; everything else, no matter how far it has diverged, is a branch. Second, "classical" or "traditional" martial arts are only the sum total of the knowledge of the existing practitioners, not an absolute carried down through history unchanged from some original master or masters. Everyone remembers differently and adapts to their own circumstances. Another thing, in case nobody noticed it, the world is basically at "peace" right now. We are in a "-do" mode, not a "-jitsu" mode. Whether you are a cop working the street or fighting in an octagon, it isn't the same as living in a world at war. Nowadays, martial arts are mostly for entertainment. And entertainment has to be entertaining, not boring. BJJ and the other MMA were getting boring for a while, then they adapted and now they are entertaining again. But they aren't "real" in the "war" sense of killing the enemy on sight. None of the martial arts are "real" in that sense the way they are practiced today. We don't do that because we don't have to. The way I see it, it's good to have a strong foundation in specific concepts that are practical and functional, but, when it comes down to it, you use whatever works, not sit around and nitpick about what style does what. And what works is never a constant, because no situation is ever a constant. And we don't really experience that many situations these days anyway, otherwise there wouldn't be hardly anybody left to post here, and the rest would be too busy to worry about it. There's my opinion. Regards to all.

Mike Williams
28th February 2002, 09:46
What Jerry said!

Jerry, every MA website should be forced to have that post as an opening page - nice job.

Cheers,

Mike

Ben Reinhardt
28th February 2002, 18:50
Originally posted by Ruediger
Hi all,

i am not sure, but wasn't the Fusen Ryu the source for the judo groundwork...??

regards

Ruediger Meier

Well, nobody really knows for sure the origin of Fusen Ryu. Supposedly, the Kodokan lost one or more matches to the Fusen Ryu, due to the Fusen Ryu's strategy of engaging only in groundwork. The date of said contest is supposedly around 1900. The Kodokan had a groundwork syllabus before that time, so I doubt that Fusen Ryu is the source of Judo katame waza. Tenshin Shin'yo Ryu also had katame waza, and I'd think it is a more likely source for much of Judo katame waza.

Regards,

Ben Reinhardt

Ben Reinhardt
28th February 2002, 19:13
Originally posted by MarkF
To answer the question of grappling of judo and Fusen ryu, you are correct, but only so far. The grappling of judo does come from kito ryu, with a little of everything which Kano could get his hands on. "

Mark, you are going to hate me for this, but you are wrong. I'm sure that it's just because you wrote this off the top of your head.

Kodokan Judo, 1986 version, Chapter 9 of the paper back published in 1994, "Atemi Waza":
"While the throwing tecniques of Kodokan judo are based on those of the Kito School, striking techniques are, like the grappling techniques, derived from those of the Tenshi Shin'yo School."

Mark Wrote:"One thing which completes the picture of judo ne waza, is that western freestyle was also included, but not until a later date when Kano was given a demonstration of it."

Mark, I've always heard this but never seen any documentation of it in any of Kano Sensei's writings I've read (admitedly limited to English !). Personally, I seriously doubt there is any if much truth to it. I'll keep an open mind, though.

snip...
MarkF wrote:"BTW: Yes, it does say in Kodokan judo that nage waza and ne waza is taken from kitoryu, and atemi from tenjin shinyo,

Kito Ryu for throwing, correct, other, no it doesn't, see above...

MarkF wrote:"but that hasn't stoppend practitioners of classical judo from adding their spin on it. There were many different stylists of jujutsu at the Kodokan early on. Saigo Shiro was early on so what did a great practioner of daito ryu aiki jujutsu add to the mix?"

Arghh ! Mark, Shiro Saigo didn't learn Daito Ryu. He was never a student of Takeda. It's never really been established what Shiro Saigo studied or learned from Chickamasa Saigo, or whatever the Aizu guy's name was.

"No one since has been able to describe or even say how his "yama arashi" throw was accomplished, and the best guess is hane goshi, but I have also heard harai goshi, seoi nage/otoshi, and others."

True, but your best guesses are just that, WAGs.

Sorry, just wanted to continue the discussion a little http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif
Mark F. Feigenbaum


Your faithful correction demon,

Ben Reinhardt

Kit LeBlanc
28th February 2002, 19:37
RE: Fusen-ryu amd Judo.

I've made an acquaintance that recently began training in Fusen-ryu in Japan. He has noted that he has seen little Judo style newaza in the curriculum. It may be there, but he hasn't seen it yet in training or in demos, and seems to doubt that it looks like present day Kodokan newaza.

He did mention that in the schools randori he has seen groundwork and things like sangaku jime, but was not sure it was pure Fusen-ryu or just happened in grappling.

Mataemon Tanabe, a past headmaster of the Fusen-ryu and the "winner" of those matches with the Kodokan c. 1900 (I believe the story goes that he won the first the match, then won again a year later after his opponent, Tobari, concentrated on newaza) also appears in Yokoyama's Judo Kyohan demonstrating several of the katamewaza.

I've video of the Ryushin Katchu-ryu, derived from Tenjin Shinyo-ryu which shows an interesting sequence: Tomoe nage followed by a a BJJ style mount (sitting up) in which the collars are grabbed and three attempts are made at tsuki komi jime, which are defended and then the tori drops back into exactly the Judo/BJJ juji gatame.

Then again, the dropping juji gatame shows up in some of the really old koryu jujutsu, too.

A lot of the older schools probably added stuff to their curriculum for these kinds of matches over the more "battlefield" oriented tactics (i.e. pin him face down cut his throat stuff). In some traditions it may have survived, or they may have had particular members that concentrated on such things. I'm sure there is more on this available in Japanese rather than English.

Tony Peters
28th February 2002, 22:06
As Joel intimated Egan's Dojo is a rather rough place. It has the reputation of being quite rough here in Honolulu. No question that they have developed a number of talented fighters but I have heard way too many stories of people getting injured while training their for me to ever consider training there.
There is another non Gracie affiliated BBJ dojo on Kapiolani and a guy up towards the North shore. Relson Gracie was commended a year or two ago as the BJJ instructor of the year. I've attended a seminar with him as well as attending his Saturday morning Beginer's familiarity class. If his tuition wasn't so expensive I'd seriosly consider taking more BJJ. He's a nice guy and a phenominal teacher. As it is I get by on Judo (nice and Cheap).

DavidMasaki
1st March 2002, 05:16
Originally posted by Kolschey
At a seminar two years ago, I had the chance to talk to a senior instructor of Aikido about BJJ. While he had respect for it's capability as a very effective art for single person combat, he also was quick to point out that it is not an ideal form for all circumstances, or as he put it..
" I heard that the Marines were considering adopting the Gracie System. Now picture this.. You have a guy with body armour, web gear, night vision goggles- the whole works, and he's going to get down on the ground with someone and try to choke them into submission while meanwhile his( the adversary's) buddy comes up with a bayonet and skewers him?! This just doesn't make sense."

He's right, it doesn't make sense! Why would a marine have all that high tech equipment but no GUN or other weapon? Why would he be alone and not have buddies of his own for backup? Just because the Marines may teach BJJ techniques, doesn't mean they're going to walk around weaponless and by themselves in hostile terrority because they know a choke from BJJ. Sounds like your Aikido instructor just has a grudge against BJJ.

DavidMasaki
1st March 2002, 05:19
Originally posted by Tony Peters
There is another non Gracie affiliated BBJ dojo on Kapiolani and a guy up towards the North shore. Relson Gracie was commended a year or two ago as the BJJ instructor of the year. I've attended a seminar with him as well as attending his Saturday morning Beginer's familiarity class. If his tuition wasn't so expensive I'd seriosly consider taking more BJJ. He's a nice guy and a phenominal teacher. As it is I get by on Judo (nice and Cheap).

As far as prices go, I think Relson's class is pretty reasonable compared to other BJJ schools. $60 a month for 4 lessons and you can go and free train 6 days a week. You can learn more free training with all the guys that hang out there than from the lessons. But yeah, compared to judo with some clubs in Hawaii being $5 a month, it is some bucks.

charlesl
1st March 2002, 08:02
Tony Peters wrote:
As Joel intimated Egan's Dojo is a rather rough place. It has the reputation of being quite rough here in Honolulu. No question that they have developed a number of talented fighters but I have heard way too many stories of people getting injured while training their for me to ever consider training there.
There is another non Gracie affiliated BBJ dojo on Kapiolani and a guy up towards the North shore. Relson Gracie was commended a year or two ago as the BJJ instructor of the year. I've attended a seminar with him as well as attending his Saturday morning Beginer's familiarity class. If his tuition wasn't so expensive I'd seriosly consider taking more BJJ. He's a nice guy and a phenominal teacher. As it is I get by on Judo (nice and Cheap).


I've heard the same about Inoue's school as well. I've gotten the general *impression* that it's pretty much for (semi-)professional fighters and wannabes. And that people get hurt there a lot. But that's just what people've told me.

So, Tony, how was the gjj place? That's over on Queen St., right? Wierd coincidence, but I was thinking of going and checking it out next week(-end).

cu on sunday?

-Charles

DavidMasaki
1st March 2002, 10:19
Charles, you should definitely check out Relson's school. It's a great place to start BJJ training. Contrary to some of the posts here, everyone's very friendly and the instruction is very good.

godstar
1st March 2002, 11:19
Well its interesting that BJJrs try so hard to win converts as if it is a religion. An intersting fact that some JJJ styles ARE RELIGIONS, and most are based on shintoism. One thing that backed off my hatred of the Gracies was the fact that Helios had nine sons, anyone familiar with the kuji-in/kuji kiri.

To the thread title. What little I've seen of BJJ has been them moving around and putting their oponent in a bad position and then diving at his legs to finish it in ne-wasa. The rest of what I know has been some bad mannered kids(most of them in their thirty's) pissing people off so they can talk about their art ad nasium.

A little research turns up some not too flattering facts. First off the early UFC's were owned largely by the Gracie Family and a Gracie was the fight director- and they win suprise! Most of the arguments I've heard seemed to imply that if my art was valuable I would fight one of them to prove my art. In the past all matter of stylists in fact did fight them and several of them won, and to this day these same arts are often derided by BJJ practioners. A short list being TKD, Sambo, Judo, kempo, Coepernica etc. So why do BJJ-rs continue to badmouth these styles even though they have beaten them -while implying that this is what me and other people who are happy with their styles can do to prove it has some worth? :nono:

Now what is emerging in the combat sports is what is called MMA, which is basically BJJ, thai boxing, wrestling and western boxing. In the MMA paradigm there is an addition of one western art per eastern very aiki, and not the only one way one answere. If BJJ beating a low ranked boxer in the first UFC disproves its efficacy why are MMA now doing better if they learn it? So if royce dove at my legs and humiliated me eventually fighters would do better by learning something of my art.

Is an art better (martial art or otherwise) in every respect if it wins a duel? The answere is no and history has already had a highly visable example in the Martial arts. If you read Judo threads you are aware of a supposed JJJ vs. Judo match held by the tokyo polive to determine which art was superior for police work by a sporting event. And Judo won. But what is the rest of the story? Today the tokyo police use Yoshinkan aikido, because a lot of police ended up getting killed after the switch and needed another martial art. The thing was though that the old police jujutsu had weapons dissarms that worked.

Now to the thread title. Perhaps the two most significant loses in the minds of BJJrs has been to japanese fighters schooled in jujutsu. One of course being kimura and the other sakabura.

Methinks that just like the police example that its all a matter of appropriation. Is such and such an art good for this situation? I believe that as MMA competition fills out its curriculum it will borrow from more and more styles. But as far as appropriation goes some styles don't lend well to sports, but may have significant application in real life.

DavidMasaki
1st March 2002, 12:10
Originally posted by godstar
Well its interesting that BJJrs try so hard to win converts as if it is a religion.

I don't know if you're referring to me where I simply agreed with Charles he should check it out since he was already thinking about it, but I'm not trying to convert anyone to BJJ as a religion. I do Kyokushin, GJJ, and Judo. I'm open to learning new things and I don't think any one martial art has all the answers and respect them all (for the most part). I certainly don't look at BJJ as a religion. I personally don't train for NHB, I train sport BJJ because I enjoy the competition and sport and don't want to get get seriously hurt. When I tell people to check it out, it's like if if I was telling someone to go snowboarding because it's a fun sport. Haven't you ever found something you liked doing and told someone else about it? Did you ever try to get someone to play basketball with you? A game of football? Tell anyone to try anything new? Were you accused of trying to "get converts?" Would that sound ridiculous if you were? Well there you have it.

What irritates me is people who don't know jack about BJJ and try to speculate about the art and the people who train in it and make all these false assumptions about what it's really about based upon one thing they saw, one person they met, etc, and post their theories here. All they'd have to do is go to a school and check it out for a month and see what it's really about. BJJ has proven itself to be one of the most practical martial arts and yet it seems to get the least respect from traditionalists who constantly try to bash it.

I honestly I think a lot of times what prevents people from trying BJJ to get the real picture is that they look at their current martial art as a religion and doing so would somehow be sacriligous. So in their minds they try to justify that somehow BJJ is not all it's cracked up to be or try to rationalize that what they're doing is somehow superior. Not that I'm saying BJJ is in fact superior, but if you're coming from a martial art with any bit of tradition, you'll find it different. Training in BJJ is a lot more like training in wrestling than most martial arts because it doesn't require bowing, doesn't have a formal sempai/kohai relationship structure, etc. and everything you learn is stuff that you actually try to execute in competition.

Maybe the more people that know about BJJ, the fewer people we'll have posting stupid ideas theorizing about it. BJJ is not a theory art like so many other martial arts! I see so many people posting the same things over and over. "BJJ doesn't handle multiple attackers." "BJJ doesn't do this, BJJ doesn't do that." Well if they actually took BJJ and learned something about it, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to point out flaws in a system they know nothing about.

1st March 2002, 14:00
What irritates me is people who don't know jack about BJJ and try to speculate about the art and the people who train in it and make all these false assumptions about what it's really about based upon one thing they saw, one person they met, etc, and post their theories here. All they'd have to do is go to a school and check it out for a month and see what it's really about.

GREAT point! I mean just in general period! It is so true.

About Sak. I would not say BJJ is a sport. It has sport (Tournament-Vale Tudo) and self defense for life. It's an art. I would say however pride and all related "NHB" competitions ARE sports. And Bjj does well in them.

But, the environment of "NHB" is a fixed situation, meaning there are a set of rules and an objective. People (like Sak) adapt their game to win the competition. Gracies figured out a way to win for a while, and now others are adapting to the situation and figuring out ways to beat what the gracies have brought, and of course the gracies have and will adapt etc...

It's a sport where everyone can play if you are willing to hold to the rules. Any style at all, but it is really not style against style, but the individual adapting to the environment. Many things from BJJ that are not used in "NHB" anymore work EXCELLENT in Tournaments! Many self defense moves won't work well in either situation but are fine for self defense...

One of the problems I see, is that people see competitions and see style against style. No. It is individual against individual... The winner being the one who has adapted best to the environment and trained his body well enough to be able to DO that which he has figured out.

My 2 cents,

-Rick

Kit LeBlanc
1st March 2002, 16:42
Wondering why this thread seems to be starting all over again. Hint, folks, go back and read from the beginning.

Dave Masaki, TELL 'EM LIKE IT IS!!!

Godstar,

Best NOT to post and have us not be aware that you don't know what you are talking about RE: BJJ, rather than post, and prove it!


'Bye

Tony Peters
1st March 2002, 17:24
Originally posted by charlesl


I've heard the same about Inoue's school as well. I've gotten the general *impression* that it's pretty much for (semi-)professional fighters and wannabes. And that people get hurt there a lot. But that's just what people've told me.

So, Tony, how was the gjj place? That's over on Queen St., right? Wierd coincidence, but I was thinking of going and checking it out next week(-end).

cu on sunday?

-Charles

The funny thing about Egan's school is that it does have that reputation where as his brother's schools do not. I have rolled in Enson's school in Guam and it is much more mellow.
As for Relson's school I did the intro thing when they were on Koko Head ave. I've not been in the new school. They are (or were) quite cool I watched a few classes there. But I'm poor and in the end it came down to money.
Yes I'll be up on Sun...I had to work last week.

Kit LeBlanc
1st March 2002, 17:37
Tony,

Do you know Leonard Gabriel?

According to him, and the litany of injuries he has described to me, Enson is a VERY rough character....

Then again, training for MMA is, I think, a different thing and injuries are par for the course. We have to remember that one man's "injury" is another man's "owie."

Mike Williams
1st March 2002, 17:57
Enson and Egan are both pro fighters. If their gyms are for training pro-fighters, you've got to expect a different level of intensity to most 'hobby' (no disrespect intended) dojos.

I would imagine that pro-boxing gyms can be fairly intense, scary places, too.

Anyway, as Kit said we've come full circle. But has anybody answered John's original question? (will the word 'Jujutsu' come to imply Brazilian Jiu-jitsu?).

I think it all comes down to marketing - and whatever else you say about the Gracies, they've been hugely succesful at promoting their art worldwide (and particularly in the States) in a short space of time. I think this alone is one of the main causes of 'BJJ-bashing' amongst traditional MAists (TKD suffers from this too).

My impression FWIW (and it's mostly gleaned from the 'net, so beware! ;) ) is that in the USA BJJ has probably already supplanted JJJ in the public's eye.

In Europe, I think the term Ju-Jitsu had stronger public awareness to begin with. Britain already has its own indiginous style of JJ, and in Europe JJ is very often taught right alongside Judo at Judo dojos (and Judo is extremely popular).

Personally I don't care whether people think what I study is BJJ or JJJ - particularly since I just got my blue belt and that seems to carry a certain amount of kudos in the BJJ world! :D

Cheers,

Mike

Tony Peters
1st March 2002, 18:01
I don't know him. It has been a while since I've rolled in Guam, my last 4 trips, I was recovering from a dislocated thumb (Volleyball) I did notice that there were two distinct groups the fighters and the wrestlers so to speak. With the wrestlers doing more of the Submission Wrestling style. Those are the guys I rolled with. I've never had the pleasure of meeting Enson just his students.

Ben Reinhardt
1st March 2002, 19:08
Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc
RE: Fusen-ryu amd Judo.

