Likes Likes:  12
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 88

Thread: BJJ - Is it really Jujutsu?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    208
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

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

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

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

  2. #47
    a.mlinarevic Guest

    Default gracie bjj was geared for vale tudo style comps.

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

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    24
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Strategy and tactics...

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

    Just some food for thought

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

    Best regards,
    Rico

  4. #49
    MarkF Guest

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Mark
    Last edited by MarkF; 22nd February 2003 at 13:07.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Osaka JP/Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    50
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Koryu and ground work

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

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    379
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default So - I'll restate in different words - Is BJJ really Jujutsu?

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

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

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

    Rupert Atkinson

  7. #52

    Default Re: So - I'll restate in different words - Is BJJ really Jujutsu?

    Originally posted by rupert
    These rules are set in place to protect fighters and fans, to keep the action going and to maintain the quality of the promotion and the sport.
    And there you have it. It seems ludicrous to me that having rules in place for competition or randori (or even partner drills in the dojo) somehow implies the watering down or ineffectiveness of an art.

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheers,

    Mike
    (sport budoka and proud of it)

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    162
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default Re: Re: So - I'll restate in different words - Is BJJ really Jujutsu?

    Originally posted by Mike Williams

    But I would argue very strongly that the best way to learn how to apply core principles is through randori or sporting competition. I study jujutsu - I know heaps of ground submissions. So how come since I started BJJ (at a purely sport-oriented school) I have been tapping like a typewriter? And how come I can (with just a few months BJJ) go back to my JJ club and dominate most people on the ground? Because BJJ has given me the strategies and principles to deal with live opponents that were lacking in my JJ training.
    I'm assuming the Jujutsu training you're receiving is focused on fighting multiple opponents. If so, then being on the ground doing submission techniques wouldn't be your training focus as multiple attackers aren't going to wait for you to finish them off one at a time.

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

    "I'd like to think there are always... possibilities."

  9. #54
    Hissho Guest

    Thumbs up Mike Williams has caught the correct!

    Mike-

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

    Good Show,

    Kit LeBlanc

  10. #55
    MarkF Guest

    Default

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


    Mark

  11. #56

    Thumbs up

    Kit -
    Thanks! Funnily enough, I tend to think the same about your posts (you too, Mark)

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

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

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

    Cheers,

    Mike

  12. #57
    Mekugi Guest

    Default

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

    Whatyall think??

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Bragg, NC
    Posts
    284
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Whatyall think??
    I think Royce will get a kick out of my:

    BJJ = Basicly Just Judo T-shirt

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

    There are no excuses on the mat, in the cage, or on the battlefeild! Train wisely!

  14. #59
    Michael Price Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Hissho

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

    Kit LeBlanc

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

    Cheers
    -Michael Price

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Bragg, NC
    Posts
    284
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Michael Price



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

    Cheers
    -Michael Price
    How DARE you say something that is truthful and logical. We all KNOW it the STYLE that matters not the person.
    LeTerian Bradley

    There are no excuses on the mat, in the cage, or on the battlefeild! Train wisely!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Discussions on modern "Ju-Jitsu", 2007 version
    By john_lord_b3 in forum Jujutsu
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 5th November 2007, 07:54
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20th February 2003, 07:22
  3. The Scope of Jujutsu?
    By Jon S. in forum Jujutsu
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 14th June 2002, 23:33
  4. Submission Judo
    By Kit LeBlanc in forum Judo
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 28th July 2001, 11:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •