Article by Mr. Johan Smits*
In my view there are (for this discussion) three forms of jujutsu: koryu jujutsu; westernized jujutsu; modern jujutsu. The last term at least for the sake of convenience can be used for jujutsu styles, founded after 1900 in Japan. Westernized jujutsu, has been in Europe for almost a century. The lack of identity from which is suffered comes from the fact that no complete system of jujutsu has been transferred to the West.
The first teachers did teach koryu jujutsu for a part. Tenjin Shin'yo ryu; Yoshin ryu and Ryoi Shinto ryu were three systems which were taught. However these first teachers did not transmit the complete systems. What they taught was mainly, part of the syllabus of their ryu, for self-defense. They named it jujutsu and they graded their pupils who also used the name jujutsu.
Now if those teachers taught an art to which they referred to as jujutsu, then it is jujutsu. Nothing wrong with that.
The next problem is that westernized jujutsu was mainly a bag of tricks. No substantial theory, no history beyond one generation. Fairly soon after jujutsu had been "established" another system came to the West. The system is Judo. It is well defined, a good theory based on a sound system and explained in a way westerners could understand. Let's not forget well organized and with a lot of publicity. After judo got started jujutsu almost disappeared in Europe.
There were Jujutsu teachers, mostly the stubborn one's who did not organize, who kept teaching the "original jujutsu". Later with the karate/kungfu/grappling boom yes jujutsu lost even more of it's almost non-existing identity.
Please do not get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with Westernized jujutsu. Far from it!
Thanks to the dedication to jujutsu of just a few people we are abel to learn a wonderful art.
Now imagine the only thing these people had were the techniques as taught to them by their teachers. They had no connection to an age old "clan". They had only themselves and their techniques had better work or else they would be out of business very soon. They were tough people and worthy of our respect.
It is just that throughout the years I noticed a lot of people, and often those with a background in koryu reacted a bit negative about westernized jujutsu and there is no reason for that. Westernized jujutsu is a form of jujutsu, no matter what. No matter what people say, it has been here for almost a century and it is here to stay.
Johan Smits
From the discussions at E-Budo (www.e-budo.com) regarding "What's Wrong with Western 'ju jitsu' ".
Article by Mr. Robert Reinberger*
(This article is a response to the one written by Mr. Smits and by some others)
Johan, I know it's problematic to apply our western concept of strict separation and categorizing at Japanese arts, but "for the sake of convenience" and general understanding I tend to use a more usual interpretation of "Koryu", that is, I use that expression for styles founded prior to the Meiji-restoration of 1867/68.
I think, Prof. Kano's Kodokan Judo was sometimes, and at some places even the first and main source for what came to the west. However, the distinction seems to not have been as strict at that times, and even Kodokan teachers often used Jiu-Jitsu, Ju-Jitsu or Ju-Jutsu to describe the art. Additionally, Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu may have had some impact (see the book "Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu" by Hancock/Higashi).
In Austria, at least, as can be seen in several early books on the subject, sometimes the practice of self-defense was called "Jiu-Jitsu", and the competitions were regarded as "Judo". An episode: In Germany, an editor of a newspaper wrote in a letter to one of the Jiu-Jitsu practitioners: "We can not publish anything on Jiu-Jitsu in our sports-section, as we don't regard Jiu-Jitsu as sport." In a historical sense, he was right, wasn't he? Other people, of course, regarded Jiu-Jitsu as self-defense and sport. However, a strict distinction between Judo and Jiu-Jitsu wasn't very widespread before WWII, in this part of the world, I guess.
Furthermore, I think there are different types of "westernized Jiu Jitsu":
Firstly, you have the teachings that arrived in the west at the beginning of the last century, and what emerged from them in the past 100 years or so, heavily influenced by early Kodokan Judo. I would classify a lot of what is taught in Austria under the name of "Jiu Jitsu" into that category, as well as what is called "Brasilian Jiu Jitsu" today, for example. At a different level and degree of "westernization", even systems like Danzan Ryu may be included, if it isn't seen as a category on it's own, as well as its offsprings like Wally Jay's "Small Circle Jujitsu". I don't know, if not even "traditional" westernized Jiu Jitsu would be a good term to describe that types, which I consider "legitimate" westernized Jiu Jitsu.
Number two, there are systems, that were later developed, using parts and techniques from the systems mentioned above, and mixed with techniques from Kodokan Judo, Aikido and different Karate systems. What is taught in Germany under the name of "Ju-Jutsu" since the 1960's fits into that category to a wide extent, in my opinion. I think of those styles as still legitimate "westernized Jujutsu", and only have problems with the usage of the term "Ryu" by some of them.
Number three are systems, founded by "teachers" of other (mostly Punch/Kick/Strike) arts, which included very few, and poorly executed Judo or Aikido techniques and jumped onto the Jiu Jitsu bandwagon during the 1990's. Sometimes not even the arts forming the bases of such systems are of (direct) Japanese origin. Herewith I have big problems, regarding legitimacy.
