Have a read and chat about this critique of Ju Jutsu

[Tripitaka of AA]

I came across this thread entry and it seemed like a fairly good critique of Ju Jutsu and its training methods, with some implications for training in Shorinji Kempo. As a springboard for discussion, I thought it might be worth reproducing here. I'll emphasise, it is not a criticism of Shorinji Kempo and it wasn't written with Shorinji Kempo in mind, but I thought some of the comments may be relevant.

Originally posted on MartialArtsPlanet.Com by "Sokklab" in this thread, which is about a group called Aiuchi Ju Jitsu.

I have to say as a disclaimer, that I am a beginner at Japanese Ju Jitsu, having only been training in it for a year and a bit. Saying that, I've been training in Thai Arts for um, quite a long while now and have 'been around' Martial Arts for along time, on and off. At present I am not training at an Aiuchi club (Can't get there on the designated days at present) and I am looking around at other Japanese Ju Jitsu clubs, as I wish to continue learning.

The Aiuchi and TJF way of practice is very technically thorough and I feel that Japanese Ju Jitsu in general is an excellent system of practice and the techniques can be mostly integrated and used by an experienced fighter, or at least someone who is used to a bit of 'roughousing' and/ or exposes themselves to more 'interactive' training methodology.

The problems that some Japanese Ju Jitsu systems have (not all), is the way they are taught and trained.

Firstly, there is very little meaningful resistance after a technique has been delivered, Ie You attack I defend and wait there whilst I throw you. It's true that after you've been practising a while you can pull-off alot of Ju Jitsu techniques quickly, so that the delay between delivery and execution is less so, but still, a system where the majority of its training consists of attacks and responses in isolation from meaningful continuation and follow-ups is by and large flawed in it's Training Methods (not the system itself).

And whilst certainly higher grades within these systems are very technically impressive and excellent at Ju Jitsu, the question remains, can they fight???

Without meaningful Resistance, techniques become 'ideals', in that in practice you get used to performing something slickly against pre-arranged attacks without the grunt-push-pull of anything approaching a 'Real Situation' (tm), this can be misleading. To me, you need to do both and more besides.

Secondly there isn't anywhere near enough emphasis placed upon Striking and Kicking, Hitting things with Strikes, avoiding strikes (as in 'sparring'). Striking is way down the list of importance within alot of Japanese Ju Jitsu systems, where often it is just assumed that people know how to punch etc.

Whilst that's an assumption you can make with a certain amount of confidence in regards to most Ju Jitsu strikes with the elbow (after all you know how to bend your arm right?), there is, obviously alot more to striking than making a fist, this is very rarely dealt with and represents a problem in that, what's the point in knowing alot of techniques, if your means of delivery is flawed? Even if you know how to punch?

If you are not used to belting things, then how are you going to react when you have to, for real?

Imagine being a boxer and only throwing punches at a stationary wall-pad and then trying to actually hit somebody without training for it, a real moving target. You find that mostly you can't because, you didn't learn to work against a moving target, you only work against stationary ones, you only work against stationary attacks, you only work in singular isolation, or knowing that the attack is a one two punch etc.

As a side note, there is way too much emphasis upon achieving Wrist Locks etc, often at the expense of just hammering someone (*See end point). This can lead to way too much emphasis upon finishing someone with finesse and making the syllabus fit the assault (You train as you Fight).

Whilst Locks, throws etc are all excellent techniques in themself, they should just be something that occur as a 'window of opportunity' and not something to go fishing for. I feel that with the over-emphasis upon Locking and Throwing in alot of Ju Jitsu syllabuses, some people practising are encouraging themselves to go looking for said techniques and not see the easier option that a strike or kick may well represent.

And as strikes etc in Ju Jitsu are often called 'weakeners' (the term negates them being taken seriously) alot of the time people forget about them all together and become fixated upon 'wrist spaghetti'. Ju Jitsu needs to get back to being a system of equal emphasis.

Thirdly, Ju Jitsu is a taught as a 'by-rote' system. In that generally for every attack, there is X amount of defensive techniques. This is excellent in terms of having a large syllabus to draw upon as a bonafide Martial Art, but represents a weakness in terms of all the techniques you end up carrying around in order to defend yourself.

To clarify, this is often the difference between Self-Defence and Martial Arts. For self-defence you need less techniques and more attitude, drive, speed, power etc. You don't need thirty defences against a wrist grab, when one or two will do.

For alot of Martial Arts you need to have alot of techniques because these build into all the possible variables of technical configurations of the system that you are learning and that is part of the fun, enjoyment and social practice of a Martial System. And that is the really great cool thing about doing Martial Arts, in that 'wow I know all these techniques'.

*In closing, I say, that the first major strength of Japanese Ju Jitsu, is that it has many excellent pragmatic answers to Habitual Acts of Violence (HAOV), particularly against grabs, holds, pushes, strangles etc.

Whilst I have outlined what I feel are flaws within the majority of Ju Jitsu training methods, I do feel that with exposure to and adoption of other ways of practising and training, Japanese Ju Jitsu represents a wonderful art based on sound practical principles for defence of ones person.