I've made an acquaintance that recently began training in Fusen-ryu in Japan. He has noted that he has seen little Judo style newaza in the curriculum. It may be there, but he hasn't seen it yet in training or in demos, and seems to doubt that it looks like present day Kodokan newaza.

He did mention that in the schools randori he has seen groundwork and things like sangaku jime, but was not sure it was pure Fusen-ryu or just happened in grappling.

Mataemon Tanabe, a past headmaster of the Fusen-ryu and the "winner" of those matches with the Kodokan c. 1900 (I believe the story goes that he won the first the match, then won again a year later after his opponent, Tobari, concentrated on newaza) also appears in Yokoyama's Judo Kyohan demonstrating several of the katamewaza.

I've video of the Ryushin Katchu-ryu, derived from Tenjin Shinyo-ryu which shows an interesting sequence: Tomoe nage followed by a a BJJ style mount (sitting up) in which the collars are grabbed and three attempts are made at tsuki komi jime, which are defended and then the tori drops back into exactly the Judo/BJJ juji gatame.

Then again, the dropping juji gatame shows up in some of the really old koryu jujutsu, too.

A lot of the older schools probably added stuff to their curriculum for these kinds of matches over the more "battlefield" oriented tactics (i.e. pin him face down cut his throat stuff). In some traditions it may have survived, or they may have had particular members that concentrated on such things. I'm sure there is more on this available in Japanese rather than English.


Very interesting Kit. This is the only reference to current practice of Fusen Ryu I've seen coming from Japan. I've seen a couple from Europe, but nothing specific.

I wonder if it's the same as the original lineage that fought the Kodokan ? Any chance to get contact info ? This is kind of one of those mysteries of Judo history.

Does the Fusen Ryu you saw basically look like other koryu JJ styles ?

Thanks,

Ben Reinhardt

Ben Reinhardt
1st March 2002, 19:11
Originally posted by godstar
Well its interesting that BJJrs try so hard to win converts as if it is a religion. An intersting fact that some JJJ styles ARE RELIGIONS, and most are based on shintoism. One thing that backed off my hatred of the Gracies was the fact that Helios had nine sons, anyone familiar with the kuji-in/kuji kiri.

To the thread title. What little I've seen of BJJ has been them moving around and putting their oponent in a bad position and then diving at his legs to finish it in ne-wasa. The rest of what I know has been some bad mannered kids(most of them in their thirty's) pissing people off so they can talk about their art ad nasium.

A little research turns up some not too flattering facts. First off the early UFC's were owned largely by the Gracie Family and a Gracie was the fight director- and they win suprise! Most of the arguments I've heard seemed to imply that if my art was valuable I would fight one of them to prove my art. In the past all matter of stylists in fact did fight them and several of them won, and to this day these same arts are often derided by BJJ practioners. A short list being TKD, Sambo, Judo, kempo, Coepernica etc. So why do BJJ-rs continue to badmouth these styles even though they have beaten them -while implying that this is what me and other people who are happy with their styles can do to prove it has some worth? :nono:

Now what is emerging in the combat sports is what is called MMA, which is basically BJJ, thai boxing, wrestling and western boxing. In the MMA paradigm there is an addition of one western art per eastern very aiki, and not the only one way one answere. If BJJ beating a low ranked boxer in the first UFC disproves its efficacy why are MMA now doing better if they learn it? So if royce dove at my legs and humiliated me eventually fighters would do better by learning something of my art.

Is an art better (martial art or otherwise) in every respect if it wins a duel? The answere is no and history has already had a highly visable example in the Martial arts. If you read Judo threads you are aware of a supposed JJJ vs. Judo match held by the tokyo polive to determine which art was superior for police work by a sporting event. And Judo won. But what is the rest of the story? Today the tokyo police use Yoshinkan aikido, because a lot of police ended up getting killed after the switch and needed another martial art. The thing was though that the old police jujutsu had weapons dissarms that worked.

Now to the thread title. Perhaps the two most significant loses in the minds of BJJrs has been to japanese fighters schooled in jujutsu. One of course being kimura and the other sakabura.

Methinks that just like the police example that its all a matter of appropriation. Is such and such an art good for this situation? I believe that as MMA competition fills out its curriculum it will borrow from more and more styles. But as far as appropriation goes some styles don't lend well to sports, but may have significant application in real life.

Godstar is a known troll from rec.martial arts, if it matters to anyone.

Ben Reinhardt

godstar
1st March 2002, 21:40
Originally posted by godstar
Well its interesting that BJJrs try so hard to win converts as if it is a religion.
Originally posted by DavidMasaki
I don't know if you're referring to me


NO.

What irritates me is people who don't know jack about BJJ and try to speculate about the art and the people who train in it....

hmm... Pot Kettle, I like your post I really do but everything is reversed am I in the twilight zone or something. I have seen hundreds of posts by BJJrs deriding everything, and in most cases they are assuming that the person they are talking to is walking around on stilts doing kata exersize. You can check it out this way, look on an aikido forum, kung fu and so on, and they 90% know nothing about the other arts. You rarely find aikidoka going to a silat forum to deride their art. So why do all of these forums have BJJrs trying to win converts with Bullying and insults? And here this is a koryu-jj forum, which is supposed to be only for the discussion japanese jujutsu arts formed prior to the Meji Restoration(which clearly BJJ is not)? Why do BJJrs find it necessary to violate the forums policy in order to win more converts? This is hardly the action of an innocently attacked style as they tend to feel they are after invading where they are not invited.

So in their minds they try to justify that somehow BJJ is not all it's cracked up to be

Its not. Read My post where I point out that the GRACIE FAMILY owned and operated the UFC. The whole thing was nearly rigged. When they later sold out BJJ lost to X-styled Martial artists. And BJJ's most significant loses were to Japanese Grapplers. There are also other death matches that really go to the death, Kendange matches, kumite/jjj which the japanese govt. banned in the 1960's etc.:burnup:

or try to rationalize that what they're doing is somehow superior.

This is how most BJJ posts on this and other forums appear to me. :confused: No offense pedro but I don't have anything against Brazilians or Jujitsu its just an observation that when the two mix it forms a BIG EGO. :D Now I don't know if its just a bunch of stupid Idiots who have never been inside a dojo and just have the Gracie in action series(which is what I suspect.) :rolleyes: But if you want to change this cowboys mind, trying to get me to eyegouge you or fight you for real to the death isn't going to cut it. And if its just you and me I accept...:eek:

Not that I'm saying BJJ is in fact superior,

But usually 'superior' or 'ultimate' or some other ego satisfying adjective is used with gay abandon.

but if you're coming from a martial art with any bit of tradition, you'll find it different.

There are many unique systems. Mostly what people in the US call traditional isn't. Most of what you say to other people about not knowing your art is advice for yourself. Karate and so on is not tradtitional MA, in fact I would say they are a Business. That being said BJJ has done all it can to sell itself out.

Training in BJJ is a lot more like training in wrestling

Wrestling is thousands of years old. They used to do it in the nude with oil in greco roman times... India may have the oldest unbroken line of groundfighting but I'm not sure. I know for sure that kukishin ryu has ne-wasa from being pushed on your back with a stick, and that japanese geisha(prostitutes) used ne-wasa as well.

Maybe the more people that know about BJJ, the fewer people we'll have posting stupid ideas theorizing about it.

We hope. But I think that BJJ trolls will have to change first because their are too many styles that promote egoism, arrogance and so on -for magically all MA stylists to be kind balanced and just and so on...:smash:

BJJ is not a theory art like so many other martial arts!

Name them ... I'll start. Aiki(do) JU(do/jitsu)

I see so many people posting the same things over and over. "BJJ doesn't handle multiple attackers." "BJJ doesn't do this, BJJ doesn't do that."

Well they do this because BJJrs try to approach other martial artists(and they may be the kids with only video tapes) in hostile manner. :mad:

Every time in the past that I have had hope for BJJrs on forums I have been dissapointed. :cry: So perhaps today is the start of a new era, perhaps its not.

Since you are in koryu forum if you want to learn and grow, you should actually research where BJJ ne-wasa came from.

Besides I am clearly not smart for responding, this only enforces the fight and the bickering. But hey truth will out!

Lets face it usenet is about bickering and I'm here to fight.

Well if they actually took BJJ and learned something about it, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to point out flaws in a system they know nothing about.

Ah so you ADMIT it has flaws... :toast:

Consider my religion comment.

Greg Howard-

Meynard Ancheta
1st March 2002, 22:03
Hey Greg,

Who cares? Just train. You obviously read too much forum junk and not train enough.

Kit LeBlanc
1st March 2002, 22:33
Originally posted by Ben Reinhardt



Very interesting Kit. This is the only reference to current practice of Fusen Ryu I've seen coming from Japan. I've seen a couple from Europe, but nothing specific.

I wonder if it's the same as the original lineage that fought the Kodokan ? Any chance to get contact info ? This is kind of one of those mysteries of Judo history.

Does the Fusen Ryu you saw basically look like other koryu JJ styles ?

Thanks,

Ben Reinhardt

The current soke is named Inoue, if I remember correctly. Daniel Lee has had some contact with them as well, and provided me with some information on the school. There are apparently several other groups training, from what I gather all in the same area, and doing so as sort of study groups with varying levels of connection to the soke. Tanabe was I think the 4th headmaster, but I really don't know if it may be a completely separate line.

My acquaintance sent me a short video of a demo and yes, it looked like other koryu jujutsu. Weapons, wristlocks, self defense against strikes etc. He showed me one or two things but only on a quick break from a seminar in an unrelated art, so it was by no means comprehensive, and I don't believe that he considers himself to have a comprehensive knowledge of Fusen-ryu at this time. What he showed me was just like other koryu jujutsu as well. I hope to continue our contact so that I can see more and search out the roots of this elusive newaza element.

My initial impression is as I described above...Fusen-ryu is like other koryu jujutsu schools and probably taught more pinning and controls to gain the opportunity to deploy a blade, or in response to an armed attack, rather than Judo/BJJ style newaza.

From what I have gleaned in my own studies, as well as sitting at the feet of teachers such as mister Amdur, due to the prevalence of taryu jiai in Meiji, I think many schools adjusted their curriculum for that style of fighting, which I described a little above...throws only "counted" if the man couldn't continue, and otherwise matches were won by pins, locks, or strangles. Striking was generally not allowed in such training matches or matches while visiting other dojo, etc. Even formerly "battlefield" systems developed unarmed techniques for this kind of fighting. Really it reminds me of submission grappling the way it is practiced now or say BJJ matches, rather than Judo.

Now, for some conjecture...Fusen-ryu no doubt had their own specialists in this kind of match, which Tanabe probably was, and he probably figured that like today, not a lot of people are very adept at groundwork unless they focus their training on it. If the Judo/Fusen-ryu thing happened c. 1900, they had many years after the famed police matches to develop a style that the Kodokan was probably familiar with (like all koryu jujutsu would have) but not EXPERT at ...and there you have it. Tanabe is also in the famous 1906 picture of all the Jujutsu masters and Kano, and since he also appears in Yokoyama's book, his expertise was probably called on to help develop the newaza curriculum of the Kodokan. Question is was it Fusen-ryu, or was it simply something Tanabe developed for taryu jiai from his overall jujutsu knowledge?

This calls to mind other questions though. Kashiwazaki says in his Shimewaza book that sangaku jime, for example, was not a classical jujutsu technique, except for one variation. But I think I saw a picture of a Tatsumi-ryu exponent doing the technique. It might be on Koryu.com. Of course, I don't know if it WAS sangaku, or if it was, say the armbar variation of sangaku, or if it WAS Tatsumi-ryu but only AFTER someone added JUDO's sangaku to the curriculum, or that Tatsumi-ryu is the variation Kashiwazaki was thinking of!

Still digging....

Here's the link...looking at it again, it is definitely NOT sangaku...

http://koryu.com/photos/tsrboso93.html

Tony Peters
2nd March 2002, 01:14
Originally posted by godstar

japanese geisha(prostitutes) used ne-wasa as well.

Lets face it usenet is about bickering and I'm here to fight.


Greg Howard-

Two things I have a problem with Greg

1) Japanese Geisha are not now nor have they ever been Prostitutes.

2) this is not Usenet it is a BBS and there are rules dictating behavior. If all you are here for is to start fights do it elseware otherwise behave.

As to the subject at hand. Yes many of the Gracie flag wavers have no real idea what they are talking about even when refering to their own (supposedly) art/style. As for the fight game remember Chuck Norris did real well when he enterd the full contact game because no one had seen the Korean style that he had. Now the big thing is Muy Thai. MMA had to change and with it so did GJJ/BJJ. 5 years ago they, BJJ, didn't have leglocks (just like Judo) like the Koryu when they were Genryu (to use a term from Ellis Amdur) they are constantly adapting. I still feel that they are too ground/ne waza based but that is where they are comfortable. I prefer a better mix

DavidMasaki
4th March 2002, 03:33
Hi Tony,

Actually BJJ always had leg locks.



Greg,

The facts that GJJ came from a student of Kano, and that the Gracies created the UFC to promote Gracie Jiu-Jitsu are not startling revelations. They're common knowledge. Obviously you haven't been around very long. Maybe you should pick up a tape of the first few UFCs when the Gracies still owned it. They didn't hide the fact at all. But if on the otherhand can prove that the fights were rigged, that would be a revelation. However, I seriously doubt you have some substantiated information that no one else does.


David

godstar
4th March 2002, 08:25
Two things I have a problem with Greg
1) Japanese Geisha are not now nor have they ever been Prostitutes.
2) this is not Usenet it is a BBS and there are rules dictating behavior. If all you are here for is to start fights do it elseware otherwise behave.


Good koshijutsu. I wonder if you meant something deeper by choosing these two points instead of the major points that I made. Is one yin and one yang?:toast:

Geisha I think translates to entertainer person(Gei -entertainment acting etc)(and sha(ja) person)-I think please correct me that is what I was told. Its obvious that female Geisha in japan often included sexual favors within their job as actor entertainers... But your post brought into question the techniques I was taught. I vaguely remember in japanese history, that higher ranked geisha were rarely prostitutes. What I was shown as geisha -jujutsu was movements- designed to work for a female in restrictive clothing, they rotated or bowed in standing kata and used groundfighting that was obviously rape self defense. I don't remember the name of the ryu nor know how authentic the movements were. Just some round eye showing me some things he saw in japan.

The second point. Everyone who posts a dissenting view is in some way being a troll. Is that always bad? Well if the troll in question only posts things to increase ignorant ranting no its not. But if you can open up an intelligent debate the troll in question will have hit his mark.:smokin: Lets face it Grappling arts favor people with lower centers of gravity, and a troll has a lower center of gravity. They also work against stronger attackers and yes this often happens when trolls face Wizards and Gobblins.:laugh:

Greg-:nin:

Tony Peters
4th March 2002, 20:23
Originally posted by DavidMasaki
Hi Tony,

Actually BJJ always had leg locks.

David

David,
I knew that they had them (leglocks) but that they were not practiced with any regularity until the late ninties. It was my impression that they only worked on the defences and not so much on the application until more of the BJJ guys started seeing the various leglocks in competitions (submisson grappling not NHB).

Greg,
my chief complaints were about your tone and the fact that your post on Geisha showed that you have/had done little research on what they really were. Yes sex was a part of what they did but on a very low level (and usually only when they were young). Older ones usually had a benefactor (who they may or may not have slept with) and the rest of their clients. Sex of any sort in their regular business would ruin their ability to continue working. There have been some very good books written about the geisha one even written by the only american to become one. Using facts helps an argument.
I could care less about whether you disagree with others just the way you do it.

godstar
4th March 2002, 21:35
DavidMasaki Wrote
The facts that GJJ came from a student of Kano, and that the Gracies created the UFC to promote Gracie Jiu-Jitsu are not startling revelations.

Believe it or not I have no reason to prejudice myself against brazilians or jujutsu or martial sports I've done all three. ;)

They're common knowledge.

I believe that most people in the world who don't do martial arts and don't have a two thousand dollar computer know anything about this sort of thing. The first thing I ever learned about BJJ was some beligerant a**hole telling TKDrs their art was useless. And I was like hey in jujutsu we treat people with respect and they layed in to me. And since then my impression has been mostly bad. The UFC's are a little more than human cock fights. And it appears to me that this sort of promotion attracted a lot of people with inferiority complexes - who lach on to something they see as strong -and they can bully people with in hypothetical land - Gracie Jujitsu.

Obviously you haven't been around very long.

That's not true I've trained in MA since I was seven. I've always gone into a dojo to learn, I have never challenged anyone or felt the need to prove my style is superior. I have always felt in my training that each style has its strengths and weaknesses, both in combat and in individual growth.

Maybe you should pick up a tape of the first few UFCs when the Gracies still owned it. They didn't hide the fact at all.

I did. And they didn't announce it over and over or flash it on the screen. Most people were given an impression that it was an absolutely no rules fight and people gave the impression that each martial sport was given equal opportunity in this matchup. The Gracies by choosing the venue and constituants clearly had an advantage over all other martial sports.

But if on the otherhand can prove that the fights were rigged, that would be a revelation.

:cry: Yeah thats what It looks like to me.:cry:

However, I seriously doubt you have some substantiated information that no one else does.

See thats what concerns me. I don't and yet with the EGO and all the other stuff I tend not to have enough faith in them to rule this out.

But lets expand suspicious details. As an open minded person I watched the first UFC. Question one why would they hold it in the mile high city? We know from the Olympics that athletes had problems there due to the thin air. My guess is that they have had Royce train their for several weeks to increase his lung mass(which you must do in the mile high city or get quick fatigue.) Shamrock clearly hadn't done this since he said he flew in from Japan. Shoto by the way is rigged -that is common knowledge. So the victory was to someone who threw matches for money in Japan. The rest of the fighters were out of shape and had shotty records- and most of them didn't actually do their style correctly or at all(see the TKD guy.)