The fourth type are recently founded styles, with roots in Japanese Gendai Jujutsu. The future will tell, how they will develop. As an example I offer the "offsprings" of Hakko Ryu, as there are Hakko Denshin Ryu (founded by LaMonica Sensei and Garcia Sensei, both Menkyo Kaiden San Dai Kichu of Hakko Ryu), and Chi Ryu (founded by Bernaschewice Sensei, student of Garcia Sensei). While the use of "Ryu" by this styles may be seen as problematic by some, I think that systems are very close to their Japanese roots (especially Hakko Denshin Ryu, with the connection to Irie Sensei in Omiya); At the moment, I wouldn't call it "westernized Jujutsu", and mentioned it only for the sake of completeness. I don't know for sure if styles of this type, but with roots in Koryu Jujutsu, are in existence already.
Collective designation vs. well defined, specific art:
The term Jujutsu, to the best of my knowledge, came into existence as a collective designation for methodes of close combat during the Edo-period. Most schools used different terms to describe that part of their syllabus. That may be one of the problems with the "identity" of "westernized" Jujutsu, where the term is used to describe "one system", despite of the fact which kind of very different doctrines are taught under that term.
In that historical coherence, the idea of an "open system, sort of anything goes", that Johan mentioned makes sense, IMHO. When you look at the wide variety of arts the original collective designation comprised, it's the most understandable concept, when the term is used to describe one ("open") system. If you want to describe a (your?) specific style within that "open system", it is neccessary to name it somehow, or nobody will know exactly, what you are talking about (but please refrain from calling it XXXX-Ryu, if possible).
Within that dilemma we encounter both, a positive and a negative aspect of the whole concept, IMHO: the idea of an "open system" may provide one to develop a system of self-defense, and, to a lesser degree, a system for being successful at certain types of competitions, that is very well suited to one's personal conditions and strong points, and, of course, personal interpretations (like my own) of what "Budo" means are also easy to fit in. On the other hand, there are obvious dangers with everybody using the term at his own discretion.
Neil Hawkins said "Some people have tried to do this, they are taking judo, aikido, karate or what-ever and are trying to add other bits and try to arrive back at the original jujutsu. I think you cannot reverse engineer like that. There is nothing wrong with their ystem, but it is not jujutsu"
Taking into account what I've said so far, and while I agree that the result of those efforts aren't "original" Jujutsu per se, I find it a little bit to strong to deny them the right to be called Jujutsu at all. I would, at most, do that regarding styles I mentioned as "number three systems" earlier. And, while it isn't possible to "reverse engineer" to arrive at "classical" Jujutsu (I think the term "classical" describes better what is meant, than words like "traditional" or "original" would), I believe it is possible to "re-" introduce some (not so technical) aspects of Edo period Kobudo, may be like they were re-interpreted in "original" Japanese Gendai Budo (without the aspect of competition overwhelming everything else, that is) into westernized arts.
In my case, the Jiu Jitsu which I encountered in 1970 was mainly sport-oriented. Thus, when I commenced training in Goju Ryu Karatedo two or three years later, it was the first time that I was exposed to a certain amount of Japanese Culture (and Budo) within an art, which I found interesting and which made me search, talk and read. Of course, as we all know very well, Karate is an own category, and when I started to train in Harada Sensei's Jigen Ryu, another level and other aspects, so far only "experienced" in an academical sense, occured. I try to include a lot of that into my practice of "westernized Jiu Jitsu" as well. Of course, that doesn't make it "classical" or even "modern" "Japanese" Jujutsu. But I think it can be categorized as "traditional (westernized) Jujutsu".
So, I think, while "westernized Jiu Jitsu" in general has big advantages regarding variety and adaptability (think of "Ju" !!), today it mostly concerns self-defense and sport, not neccessarily in that order.
The big shortcoming of most of these systems, as I see it, is the lack of the "Budo" - concept, including historical, cultural and mental aspects, similar to what happens recently to several Gendai Budo in Japan as well as abroad. Regarding that aspects, we can learn a lot from Koryu, especially if we connect that knowledge with the original teachings and ideas of the "founders" of arts like Judo, Aikido and even (Japanese) Karate. This may fill a big gap, IMHO, for people interested in more than only self-defence or sports.
So, if you want to learn self-defence, some of the "westernized Jiu Jitsu" systems, as they are thaught today, may be good for you.
If you want sport (including the western "Fit & Fun" philosophy), find other systems of "westernized Jiu Jitsu", or try something like Kendo, Judo or Karate, as practiced widely today.
If you are interested in Budo (including more "eastern" type of philosophies) in general, perhaps Aikido, Kyudo or Iaido (the styles without competition) may fit your demand.
If you want to experience all or most of the above, try several arts or find one of the few teachers, that try to cover most of that aspects with their teachings, be it in a ("Japanese") Gendai Budo or in a "westernized Jiu Jitsu" system.
If you want Koryu Budo/Bujutsu of course, you only will be satisfied with joining a legitimate Koryu, however demanding that may be. There is no substitute for that.
If you want to simply do something connected with what I call "pseudo-asiatic mumbo-jumbo", then you are really lucky: you will find lots of that, sold under every thinkable name.
Robert Reinberger
From the discussions at E-Budo (www.e-budo.com) regarding "What's Wrong with Western 'ju jitsu' ".