This to me, is an issue more to do with 'How you Train' and not 'What you Train in'. As someone with a background in Boxing, Muay Thai etc I can automatically bolt-on alot of JJJ type techniques and make them work in real situations (and have done), but that is only because I am used to working techniques against resistance in 'Live' training, i'm not so confident that some of my fellow Ju Jitsukas could say the same.

[David Dunn]

I have to say as a disclaimer, that I am a beginner at Japanese Ju Jitsu, having only been training in it for a year and a bit.

Says it all.

This `resistance' to techniques is a peculiar idea that has infiltrated budo in the west, particularly throwing techniques. Resistance to a technique implies that you're doing something other than the technique is designed for. Gyaku gote is against pulling or ude juji attack. You resist, you do something else (pushing or twisting the other way, or simply hanging on for dear life), ergo you're doing something that the technique isn't designed to deal with. If you do the correct attack, and the correct response is executed you can't resist it.

More subtly, if you don't allow yourself to be thrown around you won't learn proper tai sabaki yourself - I think good ukemi is important in learning tai sabaki in general. Unfortunaely my ukemi is not so good, so must work harder

Not learning good atemi and not practicing randori applies neither to Shorinji Kempo nor Jujutsu if done properly.

Perhaps once someone has learned the whole system, learned how to be sensitive to the attack, learned how henka works as attacks adapt, learned how to apply the technique instantaneously, and then learned what the purpose of budo itself it, then they can write missives about what is wrong with it.

[johan_frendin]

Gassho!

This `resistance' to techniques is a peculiar idea that has infiltrated budo in the west, particularly throwing techniques.

Criticism also comes from "Higher" authorities in Japanese Judo.
Read this article from Neil Ohlenkamp -

http://judoinfo.com/sport.htm

Johan Frendin

[Bri Thai]

Originally posted by David Dunn
If you do the correct attack, and the correct response is executed you can't resist it.

This says it all for me. Personally I thought the article well written and fairly accurate in its assessment.

Do the correct attack? Yes, beginners should have some compliancy in training.......but anyone who needs their "attacker" to "do the correct attack" is missing the essential point of a fight, i.e. the other guy is trying to hurt you, not help you. He will not do the correct attack at all. No offence intended.

I thought that the judoinfo article was spot on.

Too many martial artists think their technique "too deadly" to practice against a resisiting opponent. Conversely, too many sports enthusiasts have thrown away the most effective fight winners so that they can compete safely.

The answer is to find a middle way. Devise some rules to allow effective free practice, but do not let "winning" these training sessions become the goal. Learning is the goal. And retain the most effective techniques also, still seeking efficient ways to train their application, even if it does fall short of full contact free practice.

Again, learning is the goal.

[David Dunn]

I'm not sure what your point is Johan. That article isn't anything like the critique that David posted.

[Simon Ford-Powell]

I also largely agree with the Judo article, with one caveat. Sports martial arts can also become very stylised, due to the fact that often they ARE predictible. For example, when a Judo randori bout starts, you know you are not gonna be kicked in the nads, you are gonna fight for grips and maybe avoid or attempt a throw/takedown. You cannot learn to fight without fighting, so you must have that element in your training. But, you cannot fight safely in martial sports without rules and that isn't combat, although it's the best way to learn to deal with fighting stresses and develop fighting spirit. A balance in training is what is needed and i have yet to see this within any major style or art. I have seen it with individual groups, clubs and instructors tho'.

[Mekugi]

Japanese "Jujutsu" huh?

Hmmm...which ryu?

[David Dunn]

Brian, in Shorinji Kempo a large emphasis of the training is on set techniques, kata if you like. That was what I was referring to. You can't practice them without the "correct attack." In fact they enable you to practice against a full power attack, whether punching, kicking, grabbing whatever. You can't do that against random full on attacks, without introducing some element of rules (unless you actually have real fights). Unless I'm mistaken the traditional way of learning jujutsu is very similar.

Apologies, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular:

I get riled when people question the effectiveness of a method that is tried and tested. After a year of training like this, you might not be so good at fighting as someone who's been out fighting in the ring, or in real life. It takes longer, no doubt. I especially get riled when people can't possibly have seen the entire system, its techniques and principles, and possibly not even an authentic version of it, and then go and develop a critique of it.

[David Dunn]

Originally posted by Mekugi
Japanese "Jujutsu" huh?

Hmmm...which ryu?

Why the inverted commas Russ?

[Matt Molloy]

Originally posted by Bri Thai
Do the correct attack? Yes, beginners should have some compliancy in training.......but anyone who needs their "attacker" to "do the correct attack" is missing the essential point of a fight, i.e. the other guy is trying to hurt you, not help you. He will not do the correct attack at all. No offence intended.

I think what David was referring to was that in Ju-Jutsu, Aikido and unless I miss my guess Shorinji Kempo one may attack, the defender applies a technique but if the defender finds resistance to the technique then this opens the attacker to another technique. All attacks eventually become "correct."

Until the system (and in these arts the beginner/compliance phase lasts quite a bit longer than in others) is learned then a beginner will find that someone can resist quite successfully unless they apply strength or atemi (even traditional western wrestling only uses strikes to set up the opponent for a technique) but as the practitioner gets better there is less need for strength and atemi as the defender will be better at harmonizing with the attacker and the attacker will get the feeling of falling into a hole whichever way they turn or resist.

As to the "essential point of a fight", the essential point of these arts is not to fight but to harmonize and therefore stop the fight.

I hope that the above makes sense but I know that there are rivers of ink that have tried to make sense of the ju or ai principle. I wouldn't be the first one who had failed.

Cheers,

Matt.

[Bri Thai]

David - I have an issue with the whole idea of "technique selection". In my view it is far better to have a small syllabus of techniques, each with a wide application, than a large syllabus of techniques that each have a correspondingly low application.

The old "if he does this you do that, but if he does that you do this" training is very questionable to me.

I've done alot of research into WW2 Combatives. The general idea of the designers was this - They had studied a wide range of martial arts and binned the techniques that

- didn't do much harm anyway
- were very hard to learn and
- didn't have a wide application.

They ended up training men that (arguabley of course) fought more effectively after 1 weeks training than others who had trained in some arts for years. And the syllabus had half a dozen techniques only.

So "if he does this" etc became "just obliterate him, no matter what he does".

That was war time though.

[David Dunn]

I think the point of, especially the ju techniques are to develop a sensitivity to what's going on. At first this has to take the form of a set attack, then a set attack that changes in a set way. No harm in learning something quick and effective, like using atemi to finish it, but in the long run, I agree with Matt, the point is to learn goju ittai or whatever you happen to call it, rather than fighting per se. The point of budo is to change you into a certain type of person.

Interesting discussion Mizuno Sensei had the other week about kihon. If you'll indulge me. First off he discussed judoka, boxers, whoever you like, and mentioned how they have their favourite techniques, o soto gari etc. Despite their opposition being able to study videos and try to read their opponents, the favourite techniques are very hard to avoid/counter.

Sensei likened this to kihon. There are 600 and odd techniques in Shorinji Kempo, and to master them all might even be impossible. However, practicing good punching and kicking every day very simple techniques can become the 'unstoppable' ones. He also said that anyone who didn't want to do the same kihon week after week didn't understand the value of it.

It depends what your motivation is. If you really want to only learn how to fight effectively and fast, then traditional budo is probably not what you're after. I'm quite happy with that, but I do object to those that then try to denigrate traditional budo because it isn't what they want. Personally I want to master Shorinji Kempo.

ps: to be fair to the author of the original missive he was asked his opinion on the matter.

[Gary Dolce]

Originally posted by Bri Thai
David - I have an issue with the whole idea of "technique selection". In my view it is far better to have a small syllabus of techniques, each with a wide application, than a large syllabus of techniques that each have a correspondingly low application.

The old "if he does this you do that, but if he does that you do this" training is very questionable to me.

To each his own way. If you don't like the idea of learning a lot of different techniques, don't bother with Shorinji Kempo. Personally, always learning something new, even after 23 years of practice, is one of the things that I really enjoy about Shorinji Kempo. Of course, there are lots of people who can't conceive of doing anything thay can't master in a year.

As to the original text quoted by David Noble, even the author indicates the problems he encountered were with a particular training style, not necessarily with the techniques themselves. Perhaps, as the author believes, the training methods of the particular ju jutsu class he joined are deficient. Or perhaps the author just didn't have the patience and open mind to let the training methods work. We don't have any way of knowing. But given his self-admitted inexperience at ju jutsu it is hard to take his complaints too seriously.

Lack of practice with strikes (both doing them and avoiding them) is certainly not a problem in any Shorinji Kempo Branch I have seen, but it could be a concern in some other martial arts that focus strictly on throwing.

There is a progression to learning Shorinji Kempo juho that I assume is similar in ju jutsu classes. First you learn how to respond to a particular type of attack. Then you learn how to deal with situations where the attacker prevents the throw you intended in various ways. One thing I was taught from the very beginning was that the attacker's role was to attack with real intent - not to just grab, but to grab and push, or pull, or twist, or strike so that if the defender does nothing something will happen to him. In the beginning this should be done more slowly or with less force, but it should always be there.

Soon after, I learned that a skilled attacker could almost always find a way to nullify the attempts of a less skilled defender especially if the attacker already knows the technique the defender will apply. In response to questions about this, I was told that 1. with practice and patience, I would get better at preventing the things the attacker was doing; 2. with experience I would learn variations on the throw that would allow me to regain control of the attacker if the attack changed; and 3. that I always could fall back on goho if necessary. In my own training, all three of those points seem to be true.

Gary

[Bri Thai]

I think that mastering Budo is a great way to go. So is learning how to fight as effectively as possible.

It just seems a shame that they cannot overlap a bit more.

[MarkF]

I get riled when people question the effectiveness of a method that is tried and tested. After a year of training like this, you might not be so good at fighting as someone who's been out fighting in the ring, or in real life. It takes longer, no doubt. I especially get riled when people can't possibly have seen the entire system, its techniques and principles, and possibly not even an authentic version of it, and then go and develop a critique of it.

I do too.


Mark