Now Just think if Other BJ proponents had been humble no one would have been annoyed enough to point this out to you.

godstar
4th March 2002, 22:01
Tony Peters

Greg,
my chief complaints were about your tone

Sorry. :confused:

and the fact that your post on Geisha showed that you have/had done little research on what they really were. Yes sex was a part of what they did but on a very low level

Your right that I haven't done that much research on them, and it is a common misconception that they all are prostitutes. A misconception that I unfortunately helped propogate in my post. But we shouldn't go so far as to say they were never prostitutes. So we must seek universal balance in this. :)

-Greg Howard-:nin:

Tony Peters
5th March 2002, 00:05
Originally posted by godstar
Tony Peters

Greg,
my chief complaints were about your tone

Sorry. :confused:

and the fact that your post on Geisha showed that you have/had done little research on what they really were. Yes sex was a part of what they did but on a very low level

Your right that I haven't done that much research on them, and it is a common misconception that they all are prostitutes. A misconception that I unfortunately helped propogate in my post. But we shouldn't go so far as to say they were never prostitutes. So we must seek universal balance in this. :)

-Greg Howard-:nin:


If one takes the Webster's definition of "prostitute" which is "one who engages in intercorse for money" "a person who willingly engages in intercourse for monetary gain" then a Geisha isn't one as they never saw the money for anytime they were "paid" for sex. The money...all of it...went to the house mother. The geisha herself was considered a slave.

jerry davis
5th March 2002, 17:10
Just a couple of things. Obvioulsy, whether any of the Gracies' matches were rigged or not, they are obviously very, very good, as are the Brazilians in general. MMA is a sport, and sometimes sports are rigged. However, in the absence of actual evidence, it's probably better to assume everything is above board. After all, it takes two to tango. There has to be wrong on the loser's side as well. In any case, I kind of like to judge for myself what is "real" or not. I thought Royce looked pretty hard-pressed against Kimo. I only have about 30 years in martial arts, but some of these fighters look to me like they are really taking a beating, unlike the "professional wrestling" shows. Overall, I'd say MMA has been a great boon to JJJ, and the martial arts in general, not to mention the interest and economic boom it has produced. Martial artists actually making money at what they really do, as opposed to movies or phony TV serials. I think it's great. We haven't seen this much interest in martial arts since Bruce Lee passed on. (It's just a shame he isn't still here to add his own wrinkles to the MMA picture.) And the great thing is, there is no end in sight. The whole thing rolls along by the weight of many talented people, rather than living and dying by the exploits of one person. Although the title of this thread is BJJ vs. JJJ, I can't help but see how the evolution of MMA is going to bring them both back towards the middle eventually. Regards.

DavidMasaki
6th March 2002, 13:01
Originally posted by Tony Peters


I knew that they had them (leglocks) but that they were not practiced with any regularity until the late ninties. It was my impression that they only worked on the defences and not so much on the application until more of the BJJ guys started seeing the various leglocks in

Hmm.. Not sure about that. But I guess it depends on where you train and who you train with. Like Relson doesn't like to teach much leglocks because it's easy to get hurt. The amount of leglock practice from 5 years ago seems about the same to me now although I haven't trained much in the last year. Earlier you said "5 years ago they, BJJ, didn't have leglocks (just like Judo)." Even if they weren't practiced much, a key difference is that BJJ tournaments always allowed them where Judo tournaments do not. Although some BJJ may place restrictions like no heel hooks.

Tony Peters
6th March 2002, 17:15
David,
I had always thought that the leg work was illegal in competition, like Judo, I didn't realize that it was just a "don't practice because of injury possiblities" thing. Personally I can take or leave heelhooks. I've always found them difficult to lock and painfull even if you aren't in danger. They seem more like an abuse technique than a finishing move (at least in my limited experience). Kneebars on the other had I love...such an easy thing when you stand up in an open guard.

Ben Reinhardt
11th March 2002, 06:13
Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc


The current soke is named Inoue, if I remember correctly. Daniel Lee has had some contact with them as well, and provided me with some information on the school. There are apparently several other groups training, from what I gather all in the same area, and doing so as sort of study groups with varying levels of connection to the soke. Tanabe was I think the 4th headmaster, but I really don't know if it may be a completely separate line.

My acquaintance sent me a short video of a demo and yes, it looked like other koryu jujutsu. Weapons, wristlocks, self defense against strikes etc. He showed me one or two things but only on a quick break from a seminar in an unrelated art, so it was by no means comprehensive, and I don't believe that he considers himself to have a comprehensive knowledge of Fusen-ryu at this time. What he showed me was just like other koryu jujutsu as well. I hope to continue our contact so that I can see more and search out the roots of this elusive newaza element.

My initial impression is as I described above...Fusen-ryu is like other koryu jujutsu schools and probably taught more pinning and controls to gain the opportunity to deploy a blade, or in response to an armed attack, rather than Judo/BJJ style newaza.

From what I have gleaned in my own studies, as well as sitting at the feet of teachers such as mister Amdur, due to the prevalence of taryu jiai in Meiji, I think many schools adjusted their curriculum for that style of fighting, which I described a little above...throws only "counted" if the man couldn't continue, and otherwise matches were won by pins, locks, or strangles. Striking was generally not allowed in such training matches or matches while visiting other dojo, etc. Even formerly "battlefield" systems developed unarmed techniques for this kind of fighting. Really it reminds me of submission grappling the way it is practiced now or say BJJ matches, rather than Judo.

Now, for some conjecture...Fusen-ryu no doubt had their own specialists in this kind of match, which Tanabe probably was, and he probably figured that like today, not a lot of people are very adept at groundwork unless they focus their training on it. If the Judo/Fusen-ryu thing happened c. 1900, they had many years after the famed police matches to develop a style that the Kodokan was probably familiar with (like all koryu jujutsu would have) but not EXPERT at ...and there you have it. Tanabe is also in the famous 1906 picture of all the Jujutsu masters and Kano, and since he also appears in Yokoyama's book, his expertise was probably called on to help develop the newaza curriculum of the Kodokan. Question is was it Fusen-ryu, or was it simply something Tanabe developed for taryu jiai from his overall jujutsu knowledge?

This calls to mind other questions though. Kashiwazaki says in his Shimewaza book that sangaku jime, for example, was not a classical jujutsu technique, except for one variation. But I think I saw a picture of a Tatsumi-ryu exponent doing the technique. It might be on Koryu.com. Of course, I don't know if it WAS sangaku, or if it was, say the armbar variation of sangaku, or if it WAS Tatsumi-ryu but only AFTER someone added JUDO's sangaku to the curriculum, or that Tatsumi-ryu is the variation Kashiwazaki was thinking of!

Still digging....

Here's the link...looking at it again, it is definitely NOT sangaku...

http://koryu.com/photos/tsrboso93.html

Kit, thanks for sharing your information. Keep us posted on this, maybe on the Judo Forum ?

I've seen the pic from Koryu.com before. I though it looked like a variation of Juji Gatame (from Judo), and pointed it out to several folks as an example of the technique in koryu JJ. Your point regarding when it entered the syllabus is a good one. We may never know.

Ben Reinhardt

WhiteDevil
25th June 2002, 01:14
You guys are a bunch of cry babies!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Gracie's have never bad mouthed any "Traditional" Japanese Sensei. In all of their books, they give credit to the Japanese. You guys should take note.

The Gracie's will try to finish the fight before it hit the ground. Get your facts straight.

No style ( including JJJ ) can claim to beat multiple attackers. Do the math.

Name the last "Traditional" JJJ stylist that has recently put a butt whoopin' on any Gracie family member. Well??????????????????

BJJ has evolved from JJJ. That's a given. However, John L. Sullivan would have lost to Sugar Ray Leonard who in turn would lose to Mike Tyson.........evolving is a good thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whaaaaaaaa Whaaaaaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaaa

Somebody call the Whaaaaaaambulance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

vadrip
25th June 2002, 08:12
Actually bjj is from judo, not actually jujutsu, even though judo is born out of jujutsu and a style of jujutsu. If anything it's really brazilian judo as opposed to jujutsu. Judo used randori as it's mainstay as opposed to kata like jujutsu did and developed new techniques in nage waza and newaza from randori and it's challenge matches with jujutsu . Maeda, the judoka sent to teach judo in Brazil, taught the Gracies prewar kodokan judo and wrestling; catch wrestling probably due to Maeda's prowrestling days, not jujutsu.

Doing it's prewar days judo had neck, leg & spine locks, unorthodox gripping and chokes, throws to the front, weapons and atemi training. The atemi and striking was more varied as well too. Sambo is another art born out of judo too, with other traditional wrestling styles thrown in for good measure. Traditional jujutsu emphasized standing joint locks, throws, kata, newaza and weapons and very little randori.

It is very unlikely that jujutsu had much groundwork due to the fact they trained for the battefield and hand to hand was the last resort since they used weapons and wore armor and did not want to be on the ground during a battle. Bjj focuses more on groundwork instead of throws like modern sport judo does, but it's groundwork is traceable to judo. Kosen judo is ground oriented judo that developed alot of the drag downs to guard to apply armbars that bjj is known for and such. Bjj is different, but not as different as compared to judo and jujutsu, but is closer to judo than people really realise.


One needs to find the rare out of print books which showcase the larger wealth of techniques judo developed in newaza; some these early books were also called jujutsu not judo even though were judo. Many of the techniques bjj claims to have been created were in judo long before bjj was created.

The unfamiliarity with judo is why most americans and europeans called judo jujustu instead of judo; jujutsu never really branched to other countries until well after judo did. After that time is was more so gendai(modern) jujutsu meaning it was influenced by judo, so it was full circle again. Famous judoka like the late Mikonosuke Kawaishi were known for keeping the original judo newaza intact. Talk to Mark Tripp, a man known researching early judo and someone who teaches it as well, who was in a issue of grappling magazine sometime ago.

MarkF
25th June 2002, 08:41
Orlando,
This guy isn't interested, he's a troll. He opens an old thread (for whatever reason) and makes himself look foolish.


Mark

fifthchamber
25th June 2002, 14:49
Hi all,
Comments like the post above also work well at depicting the writer as completely and utterly idiotic. If you cannot construct a coherent and well thought out and expressed argument for your point of view any point that you make looks foolish. YOU look foolish and also those you represent get dragged down by your lame and irrational moaning...Why bother.
Does anyone here other than Whitedevil think his arguments are the products of a well thought out line of reason? I doubt it....Twat.
Abayo

Guts
25th June 2002, 16:21
I just want to say I found Orlandos post really informative, I learned allot.

RobRPM2222
7th July 2002, 12:27
using the term "Japanese Jujitsu" covers so much territory.

I train a Gendai Japanese Jujitsu style. A number of people from the school compete in MMA competitions. Our groundwork comes from older-style judo and some other Japanese jujitsu. Wrestling, boxing, some aspects of karate and kobudo, some aspects of aikido and aikido weapons work, some koryu weapons work (I think, not sure on this one) and Muay Thai are all also incorporated. The teacher was teaching this kind of stuff pre-UFC as a synthesis of his training in the martial arts.

I don't want to sounds like I am talking shit on other arts or get some huge flamewar started, but people from the school have competed against people with a similar or greater amount of time in other arts including BJJ in no-gi submission tourneys and MMA matches, and won consistently enough. They have also lost too, but that is the nature of competition.

anyway, there are so many jujitsu styles that it's hard to generalize them all, even when seperating arts into koryu and gendai, etc.

godstar
8th July 2002, 20:34
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhiteDevil


Great post really,



The Gracie's have never bad mouthed any "Traditional" Japanese Sensei. In all of their books, they give credit to the Japanese. You guys should take note.


No its Just the kids with the video tapes who probably don't even train in a real style. I live in Chicago and there are really only about two dojo's that claim to do BJJ, and one is run by a Gracie. For some mysterous reason I've been in other cities where there is no one with authentic lineage to teach that stuff at all and ten or so mc dojo's are BJJ schools. For Yaks I called one of them in indianapolis and after pressing the instructor it turned out he only held rank in kenpo. So how is a kenpo BB going to teach BJJ better than a Judo school or koryu JJ school? Whats going to happen to someone who's watched the Gracies in action too many times and decides to fight a real JJ school that studied BJJ to help fill in newasa but failed to put it on the door or make bogus claims? And what if its a deadly style that decides to make a point that day?


The Gracie's will try to finish the fight before it hit the ground. Get your facts straight.


Our style mainly puts uke or attacker on the ground with one move often they are taken down in a submission or even standing submissions are used.


No style ( including JJJ ) can claim to beat multiple attackers. Do the math.


There are credible stories where people for whatever reason rose to the occaison and trampled multiple attackers. I've heard them mainly associated with aikido, ninpo, silat, to a lesser degree kenpo students. There was an aikido guy in chicago who ended up doing community service for his trouble.


Name the last "Traditional" JJJ stylist that has recently put a butt whoopin' on any Gracie family member. Well??????????????????


Right the Traditional JJJ stylist and the Gracie will both kick your ass. When was the last time you fought either one?


BJJ has evolved from JJJ. That's a given. However, John L. Sullivan would have lost to Sugar Ray Leonard who in turn would lose to Mike Tyson.........evolving is a good thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Real evolution takes place on a total level. Intelligent being such as ourselves aren't stronger than bears or faster than cockroaches.


Whaaaaaaaa Whaaaaaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaaa


[/COLOR=royalblue]
Somebody call the Whaaaaaaambulance!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/COLOR]

godstar
8th July 2002, 21:48
Hi I'm sorry for not posting my name in the last post, I rarely post and forgot, don't usually do it on other servers.

I just wanted to add something.

I don't think it is necessary to discuss arts that people don't know much about.

I have come eventually to the unpopular opinion that real combat effectiveness is contained in the kata exersizes and what convinced me of this was looking at Don Draegers books. I won't discuss this right now.

But I have noticed that some older books of say karate no jutsu, show more combative application of karate than is studied today. Old Tae Kwan Do used to be full contact kick boxing, a serviceman was killed in korea by an Ax kick. Same can be said with Judo being more realistic in original form than now.

My essential point is why is there so much de-evolution in MA practice rather than a timeline of increasing effectiveness?

I think its in the attitude of the practioners, and the simple darwinian strength of arts that don't really demand much, Tae Kwan do is of course the superior art in numbers.

The Japanese have a saying, grow like a tree not like a weed. Why assume that massively overselling an art leads to combat effectiveness? Or that a Daito ryu school or Koryu Jujutsu school will benefit from attracting the inevitable weeds from winning global events?

Now for MMA/NHB/BJJ crowed who are so gung ho. You have already accepted unecessary rule augmentation, weight classes, gloves and padding. I think the arguments that you'd win on a more realistic playing field are lovely but wouldn't you be tougher if at the higher levels all safety nets were eventually removed.

Greg Howard

edg176
9th July 2002, 01:05
Greg,

If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have agreed with what you said in your post:


I have come eventually to the unpopular opinion that real combat effectiveness is contained in the kata exersizes and what convinced me of this was looking at Don Draegers books. I won't discuss this right now.

However, through testing my own personal training, I have discovered that concentrating on kata training (pre-arranged exercises) is not the answer to combat effectiveness. A tool, yes but not all.

I should point out that Draeger himself had EXTENSIVE experience in judo, kendo and karate, all arts with heavy sparring components. He was a training partner of Jon Bluming and coach to All Japan Judo champion Isao Inokuma. He knew a thing or two about freestyle fighting. Anyway, there are people who read this board who actually knew and trained with Mr. Draeger so I'll leave any other comments about that to them. If you do a search on E-budo or Usenet you will see that plenty of them have already weighed in on this subject.

That's my take on it. Your mileage may vary.

fifthchamber
9th July 2002, 14:59
Hi all.
I have expressed my beliefs here previously but thought it would fit in again nicely here so this is my own view on the issue here. Essentially there is no one perfect method of training for all people that works in creating a more 'effective' style...All we as practitioners can do is to try as many various methods as is possible and use those we believe to benefit us most in our training.
Randori/sparring can be very useful for some aspects of training. However Kata can be equally useful and to use one but never the other seems rather limited to me.
No master I can think of has ever really trained by only using one method...They have experimented and tried as many variations as possible in their creation of their skills..This has always been the case. No master in the past advocated ONLY training Kata as the perfect tool, this is why things like Shinai were invented...to allow a variation of training and adaptability for the students...It is quite ridiculous to try and argue that Kata only creates a perfect teacher...It cannot as it in itself a 'limitation' of that teacher and to excel the opposite needs to be embraced. Freedom of thought is essential in training and a user made blend is the best way to personally improve in any specifics you wish to specify, be that in Kata, in Randori, or in competition. You need a goal and the means to reach it. NOT a handicap and a limitation on what you can do..
Regarding why training seems to get less 'effective' as the years roll on I believe that one reason has to be that commercially Martial arts make less sense to 'prospective' students...MA are painful, possibly dangerous and require one to step out from the safety zone of comfort we all have...People generally are far more ready for sport and rules as it provides a 'safety net' for them (However small) and something they can aim for....No one really wants to kill others now and therefore the effectiveness of the form becomes adapted to suit modern needs of the students...Usually more sporting and certainly less dangerous.
IMHO...Long issue however..
Abayo

godstar
10th July 2002, 20:47
Originally posted by edg176
Greg,


I should point out that Draeger himself had EXTENSIVE experience in judo, kendo and karate, all arts with heavy sparring components. He was a training partner of Jon Bluming and coach to All Japan Judo champion Isao Inokuma. He knew a thing or two about freestyle fighting. Anyway, there are people who read this board who actually knew and trained with Mr. Draeger so I'll leave any other comments about that to them. If you do a search on E-budo or Usenet you will see that plenty of them have already weighed in on this subject.


But Draeger never retracted his opinion even though he participated in arts that had a heavy competition element to them did he?

Karate, kendo, and Judo are perfect examples, without kata the arts have absolutely zero techniques. Judo has weapons dissarm and karate has grab escapes. All in katas.

Greg Howard

wmuromoto
11th July 2002, 01:30
I don't consider myself at all having been that close to Draeger, because I only trained with him and did some things with him a couple of times before he passed away, but IMHO he was a complex, highly opinionated, very knowledgeable martial arts researcher. From what I could gather, in his later years he certainly soured on competitive budo, but it had as much to do with technical reasons as with the budo politics and personalities that infested budo even in (or especially in) Japan. He was sick and tired of the politics and shenanigans of large budo organizations.

