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?