BJJ vs. JJJ

[Jeff Cook]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[hectokan]

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]

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?


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

[epramberg]

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" ( ) 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.