In my opinion, I don't know how I could have separated Draeger's abilities as a practitioner between his koryu and modern budo training. He had a toughness and resilience, even when he was gravely ill, that I assumed came both from the physical demands of training at the Kodokan with the best players in the world, in addition to all his years of kata geiko. Throw in some real world experiences during his military service and a mind that never stopped looking for answers, and you had a very well-rounded budo person.

I never heard him personally speak ill of any outstanding practitioner in any martial art (save for a couple of Americans whose names will not go mentioned in this post or I'll start another flame war), although he often noted the technical limits of sport budo. He did make fun of the obvious silliness that infested modern martial arts a lot, though, and you have to admit, a lot of stuff in the public media was ridiculous then, when America was at the height of the Bruce Lee craze.

He stuck to the original concepts of judo, yet introduced scientific weight training and the concept of cross training in different martial arts; he was a stickler for believable, physically provable techniques, yet a couple stories he told me illustrated his respect for Chinese chi masters who he thought were legit. He wanted to preserve the koryu in as pure a form as possible, yet he opened much of it up to other Westerners like myself.

I don't think his actions were contradictory, but to make the example of his life relevent to this thread, I think he recognized the limits of sport budo, and yet he was a beneficiary and very good example of the positive effects sport budo could have on a practitioner. In retrospect, perhaps what he most railed against was how a lot of modern budo, due to politics and sports-craziness, had forgotten its original intent and seriousness, as well as martial applicability. This is only my opinion, but I think he still loved the art of judo, for example, but hated what it had become due to politics and personalities.

Wayne Muromoto


Wayne Muromoto

Menker
23rd September 2005, 20:40
Just stumbled across this old thread doing some research, and I thought I'd share this recent article on the topic:

Submission Grappling vs. Classical Ju-jutsu: when cultures and concepts collide (http://www.grapplearts.com/Submission-Grappling-vs-ju-jutsu.htm)

Enjoy!

Margaret Lo
26th September 2005, 16:54
This has got to be one of the all time most educational threads. The last comparison site was very useful as I was considering BJJ. I decided to start training in a JJJ, and this thread helped confirm my reasoning. Thank you all. Plus, what happened to Joel? Did he take up BJJ? How did that go?

M

Hissho
26th September 2005, 22:42
Interesting to see your own views in print five years hence. I've seen most confirmed and re-confirmed with experience, and others revised and revisited.

I heard from Joel recently and he was doing fine - joined the Army, for which I have great respect.

MikeWilliams
26th September 2005, 23:22
Interesting to see your own views in print five years hence.

LOL, yes it is! Another forum that I frequent actually forbids bumping old threads, in case people once wrote things that they now regret.

Your posts still stand on their own merit, 'though.


Margaret, care to share how you finally made your training decision?

mikeym
27th September 2005, 00:52
Interesting to see your own views in print five years hence. I've seen most confirmed and re-confirmed with experience, and others revised and revisited.

Mr. Leblanc,

Care to share what you changed your mind about? Your earlier posts were very interesting.

- Mike

Hissho
27th September 2005, 02:06
Mikeym-

Please call me Kit.

Not really that my mind was changed, more that I see different practices as different expressions of the same root principles and strategies. They mold to alternative purposes - whether the ultimate aim is self protection, police application, holistic discipline, or sport. BJJ is great for some things, not others. Judo same. Classical jujutsu, same. You gotta find what fits what the best.

What has been confirmed is that no matter what the flavor of jujutsu, if performance is the measure, it needs to be practiced at least half the time in an antagonistic, uncooperative, resistive, or as some say "alive" manner. Call it randori, sparring, resistive drilling, what have you.

I also try not to be so blunt, these days. I'm not always successful.

Hissho
27th September 2005, 02:08
LOL, yes it is! Another forum that I frequent actually forbids bumping old threads, in case people once wrote things that they now regret.

Your posts still stand on their own merit, 'though.



LOL, more like I realize how broken the record is....

Margaret Lo
27th September 2005, 17:53
LOL, yes it is! Another forum that I frequent actually forbids bumping old threads, in case people once wrote things that they now regret.

Your posts still stand on their own merit, 'though.


Margaret, care to share how you finally made your training decision?

Hi Mike,
My decision was based on my conclusion that JJJ is a better fit than BJJ for understanding shotokan karate kata applications. Kata clearly has defenses against weapons, limb traps, unbalancing techniques as well as pure strikes. But JKA standard training consists largely of strikes, no ukemi, little joint management.

I wanted to start with understanding the transition from striking/trappingunbalancing/ground. BJJ seems to rule the ground but despite some mention here of its unbalancing aspects, that doesn't seem to be its focus. BJJ also seems not to presume weapons much?

I found locally, JJJ and decided that its techniques, including weapons, may fit with kata applications much more smoothly. Once I get a better understanding, BJJ may be next since randori is a must... but then I might be 70!!

M

MikeWilliams
28th September 2005, 13:48
Margaret, that makes sense to me.

I think the progression of shotokan > JJJ > BJJ would be a very logical one, neatly filling any gaps along the way.

MMA123
28th September 2006, 19:39
Hey everyone, this is my first post and this is a very good question.

First of all I've done shotokon karate for about two years now and there was an instructor I knew who is about 40 and used to do ring fighting for a number of years and tought me stand up and ground work. And now in university I'm doing Taekwondo and Shorinji Kan Jiu Jitsu. Over my relative short experience of martial arts in comparison to the people here, I've come to the conclusion that one martial art is not enough. While each art has its aspects that are good, however I do agree with whomever said that mulitple determined attackers would be hard to stop. Japanese Jiu Jitsu has great take downs, from **my experience** does not have great ground defense. While on the other hand BJJ works on take downs, the chokes and armbars are really not all that effective for the street if there is more then 1 person. However some people do not realize that you can use BJJ on the street. You can use it to get out of mount if some one sits on you and beats you for example. However you don't want the fight to go the ground if you can help it ifthere is multiple attackers, 1 guy go ahead, expecially when there's more than 1 attacker. So the only conlusion that makes sense to to have a great stand up offense and even better defense. Kicks are effective, expecially the front/push kick, roundhouse(rear leg) and the sidekick (to the knees). The snap side kick is a good one to the knees, stepping side kick to the knees to the chest and the spinng side kick. I do not recommend the side kicks (expecially the spinning) unless you can do it with increadable speed and timing, it is a really good kick. Fighting is a distance game which has 3 areas. 1 is the kicking distance, 2 is the punching and 3 and the grappling. So you have to readily adapt to any given distance. Fights on the street if you notice don't start far away, its usually always punching and grappling range because usually there is some sort of verbal confrontation that starts it. With multiple attackers you need to have quick hands, feet and most importantly a quick mind. You need to be strong, punch them break their nose, throw him to the ground, stomp him, move on the next guy, rinse, repeat lol.

Basicly what I am trying to say is that take downs, chokes and locks aren't enough on the street. What you need is mixed martial arts so you can deal with different situations. I recommend Muay Thai if available, if not then kick boxing, boxing and any type of take downs and ground work. MMA is the way to go because it will make you well rounded in a fight and if chokes and locks dont work you always have a back up.

Margaret Lo
5th October 2006, 18:25
Well since I discovered this thread a year ago, I've really really enjoyed traditional JJ with Dr. Fabian in NJ. We train outdoors year round and that has helped me tremendously. I've gotten 3 others to join me and we're having a blast whacking each other with real mankillers (6 ft bo). I've also developed a weapons addiction as we move onto chobo, and I'm lusting after swords http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/katana/main.html

Aside from getting my pale, wan, paper pushing self out the door, traditional JJ - OUTDOORS - helped me understand better some aspects of the JKA curriculum like: why oizukis exist, how "traditional" Japanese karate is a mishmash of old and new. Certain insights for the office worker:

Terrain is critical: sport karate kumite footwork doesn't exit outdoors. Once outside, you need to step in and grab or punch your opponent. Grass is slippery, low stances help you balance.

What you are wearing: Your weapons have significant size and weight and you have to be aware of where they sit when you move.

You guys in law enforcement already know this but it didn't sink in until I was outdoors in the rain, landing on my head-ouch.

All this helps me explain JKA style training to students who come in from sport karate background. I just summarize it with this: yes we're wired for the medievel Japanese battlefield and not the boxing ring, deal with it! In the long run having both modern and traditional training really enriches your life.

M

epramberg
5th October 2006, 22:29
How is it that JJJ is seen as being less than effective compared to its Brazilian offshoot?

People like what they see on TV. What they saw on TV was the Gracies (who are outstanding martial artists as individuals) cleaning up. The emphasis on ground fighting is deminishing, though, so things are starting to balance out again. Fighters are deciding to stay standing once again.

On top of that, most people have never seen classical Jujitsu. It is easy to dog the thing that you have never seen.

At this point, I am starting to wonder if Brazilian Jujitsu really is Jujitsu at all. It just looks waaaaay too much like Judo.

chrismoses
6th October 2006, 16:17
At this point, I am starting to wonder if Brazilian Jujitsu really is Jujitsu at all. It just looks waaaaay too much like Judo.

Well (as you probably know) that's because it grew out of Kosen Judo, rather than an older jujutsu ryuha. Jujitsu just sounded better I guess.

epramberg
11th October 2006, 11:25
Well (as you probably know) that's because it grew out of Kosen Judo, rather than an older jujutsu ryuha. Jujitsu just sounded better I guess.

That would explain it. Not that I don't see the Brazilian point. They have re-martialized it a little (not enough to change the name to "Jujitsu", but still...). But, I kind of think that they are re-sporting it a bit. It is funny how some Budo evolve.

MikeWilliams
11th October 2006, 14:15
If I might interject:

BJJ did not grow out of Kosen, but rather mainstream Kodokan Judo. Kosen is a separate, parrallel development - and is really a ruleset, rather than a distinct style.

At the time BJJ was founded (and probably right until judo joined the Olympics), the terms "Judo" and "Jiu-jitsu" were used fairly interchangeably in the west. No stylistic or lineage differences should be inferred when talking about the origins of BJJ. Maeda was Kodokan hrough and through when he went to Brazil.

Of course, BJJ has since had 80 years of independent development, plenty long enough to qualify as a style in its own right. It's definitely not "just judo" ( :rolleyes: ) anymore.

I don't see how anyone can argue that judo isn't jujutsu, either.

hectokan
14th October 2006, 16:46
Mike,

I realize that Maeda was kodokan judo through and through but what about his world travel fight experiences(before landing in brazil) with wrestlers,boxers,and strongmen?


It must have influenced what he taught and how he taught the Gracies?This I believe is the difference between kodokan judo and BJJ.While kosen judo developed it's highest levels under a special randori curriculim set up for kodokan mat experts.


All in all,it all it starts looking the same if the rules are somewhat similar.As Mat hughes proved with his fight with Royce Gracie.

epramberg
15th October 2006, 07:44
Just stumbled across this old thread doing some research, and I thought I'd share this recent article on the topic:

Submission Grappling vs. Classical Ju-jutsu: when cultures and concepts collide (http://www.grapplearts.com/Submission-Grappling-vs-ju-jutsu.htm)

Enjoy!

I hate to ask, but are you sure that that is classical Jujitsu?

Alex Dale
15th October 2006, 18:10
From the very bottom of the page:

"Alexander Kask is the head instructor at the Shofukan dojo and is the only teacher of Takenouchi-ryu in Canada. He is author of three publications on the Japanese language and is an attorney based in Vancouver, British Columbia."


Mr. Kitano, is he associated with you guys?



If he is, then yes, I'm guessing that is classical jujutsu.


Regards,

allan
15th October 2006, 19:58
Hi Eric,

It is my understanding that the point of the article was to discuss principles, not to show 'perfect' kata-like technique. The techniques in the photos for that article had to be modified in order to work on a half-naked opponent in a decidedly non-"classical" context. For example, the kata from which the leg-lock was taken begins with grasping the opponent's sleeve and collar. This particular opponent wears nothing above his waist. What to do? Follow principles but change or adapt the technique.

For more, if you search the archives this article has been discussed several times.


Hi Alex,
The Shofukan dojo is associated with the Bichu-den line of Takeuchi-ryu. Mr.Kask also studied Tenjin Shin'yo ryu with Kubota sensei.

Regards,
Al

fifthchamber
16th October 2006, 00:27
Hi Alex,
Yes. Mr. Kask is a student of the Chofukan as was stated by Al.
(Oh, I don't use the name Kitano anymore due to me and my wifes divorce...Ben is always a safe option Sir!).
Yours.

Alex Dale
16th October 2006, 00:48
Thank you, gentlemen, for the information.


Ben, my apologies. I don't know why I used that name. Guess I remember reading it some time ago and it stuck.



Best regards,

MikeWilliams
16th October 2006, 11:14
I realize that Maeda was kodokan judo through and through but what about his world travel fight experiences(before landing in brazil) with wrestlers,boxers,and strongmen?

It must have influenced what he taught and how he taught the Gracies?

Oh, definitely. Although from the very beginning, the history of Judo is rife with challenge matches against all comers. Maeda was not unique in that.

Given the relatively short time that Carlos Gracie trained with Maeda, there must have been an awful lot of independent development by Carlos and Helio. BJJ is not judo (despite what some internet judoka would have you believe). But it might have been, back when it first started.

And of course, Matt Hughes beating Royce was in reality a victory for "Gracie Zhoo Zheetsu". :rolleyes: ;)

Hissho
16th October 2006, 15:07
This thread is a blast from the past. I found this old post of mine, and I thought it would be interesting to walk this path again.







Traditional Jujutsu, Nihon Jujutsu or Classical Jujutsu seem to already be the appellations the koryu-oriented folks are taking on, perhaps in response to the soaring popularity of "BJJ." In my humble opinion, being a student of both brands of grappling, the classical stuff is better in a self defense or tactical environment where weapons are a reality.

Yes and no. Depends how you practice it. If all you do is kata you are underprepared for a close confrontation involving clinch/grappling, armed or not.

I continue to note that certain things I learned, and have been exposed to in training with more traditional jujutsuka, tend to naturally come out in a clinch when, say, you are retaining a weapon or trying to keep another from getting to a weapon, whether you train judo, aikido, BJJ or classical JJ.






I would argue that cross-training in the "BJJ" version helps to develop conditioning (I think Neil brought this up) and transitions against actively resisting opponents better than in those systems that don't do a lot of groundwork or drills other than kata.

Yup. Makes you adapt to circumstances and flow much better as well, which is pretty much the definition of the ju principle.






The general public is unaware that 1) BJJ is really just Judo focussing on groundwork 2) Judo comes from classical jujutsu, and many classical systems contain some of the very same techniques that are found in BJJ. Many BJJ practitioners are ignorant of this as well. Frankly, when you read EJ Harrison, the newspaper articles and research that Joe Svinth is bringing to light, and stuff about men like Yukio Tani, you can see the very strong link between classical jujutsu and modern combat sport grappling.

Yes and no. I agree with Mike that BJJ really has evolved in a different direction than Judo has. With a true expert its much softer and more fluid than Judo's groundwork, which feels more like wrestling to me. I have encountered more wrestlers in judogi than on the BJJ mat, and IME the wrestlers have a harder time adapting to "jits" than they do Judo.



.... see an increasing trend to refer to the modern sport jujutsu as "submission wrestling" or "submission grappling." BJJ, while an excellent system teaching important skills, has its limitations even in the relatively restricted sport jujutsu and No Holds Barred arenas. Many fighters are moving beyond pure BJJ and looking to wrestling, sambo, shooto and other arts to fill out their skills. For example, I have heard BJJ teachers denigrate leg locks and other techniques, based on what I feel is nothing more than the fact that BJJ does not emphasize leg locking techniques. I have heard others criticize BJJ's heavy reliance on "the guard" and more "passive" fighting strategy. While BJJ is here to stay, I think that with time more people will accept that there is other "jujutsu" out there besides the Brazilian kind, that it was where BJJ came from, and that it is sometimes better, and they will gain more respect for these arts and adapt techniques from them.

Yes. There is also an increasing recognition that purely sportive BJJ is hurting the art. Especially from the old schoolers.

As well, every self defense technique I have learned from a BJJ man has been closer to Judo or classical kata than it has to sport BJJ application.


As an aside, I don't like the multiple opponents argument. I frankly don't think anyone can handle multiple motivated opponents with hands on technique. But at least in classical jujutsu you will find teachings on how to deal with more than one through tai sabaki or other tactical expedients. The modern stuff is sport. Sport that helps develop combatively useful attributes, but sport nonetheless.

I would much rather be trained in realistic clinching a la judo and wrestling and a strong, mobile striking method in dealing with multiples. The key difference is that you must train to disengage rather than tie up. The strength in a clinch based art is that you actually clinch, and learn to escape real clinches. UFC 64's Franklin-Silva fight shows the power of a clinch (in that case Thai) when someone, in that case a world class kickboxer, can't escape it. Again, if all you've trained is kata or aikido based "multiple opponent" work you are in for a hurtin'. On the flip side, there are some very interesting strategies and body manipulations that may come into play that I've seen work that are definitely more classical JJ based. I have been training some modern, armed, resistive clinching work with a guy with a very strong classical background - and I would characterize what comes out as somewhere in between judo and classical grappling, and on the ground BJJ.





BJJ ... is also getting big in the law enforcement world. I have personally used techniques directly from submission training on the street in such an environment. I have also used "classical" techniques in the street environment. I can say that the submission techniques I have found useful on the street are generally those that also appear in the classical kata I have studied. Things that make you go HMMMM.

Kit LeBlanc

I still hold this view and have had it reinforced time and again. Real world requires adaptation of ANY martial art. I still wince when I see members of any flavor of jujutsu: traditional/classical, aiki-whatsit, Judo, BJJ claiming that they "teach law enforcement and military" without them having an equal or greater level of experience in the real world realm they claim to teach. You see some downright silly, and some downright dangerous (to the user!) jujutsu-based or jujutsu-like stuff being claimed as effective defensive tactics/combatives, including from people who are very well respected names in the martial arts in question. Some of these people have no realistic frame of reference and are not qualified to teach LE or military based on their martial arts experience alone. It takes much more than that.

Nice trip down memory lane.

hectokan
17th October 2006, 16:05
Oh, definitely. Although from the very beginning, the history of Judo is rife with challenge matches against all comers. Maeda was not unique in that.

Given the relatively short time that Carlos Gracie trained with Maeda, there must have been an awful lot of independent development by Carlos and Helio. BJJ is not judo (despite what some internet judoka would have you believe). But it might have been, back when it first started.

And of course, Matt Hughes beating Royce was in reality a victory for "Gracie Zhoo Zheetsu". :rolleyes: ;)


Mike,

My view or Opinion(because I don't have concrete evidence to support this)is that Carlos and Helio learned more about Japanese kodokan judo after the Maeda era ended from other Japanese judo practicioners and their students that were living in brazil at that time.Their time spent training with Maeda was not that long to fully develop a complete understanding of judo or jiujitsu.

This is the time and place were they developed their dislike or differences of opinions about kodokan judo.Aside from the usual challenge matches that they must have had,alot of friendly interchange of training sessions and workouts with practicioners that were training in or teaching kodokan judo must have taken place.Their only source of feedback or exchange of techniques came from the kodokan judo influences on the island,not any other jujutsu style.

PS:Kit and Mike you guys bring up great points as always

MikeWilliams
17th October 2006, 18:01
My view or Opinion(because I don't have concrete evidence to support this)is that Carlos and Helio learned more about Japanese kodokan judo after the Maeda era ended from other Japanese judo practicioners and their students that were living in brazil at that time.Their time spent training with Maeda was not that long to fully develop a complete understanding of judo or jiujitsu.

That sounds pretty darn plausible to me. Of course, you try getting anybody from the Helio lineage to admit to it! :D

hectokan
17th October 2006, 18:50
Their only source of feedback or exchange of techniques came from the kodokan judo influences on the island,not any other jujutsu style.


Laughing real hard at myself for calling brazil a island. lololol

Todd Schweinhart
18th October 2006, 16:09
I study both Koryu Jujutsu and GJJ and find that both have some great points toward practical application.

Here is a small portion of an older Japanese article on this issue of it being Judo or Jujutsu. I thought it would be of interest to you guys. I have the entire article but have only posted a section of it below for brevity. If you are interested in the entire article please email me at dojocho@yoshindojo.com. Thanks!

Todd Schweinhart
WWW.YOSHINDOJO.COM

Nishi: That has become the base of Gracie jiu-jitsu of the day, hasn't it? Was a style Mr. Carlos learned from Maeda Kousei centering on "kata"?
Helio: There weren't so many techniques. Most techniques were something mainly based on power. But Konde Koma was always fighting in real fights, so a lot of tricks to win in a real fight were incorporated in his teaching.
Nishi: Striking was also included, wasn't it?
Helio: No, it wasn't included.
*************
Maeda Kousei known by the name of Konde Koma was a judo-ka who got out of Japan to spread Kodokan Judo to the world in Meiji period, and performed an open fight with a different style in each country. (However, Kodokan removed his name from the register in the later years.) But why did he call it jiu-jitsu, not judo in Brazil? Nishi has secretly thought that jiu-jitsu introduced to Brazil might be something like a variant form of judo.
**************************
Nishi: Did Mr. Maeda call it jiu-jitsu, not judo from the beginning?
Helio: I heard that Konde Koma called it jiu-jitsu. We didn't even know the word of judo itself until it came into Brazil. At that time (the time when jiu-jitsu was brought by Konde Koma), there were many Japanese immigrants and local people had a friendly relationship with them. I heard that they often helped Japanese people in many ways. So I think he taught us their traditional jiu-jitsu in return for it.
Nishi: When judo came into Brazil, didn't you think it was similar to jiu-jitsu?
Rorion: I have a strong impression about judo that judo is a sport where the objective is to throw the opponent to the ground using power. But I think maybe the original art is jiu-jitsu. When Japan lost in the World War II and America was occupying Japan, they taught the Americans judo, but not jiu-jitsu. In that sense, we were lucky to have been able to come in contact directly with jiu-jitsu first, rather than judo.
Helio: (nodding to what Rorion said) They didn't teach the Americans the mind of the samurai.
Nishi: (being confused with a small voice) It doesn't seem that judo itself was completely introduced to you........... I wonder if Maeda Kousei introduced something he made up and called jiu-jitsu, or if it had originality as a result of the improvements made by Mr. Helio. It draws my interest very much.

MikeWilliams
18th October 2006, 16:15
See what I mean about using Helio or Rorion as sources? ;)

Cool article though, thanks for sharing. I'd love to see the rest if you get chance to post it up.

Jeff Cook
18th October 2006, 18:18
I looked at the link comparing classical and modern, and I am skeptical.

First, in all fairness, I only looked at the picture sets - I did not read the text. What I see in the "classical" pictures of the arm lock and leg lock is this: poor posture, poor base, and a poor, ineffective (or less than optimally effective) finish.

I practice classical and Brazilian JJ, as well as judo. They emphasize proper posture, position, and finish - all infused with a high degree of efficiency. They can be excellent for real combatives, self-defense, and LE defensive tactics for aforementioned reasons. Jujutsu was a combat art. I certainly don't get that "feel" from those two sets of pictures. The rear naked strangle was a pretty good set though.

Jeff Cook

Hissho
19th October 2006, 13:08
Jeff-

I think that the amount of "live" drills and randori, correctly taught and practiced in conjunction with technical instruction, has a big effect on posture, position, and finish.

What classical ryu do you practice? And can you dilate on the interesection of your practice of JJJ, Judo, and BJJ and how it relates to practical application in the combatives, self defense, and DT you mention. I'd like to hear your thoughts further.

Jeff Cook
19th October 2006, 17:36
Kit, I continue to practice what I retained from Shinto Yoshin Ryu years ago - in other words, I have not been able to hook up with a valid SYR instructor since mine left town. What I have retained I have incorporated into what I teach. Thus what I teach is ecclectic; I do not want to misrepresent that part of my training. However, I do remember quite a bit, and I do work out at times with other classical jujutsu folks here and there (through my affiliation with the USJJF and the USJA), so I am comfortable making a judgement based upon (1) an extrapolation of what I have personally experience; and (2) common sense stemming from the battlefield precedent of original jujutsu.

I am simple-minded ;), thus the overlap of these arts for me, as they apply to combatives/SD/DT, is very simple. There is a universal principle of efficiency that should apply. This does not mean you never have to use forceful action - it only means you utilize that force efficiently and economically.

Another universal principle is adaptability. The techniques, although based upon the same universal principles, have to adapt to changing circumstances and different combat scenarios.

More importantly however is the need for the tactics to conform with the "rules" of the playing field. This is what should cause our training to be goal-oriented, whenever we train for self-defense, combatives, or DT. Different encounters will have different goals. If I want to apprehend someone using minimal level of force as defined by whatever use-of-force matrix legally applies, the other person's actions dictate what tactics and techniques I employ. Thus my training has to cover all of those use-of-foce contingencies. If my goal is to seek out the enemy, kill him and not take prisoners, my training has just become MUCH simpler because I have narrowed the goal, thus narrowing the tactics and techniques.

Before all of this can come together, though, the students have to train in the basics so they can come to learn, understand, and eventually own the underlying principles. After that happens then we start looking at tactics. This is one of the reasons why the MACP is widely misunderstood. Many people look at Level 1 of this program and conclude the whole program is crap because it does not address the important variables, such as how to be effective while carrying a rifle, wearing body armor and Kevlar helmet, LBV, etc. What they don't understand is that Level 1 is designed to teach the basics to the troops, helping them to come into contact with the principles that are paramount to make the higher-level skillsets (found in Levels 2 and 3) work effectively in combat (although there are certainly some combat-applicable traits of Level 1 as well).

The training precepts I have outlined can be a universal standard for any art that is taught for practical application uses. This is what will bind these arts together.

When I look at the pictures in the aforementioned article, I am trying to decide if I see efficiency through good form, combined with a logical manipulation of the affected limb being attacked. I cannot imagine that classical, battlefield jujutsu would be inefficient and lack good form. We also know that the human body moves in certain ways, and that some ways of affecting that movement are more efficient than other ways. I CAN do the udegarami as shown in the picture, but why would I if there is a better angle to attack with that lock from? I also know that despite what angle I attack from, my base better be good. What good is a strong technique thrown from a weak foundation?

Last, I strongly agree wtih you that kata combined with randori/jiyugumite is essential for shortening the learning curve for combative-minded people.

I hope this did not come across as drooling, demented rambling!

Jeff Cook

Hissho
20th October 2006, 01:51
Not at all, very well put.

My own practice has taken a similar path. A huge advantage to jujutsu in terms of the efficiency and adaptability that you mention is that it does so readily adapt to various "rules" structures - whether that be judo shiai, BJJ competition, sub grappling, MMA, low level use of force in control, restraint and arrest manuevers, up to "survival" combatives in which weapons come into play.

The principles are the very same though the rules may vary.

Now the chosen training method, i.e. the way in which those principles are manifested through technical practice, in regular training, very much can and does limit ability in one or more of these structures, which is what I think you are probably referring to in the article.

It is a huge mistake to think of, say, a "battlefield" ryu, or for that matter WWII combative applications based on jujutsu as being at all efficient, adaptable, or practical, just because they were "used in war," if they are not practiced under realistic force on force dynamics today. The latter will streamline technique and make it more efficient.

By the same token, I can practice against all the resistance I want in randori or rolling around on the BJJ mat, if I forget that different "rules" apply to a street fight, pull guard, and start trying to play a spider guard against an attacker, or flop to my stomach and turtle up if I get thrown, I'm in for a serious beatdown.

Becoming bound up in one view of the rules, though, is the real blind spot with the different flavors of jujutsu.

Thinking that the street fight will not require the attributes developed in randori and rolling because the former is a "fight" and latter is "sport" is the largest blind spot I see with non-grappling jujutsu folks.

Likewise, thinking that you can just roll and submit your way through a real world fight, that it is the same as the mat or the ring, is the blind spot with the sport grappling jujutsu types.

I think the real truth is somewhere in the middle.

wmuromoto
20th October 2006, 04:26
Folks,

Coming from what many of you might consider a purely classical jujutsu style, you might think I want to argue certain points. But I think you folks are setting up a straw tiger. Kata training has its strengths and weaknesses. That's why randori was invented. And in actuality, even classical jj schools had forms of randori.

Kit: you summed it up pretty well. I did years of judo. At the time, no one cared about kata. The clubs were pretty much focused on competition and randori, mainly for tournaments, if not just for the sheer enjoyment of randori. I think, however, what was missing other than uchikomi and basics, was more kata work, where you focused on getting the basics of form right.

On the other hand, I will agree that in terms of what you might consider applicability, what we are calling JJJ, or classical jujutsu which is kata-based, suffers in terms of what could actually work against someone who is very resistive.

If your goal is to able to translate your training into immediate self-defense, then my hunch, along with Kit's, is a combination of both.

In fact, most JJJ schools did practice a combination of randori and kata up to the early 1900s, as is evidenced by the contests they held against the Kodokan. A lot of times the Kodokan won because they used common sense logic. What worked under their rules? Use those techniques and train in them specifically, and beg, borrow and steal other schools' techniques if they, too, worked. Kano Jigoro went out of his way to try to gather as many koryu techniques. In one photo op I saw, he is shown sitting in front of the Butokuden in Kyoto with a bunch of crusty old koryu jj folk, including three who were menkyo kaiden in my school, the Takeuchi-ryu.

The thing is, if you want to train and win in Kodokan judo style tournies, why reinvent the wheel? That's why competitive-minded players eventually simply trained in Kodokan-style dojo. Or, they combined Kodokan judo with their own system, such as the current headmaster of the Hontai Yoshin-ryu, who last I heard was also a godan in judo. He says judo is good for competition and for kids, and HTY is a great study in classical form, especially for self-defense, but is sort of an "antique," in his words.

My own spin on this is that if you do kata long and hard enough, you develop a reflexive library. You can react quickly to specific situations without thinking too much about which foot has to be forward, etc. But unless done long enough, the ability to "flow" from a technique to another technique is hampered unless you do some randori, or free work against a resistive opponent. On the other hand, competition alone does breed some bad habits. I used to see karate tournies where some schools' students would show their back and sides to the opponents and cover up only the allowable attack points on their front, leaving the head, kidneys and back exposed. But they were all "illegal" in point fighting. Not illegal in self-defense. In one fight, this one highly rated fighter literally turned his back to his opponent and scooted away from every concentrated attack, knowing that he would not get kicked or punched in the back of his head or body. Try that in a fight.

Jeff, as far as the pics from the classical vs. modern JJ article is concerned, I had my own questions about them, but do try to give the author a bit of a break. He's trying to figure out TR long distance, with infrequent visits from official teachers from Japan, and he's sincere about it. Consider, if you will, that perhaps some of the pics are not quite so well demonstrated, and/or he deliberately obfuscated some points so as not to give away the whole shebang.

For example: In the entrance to the leg lock, the sequence is such that you throw the person down from an agreed-upon half-standing position. But instead of thinking that the kata is supposed to work as depicted exactly in the photos, try varying the angles or holds. Try this with a person who tries to give you some 70 percent fight-back, but doesn't quite know what to expect. What the first one-handed choke means is as soon as he is falling, you slam your left forearm into his neck, and keep pressing down on him so that he hits his head on the ground as he falls, then press as hard as you can so that you feel as if your elbow is trying to touch the ground. When the head hits the ground, press even harder, as if you are trying to make his eyes pop out.

In the kata, the opponent eithers snaps up his leg in a flailing movement or he tries to kick your head. The right hand is free for that attack from his legs or his left arm. Instead of simply blocking it (as in the photo) on the shin, do a shuto to the inner thigh on top of the femoral artery. If you don't think it will stop the kick, try hitting your partner really hard there and see if it hurts. If it doesn't, try lower or higher.

From the strike, wrap the right arm around from inside the thigh and, keeping your rump as close as possible to the opponent's hip, sink into a leg lock that is as 90-degree to the opponent as possible, not the 35 to 45 shown in the pic. Think of turning out that leg like you are trying to twist and break off a chicken leg. Opponents who have good stretch may not feel much pain but most people will feel a bit of hurt already. Use the right leg to push the other leg away and to help you crank on the person's right leg. As you drop, the heel of your left foot has the option of falling down and back-kicking the person's groin area.

Then depending on your size and the person's size, you use the left foot to either push and stabilize the opponent's own hip, or keep the leg encircled around the thigh-hip joint. You should be in a near-sitting-up position, but the opponent's right leg should have its ankle right in your arm pit, toes facing up. With your arm encircling the the leg, your right hand's fingers should be held in your left hand for tightness, with the right thumb facing 90 degrees to the opponent's leg. Your lower forearm at its boniest edge should be directly against one of three pressure points in the back leg. If you can't get one, try another one until the opponent yelps when you push up with your forearm. At the same time, lean back and use the rising of your hips to put pressure on the ankle, forcing a submission. Your starting position should be such that you don't have to go too far before pressure on the ankle should show some effect, although I've found that different sized people require a wide variance on this. I had a student who was over six feet tall and had to forego the ankle dislocation because I couldn't do that and brace his hip at the same time. His legs were too long for me.

There are, of course, counters to each particular movement. No technique is unbeatable, but you can also figure out counters to counters. If the opponent tries to rise up on his hands, for example, you could kick him in the testicles again and again. It may not be legal in contests, but it works.

For a while, I used to help a judo sensei with his club and often tested TR techniques that could be considered somewhat legal under judo rules, and they do work, but if you wanted to make 'em work all the time in randori, yes, you have to do randori.

The set from which all those kata are taken from, BTW, are those distilled not from "battlefield" methods but from tournament techniques used by TR folk in the early 1900s against other JJ and Judo schools. Takeuchi Tsunaichi, namely, the 14th headmaster of the Bitchuden line of TR, seemed to have developed them out of his favorite waza and that of some masters directly preceding him. So done properly, studied and tried against different opponents for different "fits," they should work, and if you take out the parts that do too much damage, can still be sort of legal under Kodokan rules. Maybe. Sort'a. Kind'a. Like one kata is like the pro wrestling pile driver where you drop the guy down upside down, not on his head, but on the back of his neck. I don't think that's legal in judo, huh?

Problem is, for amateurs like me, pulling long hours at work, I can't do everything. Plus, I'm an old man. My randori years are behind me. So I do kata. It keeps my blood going and my brain from ossifying. Good enough for me.

Wayne Muromoto

allan
20th October 2006, 04:55
Jeff, as far as the pics from the classical vs. modern JJ article is concerned, I had my own questions about them, but do try to give the author a bit of a break. He's trying to figure out TR long distance, with infrequent visits from official teachers from Japan, and he's sincere about it. Consider, if you will, that perhaps some of the pics are not quite so well demonstrated, and/or he deliberately obfuscated some points so as not to give away the whole shebang.


Well put Wayne. Your comments are a model for constructive criticism (and one that allows for dialogue).

There is plenty of room for others to write articles on the historically different approaches to jujutsu. One can even use those articles that already exist as a starting point. I think that we ought to remember the limitations of such an article (in this case originally appearing in Black Belt magazine I think) and also make distinctions between poseurs on the one hand and sincere and legitimate individuals on the other. And if we honestly don't know about the individual in question then we should proceed with care.

Of course in choosing to write an article of your own you may be setting yourself up as the next 'straw man' (especially if you include pictures)! So maybe it's a bad idea to publish at all!

Best,

Jeff Cook
20th October 2006, 13:26
Allan, the last line in your post is significant: when you publish, you should expect kudos and criticism. However, "not knowing the individual" is irrelevant, as long as we stick to talking about the pictures, not the individual. As you all notice, I do not discuss him at all in my post; I am discussing the pics.

Wayne, we agree on a number of points. First (to reiterate) I STRONGLY agree that randori and kata go hand-in-hand. Randori is pretty much worthless without kata work.

Also, thank you very much for the additional info concerning the origin of the "classical" techniques shown in the article. I had no idea it is actually a sport form from the 1900's. In my opinion the techniques are not in compliance with the insinuation that the article is comparing modern and classical technique, if that is the case.

I do respect your qualification that the sensei shown in the pictures is doing the best he can with his instruction - after all, I do the same. However, perhaps he should refrain from doing articles in a magazine, representing techniques from his style, if his representation falls short of how the style actually does the technique. I do NOT know if that is the case; I am only extrapolating on how I understand your line of reasoning (perhaps I misunderstood).

Your text description of how the technique can be applied is a valuable addition to the pictures, and it is something that Black Belt Ragazine frequently lacks.

I am in avid agreement with your leglock example too - up to a point. The pressure points are great - sometimes (as in "sometimes on the mat and not while fighting for your life"). Even on the mat for competition though, any semi-experience competitor becomes quite resistant to pain compliance through pressure points, as you know, and thus skeletal leverage and locking becomes the rule of the day. Another serious problem with the technique is when you lift your leg to strike the bladder area, you are TOTALLY giving up the lock and allowing an opportunity for the other guy to regain the initiative. That lock is only workable if you keep your thighs clamped together. Unclamp your thighs and the other guy can immediately, with little effort and little movement, defeat the angle of the lock.

This is fun stuff to talk about; we can toss counter measures and counter-counter measures back and forth all day, increasing our library of technique without breaking a sweat! ;) In spite of the usual crappy, incomplete nature of Black Belt articles, those articles DO inspire valuable conversation between us old, tired guys.

Kit, thank you for continuing the discussion; I agree with you as well.

Jeff Cook

Hissho
20th October 2006, 13:42
I guess I am saying that I don't make the distinction by noting that it is "classical" versus "modern" or "combative" versus "sportive." Many do. It does not appear that Wayne does either. That is good.

Even kata is done across a spectrum of realistic dynamics. The bulk of the modern combatives training I do is closer to kata than randori - the difference is in the base attributes, developed through the practice of flowing and adapting to counters and resistance that derives from randori training. It is also in not stopping when your partner has "broken" form or countered your move but learning to flow with it into another.

I know that kata training contains this kind of practice, I was taught that in koryu, but I have seen public demos where that was clearly not the case.
I have been shown that series of kata from a particular school often actually flow into one another when you attempt them against a guy fighting back - which is really no different from BJJ's positional hierarchy and how it is taught to beginners, from likely responses and counters the partner may have to being controlled.

What usually becomes clear, however, is the amount of time someone has spent training that way, versus training in a rote fashion against a cooperative partner. It becomes just as clear in the realm of defensive tactics, when "kata DT" trained police officers, who do no resistive training in defensive tactics and have worked almost entirely against people who fall down or lock up when they are "supposed" to, attempt their stuff against what we call a "no" person - whether it is an aggressive fellow officer who is messing with them in training, or a combative subject out on the street - they get stuck on a particular move, they seem shocked that the move is not working, they make no attempt to flow into a new position based on the suspect's movements, etc. etc. They don't do it because they don't practice it in the right way.

I have come to call this "knowing what to do, but not knowing how to do it." Many jujutsu and jujutsu-like systems that do not practice randori or against uncooperative partners seriously suffer from this.

So for me, it is not a matter of classical versus modern. Likewise it is not a matter of how a particular school trained fifty or a hundred years ago, but how they are training right now that matters.

kenkyusha
20th October 2006, 15:53
I am in avid agreement with your leglock example too - up to a point. The pressure points are great - sometimes (as in "sometimes on the mat and not while fighting for your life"). Even on the mat for competition though, any semi-experience competitor becomes quite resistant to pain compliance through pressure points, as you know, and thus skeletal leverage and locking becomes the rule of the day.
My unsolicited $.02- the 'shuto' hand (to the femoral artery) might contain a tool of some sort...

Be well,
Jigme

Jeff Cook
20th October 2006, 16:28
My unsolicited $.02- the 'shuto' hand (to the femoral artery) might contain a tool of some sort...

Be well,
Jigme

Yes sir; of course it does, and a valuable one at that. One of many tools in the tool box, to be pulled out and used appropriately at the right moment, in conjunction with other tools. I am not really sure how that relates to my posts, though, as I have not commented on that tool. When I was referring to "pressure points," I was specifically addressing the calf crunch. Sorry for not making that clear.

Jeff Cook

wmuromoto
20th October 2006, 19:29
Yes, interesting dialogue for a change.

Jeff; I think I'll share this tidbit and shut up for now because I'm not all that comfortable saying some things about our techniques in a public forum. I understand your reluctance to rely on pressure points. Ellis Amdur, a koryu kind'a guy, also made that point. Thing is, in nearly all TR kata, pressure points are attacked at the same time one is doing some kind of joint damage, so it's not something that's solely relied upon. The pressure on the back of the shin is also used to lock up the leg, for example, as you jerk back to put pressure on the ankle. The strike to the groin happens (if you want it to; it's a secondary move) when you are sinking into the lock, not by itself, except for the example I gave which may/may not work. Then again, it may not if he's wearing a cup.

As I said, I do kata mainly because I'm too old to help out with the judo club anymore, so I can't reasonably comment on what would work/won't work in tournies or SD situations since I don't do it. I just do what I do. I can offer that I had a decade or two of judo, karate and a smattering of aikido work before switching over to koryu jujutsu. Much of the judo was with teachers who trained at the Kodokan before belt-selling mercantilism took over, and with a teacher who was versed in the Kawaishi-style judo, emphasizing matwork, and who studied with Inokuma Isao and Mifune Kyuzo. In retrospect, I still find much that is very worthwhile in a study of the classical styles, and much that is of value in catch-as-can training. But unless you have a lot of time and superb physical attributes (my knees creak, my shoulder hurts from old football injuries), I can't be doing that kind of "young man" stuff and still go to work in the morning nowadays. I'm just too old and cranky.

But I encourage my own students, if they're young and want more training, to take up another budo to learn skills that are hard to aquire in pure kata training.

There may be a mindset out there that new is always better. ...Or something compounded from a variety of styles will always be better than something 100 or more years old because it fits the current conditions. Sometimes that's true. I have my own opinions about some koryu that have lost their vigor and inquisitive nature. They're not really "flowing" so much as becoming relics. On the other hand (how's that for prevaricatin'?), I have an old fartish mind set. I like old things simply for their antiqueness. So we have a difference of opinion based on end goals, which is fine. You got your POV, I got mine. Fine and dandy.

But consider, if you will, that rather than 100 or so years of a kata being static, it's had 100 years of being dissected in all variations, applications and nuances, headmaster by headmaster. Even in Japan, several TR students, and even some master instructors, have had experience in other martial arts, including tai chi, bakua, BJJ (!), aikido, etc., and there's an interesting dialogue always going on about the kata forms whenever I return to train there, especially in the jujutsu portion of our curriculum. I've noticed subtle changes even in my time, which is about 20 years' plus of training.

Having the ability to absorb good ideas from other sources is a good thing, Jeff, don't get me wrong. I won't equivocate about that. I'm just saying that we have to be careful about photos or demos as representative of a ryu due to a lot of variables. One could be the technical level (or lack thereof) of the demonstrator. Another could be a deliberate masking of techniques, especially in koryu. The Katori Shinto-ryu embeds false distancing in its kata to fake out people who might want to steal their techniques. I've seen TR kata on DVDs and videotapes and I've thought, "Hey...that's not the right move! That's from another kata!" and I realize that the demonstrators were mixing up the forms to throw any "shark bait stealers" off track. Koryu does that a lot.

The late Tetsuhiko Asai, in a seminar in Hawaii, once exhorted the Shotokan karate stylists that in order to understand their system, they couldn't rely only on their system's kata alone; they had to go back to Okinawan style kata that never got into the orthodox Shotokan curriculum and find out on their own a "higher level" of karate. I don't know how many of the students took his advice, but constant study and thinking on your own two feet is the only way to really understand a system and all it could be. The system is a framework, but it's the individual who has to make the effort. I'm sure that's the case in any form of martial art, classical, modern, eclectic or otherwise. Just because you do a koryu it doesn't make you a deadly master martial artist.

Going back to the start of this thread; comparing BJJ or modern grappling systems with classical or traditional JJ is an old, tired argument. If you wanted to win matches in a modern, MMA type of fight, you train for it and do the stuff that's allowed under those rules. If you want to do something else, you do something else. If it's pure SD, then by all means, find a serious SD person (and not some fly-by-night Barbie or Ken who thinks you can learn to be a master killer in one easy lesson). I mean, comparing modern MMA to classical JJ is like arguing whether Superman can beat Batman, at a certain point, because you're talking about totally different end goals. If I were forced to hypothetically enter a match with a MMA person half my age and with double the physical strength, I'd go in with a sword, dagger, rope and spear. The heck with grappling with the guy. And if allowed, I'd take a stun gun too. I know my limitations.

No matter the system, I think the hard, cold answer to people who want to get good without sweating is you have to train hard at it, no matter what. I think at least we can agree on that?

Wayne Muromoto

hectokan
20th October 2006, 19:48
Likewise, thinking that you can just roll and submit your way through a real world fight, that it is the same as the mat or the ring, is the blind spot with the sport grappling jujutsu types.

Isn't this where your sport Muaythai,Kickboxing,Boxing types should kick in.



*goes back into hiding and patiently waits for the backlash*

Margaret Lo
20th October 2006, 20:16
Yes, interesting dialogue for a change.

The late Tetsuhiko Asai, in a seminar in Hawaii, once exhorted the Shotokan karate stylists that in order to understand their system, they couldn't rely only on their system's kata alone; they had to go back to Okinawan style kata that never got into the orthodox Shotokan curriculum and find out on their own a "higher level" of karate. I don't know how many of the students took his advice, but constant study and thinking on your own two feet is the only way to really understand a system and all it could be. The system is a framework, but it's the individual who has to make the effort. I'm sure that's the case in any form of martial art, classical, modern, eclectic or otherwise. Just because you do a koryu it doesn't make you a deadly master martial artist.

Wayne Muromoto

Hi Wayne,
I feel like I should write you, Jeff and Kit a tuition check for this thread/seminar. As to the late great Tetsuhiko Asai, I and several others never forgot his seminar about the limitations of the shotokan curriculum, okinawan kata, use of joints and his entire approach. It was and he was truly fantastic for his unfettered thinking. Unfortunately, going to okinawa is not an option but hontai yoshin ryu was next door.

Ok, keep talking guys.

M

Margaret Lo
20th October 2006, 20:24
Isn't this where your sport Muaythai,Kickboxing,Boxing types should kick in.



*goes back into hiding and patiently waits for the backlash*

But Hector, that would require them to R-E-A-D many words some with more than 2 syllables.

M

OK cheapshot but who can resist? not me! :D

hectokan
20th October 2006, 21:44
Hi Wayne,
I feel like I should write you, Jeff and Kit a tuition check for this thread/seminar

Hey,I am seriously considering hiring Kit as my defense attorney for any of my future kata debates.

Hissho
20th October 2006, 22:29
If I were forced to hypothetically enter a match with a MMA person half my age and with double the physical strength, I'd go in with a sword, dagger, rope and spear. The heck with grappling with the guy. And if allowed, I'd take a stun gun too. I know my limitations.



Ahh, yes, but this begs the question...

...what if the MMA person also has the sword, dagger, rope, spear, or, for that matter the stun gun or a handgun, and has trained to use it? :eek:


I appreciate your posts, Wayne, far more than the many who have drunk the killer kombat martial arts kool aid. (and I ain't limiting that to koryu by any stretch!!)

I also find I have increasing empathy with your decision to train kata only - between my work, the 20lbs or more of gear I have to wear loaded onto my lower back, and my practice, I can't get out of a car or step off the rails of an armored vehicle without wincing and experiencing pain somewhere, or at times even everywhere.

My drive to continue is in preserving the ability such practice gives me in dealing with truly violent people when the stakes are far higher than simply having to tap out - or a sore back, shoulder, or knee. There is no comparison in terms of preparation for the real deal than regular training against an unwilling opponents coupled with an awareness and understanding of the difference ibetween randori/rolling and fighting. People that think real fighting is not athletic, and does not bang you up (often because of the very locations in which real fighting occurs) are drinking more of that kool aid.

A senior teacher who is not presently training in the force on force manner, for whatever reason, can certainly instruct others to do so if he has a background there. At least I hope so because I will be there some day, too. The oft mentioned boxing coaches who were able to make the likes of Mike Tyson competitive while they themselves were not comes to mind. But I do think that as decades and then generations pass, if there is a lessening of an emphasis on a randori base, and finally perhaps that base is eschewed, that there is a strong liklihood that the robustness of a system may be lost.


Jigme and Jeff also discussed a point that I have long believed - we know that koryu practice had certain idiosyncracies in light of both cultural concerns and safety. I for one believe that a large percentage of empty hand blows using the shuto and hammerfist are in fact intended as edged weapons applications, and the empty hand versions are for a) training safety, and b) intended as a way to practice the unarmed, "less lethal" manuevers if you will, while maintaining the very same physical movements needed with a blade in hand (either in forehand or ice pick grip).

I have seen too many performances where, if the koryu are supposed to be "by trained men for use against equally trained adversaries," a particular strike done empty handed would be not only ineffectual, but ill advised against another fighter that knew what they were doing.

And yet, when I think of it with a blade in hand, make a lot of sense. I am not qualified to comment on particular ryu, or even if this is the case with koryu, but it just makes more sense with some of the stuff I have seen, which is of course just what is shown to the public.

As well, in light of what I have experienced with pain compliance and pressure points in real life, I think most martial arts are far too generous with what these things can actually do to people who are committed to fighting back, who are intoxicated with drunk, drugs, or even an excess of adrenalin, or who are trained. This provides further fodder for my theory - I just think there is no way trained fighting men (with close combat experience the likes that Sengoku era bushi would have) would think some of that stuff would work on another trained adversary.

That is, unless that finger in a pressure point is really meant to symbolize the point of a knife...


Margaret/Hector - I'll send you a PM with direct deposit information :p

epramberg
21st October 2006, 02:48
If I might interject:

BJJ did not grow out of Kosen, but rather mainstream Kodokan Judo. Kosen is a separate, parrallel development - and is really a ruleset, rather than a distinct style.

At the time BJJ was founded (and probably right until judo joined the Olympics), the terms "Judo" and "Jiu-jitsu" were used fairly interchangeably in the west. No stylistic or lineage differences should be inferred when talking about the origins of BJJ. Maeda was Kodokan hrough and through when he went to Brazil.

Of course, BJJ has since had 80 years of independent development, plenty long enough to qualify as a style in its own right. It's definitely not "just judo" ( :rolleyes: ) anymore.

I don't see how anyone can argue that judo isn't jujutsu, either.


I can argue that Judo isn't Jujitsu. It doesn't look a thing like Jujitsu. It has none of the atemi, does mostly large hip throws, lost all of the weapons (sword, knife, etc.) It has nearly nothing to do with Jujitsu. It is (as you said) it's own art.

As for BJJ. It still looks too much like Judo to be Jujitsu.

Hissho
21st October 2006, 03:24
Ahh, and the thread goes downhill...

Jeff Cook
21st October 2006, 13:12
Wayne, Kit, Margaret, sorry I have not replied for a day or so; I am in the middle of house renovations, so being online is hit-and-miss.

Just a short note: apparently epramberg has not seen Kano's book, still in print, and still the standard for the Kodokan Judo.

Jeff Cook

Margaret Lo
23rd October 2006, 14:15
I can argue that Judo isn't Jujitsu. It doesn't look a thing like Jujitsu. It has none of the atemi, does mostly large hip throws, lost all of the weapons (sword, knife, etc.) It has nearly nothing to do with Jujitsu. It is (as you said) it's own art.

As for BJJ. It still looks too much like Judo to be Jujitsu.

It's clear you haven't read this entire thread. Start reading.

Jeff Cook
23rd October 2006, 15:28
Wayne, you and I are not disagreeing on anything, really. I think my poor use of the English language is making me hard to understand. ;)

To recap: I strongly believe that koryu jujitsu is extremely valuable in today's world, as jujitsu principles are timeless and universal.

I strongly believe that kata is ESSENTIAL practice for self-defense, combatives, DT.

I am stongly suspicious that the pictures in the article DO NOT properly represent the art of the practitioner. That was my whole point - classical jujitsu "makes sense" in any context, when the principles are applied properly.

I strongly feel that the pictures are NOT necessarily a true representation of the skill and/or knowledge of the gentleman in the picture. God knows I am "featured" in some pretty crappy and uncomplimentary pictures! The difference is this: my crappy pictures aren't published anywhere. If I was to help with an article in Black Belt Ragazine I would make damn sure that the pics are as solid as possible - not impervious to criticism, as that is impossible, though. But they would be representative of the art that I presented.

I strongly feel that old farts like you and I, with plenty of randori and jiyugumite in our backgrounds AND PLENTY OF KATA, coupled with an above-average amount of practical application on bad guys over the years, makes us more than qualified to teach others now even if we don't participate in randori now (although as I practice BJJ currently, avoiding that is impossible - thus my frequent ingestion of Lortabs ;) ).

I don't think my training in various systems gives me a leg up or puts me at a disadvantage to anybody. Training is all good, even if from different schools. That whole "universal principle" thing I like to ramble endlessly about.

Like I said, I am a simple guy. Principles of combat are pretty simple, if they make sense to a simpleton like me. Principles of combat are universal. Jujitsu of all styles has always impressed me as being quite sensible. Where we run into complexities is how we communicate those principles to others.

Kit's excellent example of extrapolating from empty-hand to weapons use is an OUTSTANDING point. No matter how esoteric and/or outdated a particular jujitsu waza may appear, chances are there is more than one principle within that waza which has combative applications today. But if you have a crappy instructor who cannot see that, or cannot communicate that to a student, the waza appears to be an exercise in futility - a mere dance with no intrinsic combative value whatsoever.

Jeff Cook

Chris McLean
23rd October 2006, 15:42
I have been following this thread sence I joined E-Budo I like your perspective Mr. Cook. I just have one question. Could you define (jiyugumite) please?

Jeff Cook
23rd October 2006, 15:55
Hey Chris, good to see you again. How have you been?

Jiyugumite = jiyu kumite - free-sparring. It is a term normally associated with karate-do and karate-jutsu.

Jeff Cook

Chris McLean
23rd October 2006, 16:50
Thanks alot
I have been great still trying to teach teenagers to be good respectfull adults through the principles of martial arts.
Hope your still keeping our country safe. Always enjoy your experiance.

hectokan
23rd October 2006, 17:47
If classical jujitsu made sense in a BJJ context or even in a Judo context,then there would be no need for anyone to train in BJJ or judo at all.Just because classical jujustsu uses the principles of Ju in"THEORY"does not mean that their attention to detail in performing those techniques are the same.They might look very similar,they might have even originated from classical jujutsu. but the details is really what makes all the difference in the world,In both effectiveness and in application.


I have yet to meet a classical jujutsu man show me or demonstrate a rear naked choke,armbar or strangle with more attention to significant detail than a judo man or a BJJ man.Unless ofcourse he also trains withiin a BJJ or judo context on the side.In other words his classical jujutsu is becoming more effective thanks to his BJJ or Judo training.You cannot have it both ways.This reminds me of my karate peers that want to make karate more effective,so they take up studying Muaythai,boxing and kickboxing but they still want to call it karate and give karate all the credit in the world for there new and improved technical application of techniques.

Is there self defense type techniques,strikes or weapon attacks found in classical jujutsu that are not found in BJJ or judo?ofcourse there is but this does not change the natural laws of physics that have been developed or improved within the mano to mano randori format of Judo or BJJ.

MikeWilliams
23rd October 2006, 19:24
Well said, Hector.

Hissho
23rd October 2006, 19:39
But if you have a crappy instructor who cannot see that, or cannot communicate that to a student, the waza appears to be an exercise in futility - a mere dance with no intrinsic combative value whatsoever.

Jeff Cook

While I tend to agree with most of your post Jeff, I do believe there are better, more efficient ways to train to develop realistic combative skill.

Hector, I also have some common ground with you, but I think the primary element you are referring to is a force on force, goal-competitive training paradigm, be it sportive or not. Many traditional arts, and modern "too deadly" combat arts suffer from the same affliction: lack of any meaningful training with it.


As Wayne has pointed out, though, many if not most classical JJ used to do it. The FIRST jujutsu tradition (Takeuchi-ryu) had it, and was known for their skill at it. The idea that Kano invented randori has long ago been put to bed. Research has shown a strong competitive element in early jujutsu, and in a manner that was probably far rougher than what we see on Judo or BJJ mats today. It has also been noted that many classical warriors used to practice sumo as well - and that sumo used to be a lot closer to jujutsu than what we see today, with armlocks, etc. and variations in its practice (sumo done from the knees etc.) The notion that warriors with experience in combat eschewed competitive practice as somehow problematic in developing combative skill has I think also been seriously challenged. They may have seen competitive practice far differently than your average sport Judoka or BJJ man does today, however.

Plus, they actually went out and fought on the battlefield. And when the battlefields were few and far between they got in fights, and duels, and challenged people at the drop of a hat who dared hang out a shingle as a martial arts teacher.

Such experienced fighting men being the practical creatures they are, I highly doubt they quibbled much about the difference between the sumo they practiced with their fellows (combative conditioning and resistance work that lessened the chance of permanent injury) and the drills they more carefully went through involving more dangerous techniques, working with and against weapons, when they practiced combat training. The prime goal was combative efficiency, as Draeger informed us and we have been reminded of frequently since. With that in mind, the different aspects are pieces of a whole.

The difference is when a piece of the puzzle changes: for starters, when the martial arts are no longer the province of martial men. There is little need to practice the more arduous, humbling aspects found in the competitive (again not necessarily sportive) training environment when there is little call to ever actually use those skills for most practitioners, other than perhaps the rare self defense encounter with an untrained person. In this light I would agree with Jeff, almost any art is valid. The principles will remain the same, but over time, as the combination of lack of need to use those skills under dynamic conditions combines with lack of interest in training them in a competitive manner deepens, the teachers themselves will manifest a lessening of "combative ardor" (LOL that sounds like a Draegerism...), and therefore a lessening of an understanding in what it is really like to try to pull some of this stuff off against an equally trained or knowedgable attacker, or one who is simply mad with rage. The principles, in essence, will no longer be tested under pressure.

This is not the case with everyone - many classical jujutsuka also, wisely, practice judo. Echoes of the bushi of old practicing sumo alongside his jujutsu? There is (or should be) a recognition that you simply can't learn to grapple well without, well, grappling! Does not matter if you do so with weapons involved, the physical dynamic is the same.

This is not something that judoka or BJJ men invented, it has long been understood by many martial artists, classical and modern. I don't believe that it is in any way "cheating," by not giving credit to Judo or BJJ or sumo, rather it is probably closer to the way their system actually used to be practiced!

Of course I might be totally wrong. I have nowhere near enough experience with koryu jujutsu to speak intelligently about koryu specifically, though I sat for a few years at the feet of guys like Ellis Amdur, who really dug into these aspects of the history of jujutsu and from whence a lot of my thinking on this subject springs.

But like Jeff, I do have a lot of experience actually using my training in a wide variety of situations, armed and unarmed, and of training others to do the same. I have seen the difference in people trained one way versus people trained the other, and over and over again these ideas are reinforced through the only lens that matters: performance. And though I do not and probably would not make it my primary discipline, I am still convinced enough that there are some very valid kernels in classical JJ that anyone looking for a well rounded combative skillset should not ignore.

Jeff Cook
23rd October 2006, 20:21
Hector, in your signature you say "It's all good!" That is essentially what I am saying, with a big exception: there are a LOT of crappy instructors on the market right now.

There is merit to your post. Thus I am training my !!! off in BJJ currently. There are some superior training methodologies in BJJ for certain parts of the combat equation. However, the principles of combat STILL remain the same.

On the other hand, the BJJ guys, INCLUDING the black belts, are always pumping me for information/ideas/techniques from classical jujitsu and judo. Why? Because BJJ is a specialty, and combat/SD/DT is general, as is (what I consider to be) classical jujitsu. But because the background principles are the same, it all works together quite well.

Perhaps I should have said "If it is good, valid, appropriate and correct classical jujitsu, it will make sense in a BJJ and judo context." But if it is crap, as some of the pictures appear to be, it will not make sense in those contexts, thus my criticism of the pictures.

Sounds like you have spoken with some pretty crappy classical jujitsu instructors. I hope you choked their sorry a$$es out. ;)

Jeff Cook

MikeWilliams
23rd October 2006, 22:07
As Wayne has pointed out, though, many if not most classical JJ used to do it. The FIRST jujutsu tradition (Takeuchi-ryu) had it, and was known for their skill at it. The idea that Kano invented randori has long ago been put to bed. ... Plus, they actually went out and fought on the battlefield. And when the battlefields were few and far between they got in fights, and duels, and challenged people at the drop of a hat who dared hang out a shingle as a martial arts teacher.

Just because they trained, doesn't necessarily mean they trained smart, though, does it?

Judo and BJJ have a century of relatively scientific development behind them - a century which has seen huge leaps forwards in sports science, training methodology and (probably most importantly) open access to information. Add a competitive framework to push the art forward, and the freedom to specialise without worrying that all this wrestling is getting in the way of your spear/sword/riding/archery skills - and suddenly you can see how judo and BJJ just might have developed superior principles and techniques to classical JJ.

It's not just about whether randori was practised alongside kata, but whether both randori and kata were practised intelligently in the best possible environment.

Caveat: As I have no direct experience of koryu, I'm purely hypothesezizin' here...

hectokan
23rd October 2006, 22:16
Jeff,

What you just said makes a lot of sense.I actually have a couple of guys in our judo class that have trained in BJJ, jujutsu and aikido,although their jujutsu would probably be considered more like "western jujutsu" and probably not recognized by any of the koryo ranks.Some of them like yourself are pretty good,ofcourse they also train in judo or BJJ.I have yet to see or train with good jujutsu practicioners "like yourself" that don't also train in Judo or BJJ like you have,inorder to constantly draw from this experience.

I know very few people that train under a direct koryo lineage,so I really can't say.I tend to agree with Kit thou about older jujutsu being much more physical than the judo or the BJJ of today.It's like one viscious cycle that goes around and get's recycled and comes back under another name.

I was at the US judo open this weekend here in Miami and I can't honestly say that olympic judo even ressembles the judo I practice.Although I always have to explain to people that judo is much more than....let's see who can get the other guy to stall inorder to get him some shido's,or let's see who can get away with deliverying less fake attacks,while you force him with the out of bounds strategy.

This I realize is what turns people off about olympic type judo.The classical jujutsu types have a very good reason to get turned off by what they see, that's why I believe it's all good,because the truth lies somewhere inbetween.

Hissho
23rd October 2006, 22:19
That's a good point, Mike. It applies across the spectrum of combative skills, from shooting to close quarters combat.

I think the pool of potential training partners, and competitors, also drives a lot of progession and innovation. Its one thing to have a small dojo of ten or so people who never train outside the group or the system, don't ever compete, and don't do anything more than reading or Internet research on other training methodolgies.

Its another to have a much larger pool of practitioners, as well as many coming in with a lot of experience in other systems and grappling methods (as in wrestlers in Judo and BJJ) and experience in other environments in which the principles and skillsets are adapted (Judo/BJJ competitions, sub grappling, MMA, etc.)

Joseph Svinth
24th October 2006, 03:33
Kit --

Have you seen this? It's Kenji Tomiki, writing on randori, budo, and so on, in "Bulletin for the Scientific Study of Kodokan Judo, 1969," Vol. III

http://www.bstkd.com/MODBUDO1.htm

Hissho
24th October 2006, 03:45
Hadn't seen that one. I prefer this one. Looks like common theme/one was based on the other?

http://www.tomiki.org/article_tomiki_jujutsu.html

Joseph Svinth
24th October 2006, 03:55
That second one certainly reads better, but I'm guessing that the first one is pretty literal. Either way, I think Tomiki's history and theories are directly germane to the thread.

Now, not directly related to the thread, but a book you might like is "Budo Perspectives," ed. by Alexander Bennett (2005). Contributors include William Bodiford, Karl Friday, Meik Skoss, Yasuhiro Yamashita, and the curator of the Kodokan's history section.

Hissho
24th October 2006, 04:21
Yes, Tomiki's writings really helped me form some of my present ideas. I'll have to check out the Budo Perspectives.

BTW, also germane to the thread - did you ever get the LE ground fighting piece I sent you?

wmuromoto
5th November 2006, 19:37
Jeff wrote:

"..On the other hand, the BJJ guys, INCLUDING the black belts, are always pumping me for information/ideas/techniques from classical jujitsu and judo. Why? Because BJJ is a specialty, and combat/SD/DT is general, as is (what I consider to be) classical jujitsu. But because the background principles are the same, it all works together quite well."

...among other things, clarifying his points, which I do concur with. And I appreciate the honest search for answers, without getting stuck in "my style is better than your style" mentality.

I remember seeing some very good karate people who moved nearly like very tough aikido people, and one person commented, "all the arts are quite different, but when you look at the really good teachers, they have a similar smoothness and efficiency." Body dynamics, whether punching or kicking or grappling, tend to end up very similar, but it's finding that smoothness and efficiency through a particular methodology that makes us train. Of course, we have our own likings, so we tend to end up in a system that we feel is best for us.

And yes, there are bad examples found in any art. In my youth, the worst examples I encountered were young men with inflated sense of selves who think they have some skill because they have some kind of colored belt on their hips. It didn't matter the style; tae kwon do, aikido, judo, karate, kung fu. It wasn't the style that made them a-holes, it was their attitude. "Nobody can beat my (insert style) punch (kick, throw, etc.)." Insane. They were living in a fantasy world. I'm surprised this attitude is still alive and kicking, apparently. I trained at a judo club before the era of lawsuits and litigation. The two sensei, who had studied under Kawaishi, at the Kodokan, under Ueshiba Morihei and Mas Oyama, regularly used to dispose of such intruders in very quick order and in no subtle way.

There also still seems to be some lack of understanding among some people, it seems, about certain things regarding koryu jujutsu. One: it's not a monolithic art. There are different systems that are radically different in physical/technical applications and their approach to what they teach and their tactics. You can't dismiss all of them after seeing just one or two examples. Two: Most of what people in the west have seen and think is "jujutsu"...isn't. Well, not koryu jujutsu, that is. Danzan-ryu, American jujutsu, whatever variations thereof, may be all well and good for what they are, but from a technical standpoint, they're mostly iterations and variations of Kodokan judo.

Three: the argument of "if it was so good, why is judo better?" Well, if a Big Mac and a super-sized fries fills you up, why bother to have all the other restaurants in town? Who needs variety when you can eat a Happy Meal every single day. Fine. You can do it. not me.

Four: Why was judo so good? Judo had better PR. Nah, it actually did do very well. One of the reasons why is that anytime a judo person got whupped by a jujutsu person, Kano made buddies with the jujutsu style's sensei and learned their techniques. It's not as facetious as it sounds. I keep mentioning it, but Kano probably enlisted the aid of three Takeuchi-ryu shihan to develop his matwork techniques after the ryu knocked some Kodokan people around through the use of groundwork. The thing is, Kano could do it because he wasn't saying he was a competing jujutsu style, he was trying to create a new, pan-Japan, national system that would transform all of jujutsu for the 20th Century. That way, he could enlist the aid of willing jujutsu teachers across the spectrum.

I think Jeff made a very good point as to the different technical goals and nature of BJJ and modern grappling styles as compared to SD or classical koryu styles. If you have to make judgements, you have to establish what your goals are for the training involved. The two sets of systems are interrelated, but not necessarily similar in goals, so you learn differently and learn different things from both. If you have the time and means, cross training is a real eye-opener for anyone which would dispell any myths about invincibility based on style.

As an aside, I trained with some very good judo players in my earlier days, up to and including national AAU winners and US Olympic team members. I've been knocked out from chokes, and had an elbow and shoulder dislocated in judo. One sensei's osoto gari on me was so powerful, I almost had a concussion even falling on a mat that was a foot thick in padding. But the toughest, hardest to break, most effective chokes that were ever applied to me were from two Takeuchi-ryu people. That's not to say that every Takeuchi-ryu person is going to be terrific. As I said, you got good ones and bad ones in any system. But dismissing a style outright, as this thread originally attempted to discern, is kind of passe.

There's lots to be learned all around. Just not enough time in the day for it all.

Wayne Muromoto

niten ninja
5th November 2006, 20:14
There's lots to be learned all around. Just not enough time in the day for it all.
Haven't heard something quite that true in a while.

S_Osborn
14th November 2006, 20:09
I have a question for your opinions.
What is the best technique for a Jujutsuka to employ to dominate a Jiu-Jitsuka who has you in a closed guard?

TonyU
14th November 2006, 21:14
I have a question for your opinions.
What is the best technique for a Jujutsuka to employ to dominate a Jiu-Jitsuka who has you in a closed guard?
There are no "best" techniques, but there are basic ones you should know.
For example, you need have your base and learn some basic guard escapes.
Keep in mind a person holding you in their guard is not just going to sit there. He will be moving in an effort to apply a technique of his own.

S_Osborn
14th November 2006, 21:37
I have my own idea. I'm asking the opinions of others though.
I appoligize; To clarify, without passing the guard, how would a JJJ student defeat a BJJ student while in the closed guard.

TonyU
15th November 2006, 00:51
I have my own idea. I'm asking the opinions of others though.
I appoligize; To clarify, without passing the guard, how would a JJJ student defeat a BJJ student while in the closed guard.
Without having a weapon, I would suggest escaping the guard first. Any attempt to try to hit or control will be difficult, especially if he knows what he's doing.
One has to remember that to a BJJ'er being on his back with someone in their guard is not an inferior position.

Buckaroo Banzai
15th November 2006, 05:25
I have a question for your opinions.
What is the best technique for a Jujutsuka to employ to dominate a Jiu-Jitsuka who has you in a closed guard?


I don't know about best, but a few probably effective techniques are:

1. Grab his testicles and squeeze until his guard relaxes

2. Pinch inner skin of thigh and twist really really hard

3. Strike inner head of quadriceps muscle L&R repeatedly

MikeWilliams
15th November 2006, 09:14
I don't know about best, but a few probably effective techniques are:
1. Grab his testicles and squeeze until his guard relaxes
2. Pinch inner skin of thigh and twist really really hard
3. Strike inner head of quadriceps muscle L&R repeatedly


None of the above. Nos. 2 and 3, I know from experience. No. 1 - you are setting yourself up for a triangle choke.

Without passing the guard, your choices are limited to stacking him up and then repeatedly punching/elbowing to the head, or picking him up and slamming him.

Either of those might result in a k.o. or verbal submission, but really the desired effect is to get him to open his guard so that you can start to pass (this goes for the original 3 suggestions, too).

Alex Dale
15th November 2006, 22:59
Avoid the guard, maybe? :rolleyes: Keep in mind that most Japanese jujutsu systems that I know of do NOT specialize in fighting on the ground, let alone in or from the guard.

So, if I were going to have to fight a Brazilian jiu-jitsu man in some kind of sport match... I would learn BJJ.

If this is a fight, though, where we're struggling for our lives or something of that sort and weapons come into play, I don't think rolling around on the ground is going to be where he wants to be.

Just my thoughts. Great thread, by the way.

Regards,

TonyU
15th November 2006, 23:52
If this is a fight, though, where we're struggling for our lives or something of that sort and weapons come into play, I don't think rolling around on the ground is going to be where he wants to be.

Regards,
Exactly. Many view the BJJ sport aspect of it and don't realize or forgotten that there is a stand up proponent to it.

It is a good thread, because as in many art unless one has been exposed to it, one tends to misunderstand or assume certain techniques. I know I did after 20 years of stand up then start training in BJJ.

Chris McLean
16th November 2006, 02:59
I hear guys in the UFC talk about learning take down defense to be able to defend against BJJ. I think a better way would be to go learn BJJ then having an all around understanding of the style a natural defense occurs.
If you want to learn to defend against a gun learn how to use one the level of respect for the gun changes and ideas of defending against one are more applicable. Just my humble opinion not that anyone asked or anything. LOL.
I started studying BJJ after years of trashing it coming from the JJ and Judo perspective I was always ready to point fingers and say hey that is judo or Japanese jujutsu but after being a student for a while now I have learned that it is unique and there is allot to be said for the contribution of the Brazilians and especially the Gracie family.

Buckaroo Banzai
16th November 2006, 05:38
None of the above. Nos. 2 and 3, I know from experience. No. 1 - you are setting yourself up for a triangle choke.

Without passing the guard, your choices are limited to stacking him up and then repeatedly punching/elbowing to the head, or picking him up and slamming him.

Either of those might result in a k.o. or verbal submission, but really the desired effect is to get him to open his guard so that you can start to pass (this goes for the original 3 suggestions, too).


All three have worked for me, perhaps it is a matter of proper execution.

hectokan
16th November 2006, 13:47
I think a rule should exist that prohibits anyone from bad mouthing any art unless they first spend 6 months of training with a qualified instructor of that particular art.

MikeWilliams
16th November 2006, 17:20
I have my own idea. I'm asking the opinions of others though.
I appoligize; To clarify, without passing the guard, how would a JJJ student defeat a BJJ student while in the closed guard.

So what's the answer? Don't keep us in suspense!

---

Hector, I agree - but what would the internet do with all that extra free bandwidth? :p

hectokan
16th November 2006, 19:37
Hector, I agree - but what would the internet do with all that extra free bandwidth? :p


Oh,people will still trash talk anyways.I just think the 6 month mandatory rule would atleast give everyone better insight,from which to create more vivid and wild imaginary theories. lol

TonyU
16th November 2006, 22:00
I think a rule should exist that prohibits anyone from bad mouthing any art unless they first spend 6 months of training with a qualified instructor of that particular art.
Very good idea. Even then one should repect another person styles. I know for I don't like a specific style and I trained in it for a year, but hey I wasn't for me. I've actually refered people to that style. I didn't like it and felt it had no value to me, but doesn't someone else won't.

The only time it irks me when a person tries to make it something that it's not, but that's a whole 'nother story

havamal
26th September 2012, 16:03
Hi guys

Great discussion. Being from a traditional Japanese Jujutsu system (Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu) that focuses much of it attention today on practical self defense, I would like to weigh in with some thoughts.

A common misconception being made here is the assumption that most classical Nihon jujutsu systems were orginally empty hand disciplines which focused much of their attention on newaza. This is historically incorrect. Most classical jujutsu systems employed a variety of weapons in their training. During the Edo period many of these systems adjusted their focus and slowly discarded the weapon applications and waza. We in the Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu however still train in the offensive tactics of weapon use which includes concealment in addition to taijutsu and weapons defense against weapons. The incorrect assumption that jujutsu was originally a weaponless art is a result of unintentional misinformation common around the time of the formation of Judo. Judo’s considerations for safety and it’s ensuing popularity due to it’s inclusion in the Olympic Games led Judo to become the defacto representative of historic Nihon Jujutsu in the minds of the public. Given the publics historical ignorance we should not be surprised that Brazilian Jujutsu has now taken Judo’s place in this regard.

Another misconception is that Japanese Jujutsu systems historically employed only rudimentary striking techniques and was unsophisticated when compared to an art like karate. Classical Shindo Yoshin ryu is noted for it's atemi heavy curriculum including kyusho ate. In fact the late Takamura Yukiyoshi Sensei's ability to employ effective atemi had to be seen and felt to be fully appreciated. He often included devestating head butts as part of techniques intended as counters to virtually any attack. At one seminar I attended in 1989, Takamura Sensei knocked a rather persistent Okinawan “hard ki” stylist cold as a wedge with one of his frightening head butts. For all this gentlemans talk of hard "ki", in a more realistic situation without the opportunity to set up or prepare himself, the Okinawan “ki” stylist went down like a sack of bricks.

While I personally respect and admire the Gracie family and Brazilian Jujutsu, comparison between the two is tricky because they succeed in different environments for different reasons. Remember that the psychological and technical fundamentals of conflict that exist in a street confrontation are completely different from that of a ring fight. It is in the street against a possible weapon ( while possibly secreting your own weapon ) that traditional or classical Japanese Jujutsu will show it strengths. But, only then if your dojo/sensei also addresses the challenge of training you to an intensity level that induces chemical stress which simulates a genuine self defense situation. This is an absolute must! You see, teaching methodology is where Brazilian Jujutsu and sport Judo surpass most traditional / Japanese Jujutsu systems taught today. Brazilian Jujutsu and Judo students train to fight and win in a genuine contest of skill, will and endurance while most traditional Japanese Jujutsu students train not to fight, but for fun. You take your training a lot more seriously when you KNOW for sure that conflict is inevitable and that it WILL HAPPEN. Alternately most classical students of all martial arts train for someday instead of today with the hope or gamble that “someday” will never really come to pass. Thats a dangerous gamble and not the attitude of a serious martial artist. Thats the attitude of someone playing at martial arts as if they were bowling or playing tennis. If you want your art to work on the street for you, you better train as if your life depends on it because it does. Japanese Jujutsu taught correctly should give the practitioner tools to effectively assess and meet surprise, attack or stalking. I know one jujutsu practitioner who while being stalked by a mugger in a park turned the tables on his stalker and started stalking the stalker. You won’t learn the techniques or mindset this gentleman employed by studying Brazilian Jujutsu because they are of no use in the ring. Be that as it may, I respect and enjoy Brazilian Jujutsu as a modern manifestation of Japanese Jujutsu’s ancient roots. Am I disappointed if the public begins to perceive all Jujutsu as essentially Brazilian Jujutsu. Nope! The persons I desire as students will seek me out because traditional Japanese Jujutsu is what they are looking for.......... and thats a good thing for any sensei.

Toby Threadgill
Soryushin Dojo
Dallas, Texas

“ Most dojo’s are glorified social clubs thriving in an environment of emotional stimulation heightened by a false or extremely limited perception of danger. When real danger shows itself in such a dojo the participants run for cover. In a real dojo the participants run towards the conflict! ” - Yukio Takamura

Hmm. Thank you. Osu.

shinbushi
26th September 2012, 17:04
AWesome post. I think that it sums up the differences very nicely

Ree
26th September 2012, 18:29
Hi all
I second Mr Threadgills comments on Traditional Nihon Jujutsu.
Toby we have headbutts in Tenjin Shinyo Ryu do you feel that Takamura Yukiyoshi Sensei's headbutt technique originates from the Koryu Kata or just his love for the technique?

Hissho
28th September 2012, 01:15
AWesome post. I think that it sums up the differences very nicely

AND the similarities - as in, neither one is really "street" or "combat" effective unless trained that way. Both have more or less equal, if separate, challenges in adapting to modern practicality depending on the level you hope to train to.

Lee, this thread is years old, and I don't think Toby is even a member here anymore, so not sure you'll get an answer. Some of his students are and might chime in.

Ree
2nd October 2012, 08:31
Kit
Sorry had one of those weeks, abit slow:laugh:

Thanks anyway.

Hissho
2nd October 2012, 09:57
Not at all - be nice if some of these boards picked back up!!

clayton
2nd July 2013, 00:52
Words have meaning, based on not only its definition, but how the public uses them. Thus, I suspect that “jujutsu” has evolved today to the point that it is often associated with ground fighting skills from South America, and not as a traditional Japanese martial art.


I thought i would recap this quote from 13years ago... How true it was.

Kendoguy9
3rd July 2013, 03:32
Hi Clayton,

That is an interesting quote and a true one. It is something like generic trademarks (Q-tip, Klenex, etc.). To most people jujutsu (or whatever spelling) is a ground wrestling art. Of course to most people every martial art is "karate" also. The more I study koryu the more I see how far apart koryu and BJJ are from each other. Arts like judo, sumo, kendo, etc are just as far from koryu also, and that's okay. I think it is a good idea for people who seldom or never use thier jujutsu and koryu in "the real world" to engage in a combat sport of some sort to help understand dealing with an opponent who will resist and attempt to attack you in a more free environment. For those that use thier skills on a regular basis (police and military mostly) than it is maybe not as critical (but still a good idea).

Thanks for kicking the thread back up'

Hissho
6th July 2013, 19:52
As I move along the path I find I have an increasingly nuanced view of it....

I should note that I really don't care what gets called "jujutsu," I think the term has room for myriad expressions of the concepts/principles.

What gets hazy is what exactly is the desired end state of practice.

I think, entirely apart from say a sumo/combat sport base inculcated from early childhood in "feudal" times, some ryu were simply the equivalent of modern combatives. Some preserved or went on to preserve both sport (taryu jiai) and combat elements, along the lines that Judo later simply followed with its randori and kata practice.

The major difference seems to be that ultimately the koryu largely dispensed with the competitive aspects and training methodologies that went along with them - such as say contact dueling with bokuto.

I have found that training versus an antagonist that demonstrates an opposing will: either tactically or in personal combat (force on force variations) or both, is what truly hones practical combatives ability far beyond what rote technique practice can do. I have instructor status in two different modern defensive tactics/combatives systems, one LE centric, and one kind of across the board (civilian/LE/Military contexts), that strongly emphasize such drilling.

Likewise, I have more and more conversations with experienced practitioners and observers of koryu that note that the folks with experience in Judo, or wrestling, or full contact karate seem to have a much better grasp on combative movement and applications in their respective ryu.

I have also long been involved in martial arts, DT, and modern combatives training that does not do so, and the difference is palpable.

Now I do feel combat sport-cum-combatives can be rife with problems in the spheres of situational awareness, initiative, asymmetric confrontations, environmental dynamics, mindset, and for lack of a better catch all, "force science."

However, with oppositional training so critical to fine tune actual fighting skills, in the absence of a combatives-centric opposing will/force on force training paradigm, combat sport tends to be what those who embrace that paradigm default to.

Trying to work that problem in my own practice now....

Kendoguy9
7th July 2013, 13:55
Hey Kit,

Great post as always. It is the challenge of the instructor and practitioner to find the right recipe to get out of the training what you need. I think what makes it hard is also what the student brings to the table. It is really a custom mix for each person.

I've trained with kata only sort of guys and did some rolling with them. As soon as I *started* to get an armbar on them they tapped out. They had no idea they should fight out of it. I think they assumed once it is on they were done for. I was shocked when they tapped and thought they were hurt. On the other side of the coin; I rolled with a sports only bjj guy and he had me in his guard. I stood up and did a light dakiage several times. He had zero situational awareness what was going on because there is no dakiage in bjj or even sport judo. I wasn't going to slam him on the ground hard because I was a guest at the dojo. It was very interesting for me though. Each of these groups needed a little something different in their training. Both groups are also very talented at what they do, but they just need a little bit more from the other side. i have a feeling if those two groups cross trained they would be very skilled fighters.

Uh oh I'm late for class. Catch ya guys later.

Chris

Hissho
30th November 2013, 22:35
Adding to this....Sorry for the cross posting: I'm not a member at Aikiweb but this thread demonstrates both the commonly encountered "frog in a well" viewpoints on many levels, then superbly addressed by Kevin Leavitt his ongoing posts. Thought it fit in here...

Kevin jumps in about page 5:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12647

mkrueger
14th December 2013, 07:12
Wow, this is quite the fascinating thread and interesting from a "historical" context as well. It is neat to look back and see what people were thinking years ago.

The only thing I have to add that hasn't already been said is personal experience. I currently train in both Traditional Jujutsu (a derivative of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu) and Brazilian Jiu-jitsu (specifically the Helio Gracie line with less emphasis on competition after becoming tired of the "thug mentality" I found at other variants of BJJ schools) and have found that the two ended up complimenting each other quite well. My arm bars amongst other things significantly improved training in TJJ and problems I faced going to the ground were easily solved with BJJ, even if it was something as simple as disengaging and standing back up.

The metaphor I use is of a toolbox and both TJJ and BJJ are different tools in my toolbox for different kinds of problems.

Hissho
17th January 2014, 02:40
Matt
I think that is a fascinating combination and ripe with possibilities for both disciplines.

Kevin73
30th January 2014, 21:25
This is not a 100% viewpoint, because as always schools can very.

But, BJJ seems to have put more emphasis on the sporting aspect of what the Gracies learned and taught. The GJJ has returned to more of it's roots and putting emphasis on self-defense and excluding many popular tournament techniques that aren't good for "the street".

If you can find a copy of Royce Gracies' book, or Rorion's videos on self-defense, you will see that there isn't any difference between that and the TJJ/JJJ for the stand up techniques (locks/throws/takedowns etc) for common grabs/pushes/tackles and other attacks.

Evisceration
11th February 2014, 08:10
If you can find a copy of Royce Gracies' book, or Rorion's videos on self-defense, you will see that there isn't any difference between that and the TJJ/JJJ for the stand up techniques (locks/throws/takedowns etc) for common grabs/pushes/tackles and other attacks.

First I mean no disrespect to any material art they all have pros and cons. I agree Kevin bjj is more sporty now than ever its what taekwondo turned in to what once was a martial art is now a sport judo as well. Which leads me to the self defence videos they are essentially judo with modified atemi all standing locks/ chokes in judo are illegal now and hence not taught Similar to many arts unfortunate but all to common. as far as im concerned bjj is the worst street fighting art out there in one on one its is amazing in 2 on one semi viable 3 or more attackers useless grappling one person while getting kicked by another sucks or grappling some one with a knife horrible granted i do ground sparring because often times fights lead there

Stefffen
26th February 2014, 13:18
First I mean no disrespect to any material art they all have pros and cons. I agree Kevin bjj is more sporty now than ever its what taekwondo turned in to what once was a martial art is now a sport judo as well. Which leads me to the self defence videos they are essentially judo with modified atemi all standing locks/ chokes in judo are illegal now and hence not taught Similar to many arts unfortunate but all to common. as far as im concerned bjj is the worst street fighting art out there in one on one its is amazing in 2 on one semi viable 3 or more attackers useless grappling one person while getting kicked by another sucks or grappling some one with a knife horrible granted i do ground sparring because often times fights lead there

A situation with one on three, your will probably end on the ground anyway. So a good bjj base will probably do you good.

Evisceration
26th February 2014, 18:56
Your right they do go to ground most of the time you trip lose balance get tackled ect but the first and last time I stayed on the ground I got hit in the back of the head and was knocked out my only saving grace was I apparently gave the one guy a concussion a broken nose and a shatered cheek bone so they took him to the hospital instead of beating me senseless that was me in full mount for maybe 5 seconds bjj is good to know but not as your base an amazing supplement to any striking art I personally prefer judo though because you can stand or go to ground

El Lobo Mas Solitario
11th July 2014, 14:02
"How is it that JJJ is seen as being less than effective compared to its Brazilian offshoot? "

marketing .......

and training in a less culturally uncomfortable atmosphere that suits the narcissism of the times.

BJJ is judo newaza 24/7/365, Basically Japanese Judo. but joe six pack thinks it's not "ornamental" so he's not suspicious.

read THE best history of BJJ in an Aikido book of all places. Aikido in Japan and The Way Less Traveled. friend gave it to me. talks all about this issue.

mkrueger
6th August 2015, 01:35
This is just a little footnote on the usage of the words jiu-jitsu and jujutsu. In this thread and elsewhere on this forum I've come to use "jujutsu" when referring to the Japanese art and "jiu-jitsu" when referring to the Brazilian art.

The following are a series of graphs generated by Google's Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). This tool allows one to graph the instances of a word's usage in known publications over a period of time.

The first image is an example showing the percentage of times the three words "judo", "martial arts" and "kung fu" show up in English language sources from 1900 - 2000.

The reason I don't do pre-1900 is because the prevalence of the word "judo" prior to 1900 with the complete non-existence of the terms "martial arts" or "kung fu" skews the graph to the point of unreadability. However, note the slight increase in the usage of "judo" from 1910-1920 followed by explosive growth around 1930.

10865

The second graph shows the usage of the terms judo, jujutsu, jiujitsu and jiu-jitsu during the same time period. You'll note that the spelling "jiu-jitsu" was in fact in much higher usage than the other three terms from 1900-1910 and then we can see the term judo take off during 1930-1940.

10866

It was around 1900-1910 that judo came to Brazil. Romanization of Japanese words had not been standardized (no modified Hepburn or Kunrei-shiki for us yet. Nihon-shiki technically existed at this point though not in Brazil) so the art that was to become known as Kodokan Judo was still being presented using some variant of the phonetic transcription "jiu-jitsu." (You can even find the variant "jui-jitsu" in the 1915 Shanghai Police Self-Defense manual.)

It appears that at the time the term jiu-jitsu was a more common method of phonetically writing 柔術... which is why I suspect we have Brazilian Jiu-jitsu today and not Brazilian Judo. We were still at least two decades away from formal permanence of the term "judo" in English (and apparently in Brazilian) publication.

It is a bit like using the word "Brazil" to refer to the country when it's actually written "Brasil" in Portuguese. Everyone mangles words when bringing it into their local language. How about コンピュータ、トラック、or コーヒー anyone?

So whereas one can accurately claim that Brazilian Jiu-jitsu is really Brazilian Judo it's a bit of a retroactive linguistic historical rewrite to make that claim as the term judo really wasn't being used in the West at that point in written works. The name is a reflection of the historical time period during which it was transmitted to a new group of people.

McBryde Mats
18th March 2016, 11:27
Great insights in this thread... i think that BJJ is just the natural evolution of the art as a fighting style... for instance, what Eddie Bravo is doing with no-gi BJJ is just incredible...at the end of the day, its just improvements by practitioners over time

Hissho
18th March 2016, 20:14
I'd agree with Clayton - I have taken to referring to it as Basically Just Jujitsu - It really is much more akin to Pre-WWII Judo in its breadth and scope, just with the emphasis on tachiwaza vs. newaza reversed. Judo was even going in the same newaza-heavy direction.

Today BJJ is changing still: it's no longer Brazilian, really, as Americans such as Eddie Bravo mentioned above are inspiring major developments and changing in their particular expression ( in his "10th Planet Ryu").

There is a growing push toward a more practical self defense focus in other groups, and Rickson's explorations and sharing of his Invisi-Jits (my word, not his :D) will push development in still other fruitful directions.

steveM
31st January 2019, 17:55
i love both.