bjj judo jujitsu

[Matthew Jones]

I think about it like golf. If you want to have a phenomenal short game than you should do nothing but practice your short game. Hitting the driver in the range is going to do little to help your short game.

Some people like to be proficient at both the short game and the long game. So they practice both. Chances are their short game won't be as good as the person that does nothing but hit chip shots all day.

Decide what works for you and then find a school and instructor that can help you get there.

Anything beyond that is petty politics.

[TonyU]

Anything beyond that is petty politics.

In this case it's about facts nit politics.
Why is that so hard for people to grasp? It does not make the art any less effective. The Brazilian were geniuses in their own right, but it doesn't negate the fact where it came from.

[Webmaster]

I would like to know who is serving all of this tainted Kool-Aid.

Jeff Cook

Honestly Jeff, I really do not understand why it is that BJJ has a need to run away from it's Judo origins or make up links to ancient Jujutsu that simply does not exist. BJJ has the distinction of taking what was learned from Judo, specializing in newaza and developing it to a higher level. It does not need anything made up to claim legitimacy, but can truly stand alone on it's own merits.

Sometimes, I think a little reminder of history helps to put things in context, particularly for the new folks.

Judo was developed by Jigoro Kano because he was legitimately concerned that Jujutsu, which was falling into disrepute following the abolition of the warrior caste, would be lost as an art and valuable national asset. As a highly educated and influential person, he knew that in order for Jujutsu to survive into the future, it would have to be made available to the common person. So he made some changes to the technique that he learned in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu and Kito Ryu Jujutsu, introduced new techniques (like newaza), called on the expertise of other Jujutsu ryuha that were willing to cooperate, formulated a new curriculum and kata, put an emphasis on randori as a training method, and introduced a competitive aspect including an early set of rules. At this time, Judo, often called Kano Ryu Jujutsu, was very much a Jujutsu and was definitely different than the Judo of today in that it retained much of it's combative emphasis. During the early part of the century, Kano sent instructors abroad to begin spreading his new art. That includes BTW, Mitsuyo Maeda, who traveled to Brazil and eventually taught Carlos Gracie (from which the legacy began).

Kano was also a prominent figure in international sports and was the first Asian member of the International Olympic Committee. Because of his influence in that regard, he won Toyko the bid to host the Olympic Games of 1940 where he planned on introducing Judo as an Olympic sport. Unfortunately, World War II (as well as Kano's death in 1938) got in the way and the 1940 Olympics were relocated to Helsinki.

While we often like to refer to "Pre-WWII" Judo as being different, probably a more accurate term would be "Pre-American Occupation" Judo. During the years prior to WWII, Judo had become very popular and with the nationalistic fervor sweeping the country, the Kodokan was swept along with the tide and was used to train Japanese officers. Whether this was done with Kano and the Kodokan leadership's blessing is irrelevant; it happened. When the war was over and the allied powers occupied Japan, they sought to ensure that those things which contributed to Japan's nationalistic craziness would be suppressed. So the practice of martial arts, including Judo was forbidden, and the Kodokan's doors were chained shut. Wanting to see the Kodokan reopened, the senior members (including Mifune) approached the American authorities with the story that Judo was "just a sport" and through evidence such as the early attempt to get Judo in the Olympics and through demonstrations were able to convince them that this was the case. We all know what happens next, Judo is spread throughout the world by many of those soldiers who served in occupied Japan, it gains in popularity as a sport and eventually becomes a part of the Olympics.

Now back to the BJJ angle. When Mitsuyo Maeda traveled to Brazil, it was in the very early "formulative" years of Judo when it still retained much of it's Jujutsu flavor and combative emphasis. While there was certainly a competitive aspect to Judo in these years, not as much emphasis was place on it. It should also be noted that the early rules used in Judo were very much like what became Vale Tudo (where the Gracies gained prominence for the art) in that victory was defined by either knocking the opponent out or causing them to submit. So what became BJJ is really more like very early Judo and because of the rules used within the competitive venue, newaza took on prominence. Let's face it, it's hard to knock someone out cold by throwing them, but gaining a submission by use of chokes and joint locks was more effective. If Judo had not adapted the rules seen today where a single scored Ippon ended the match and retained use of the early rules, it is likely that Judo would have eventually seen a rise in the prominence of newaza as it did in BJJ. So the rules shaped the art which became BJJ.

Also, one of the reasons why BJJ is called "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu" and not "Brazilian Judo" might be summed up in a couple of reasons. One is speculation that Maeda himself used the term Jiu Jitsu because he would fight for money, and Kano did not approve of fighting for money. Probably a better reason for using the term Jiu Jitsu is that it and Judo were used almost interchangeably, particularly early on in the Kodokan's history.

What I find particularly disturbing about the attempt by some in the BJJ community to rewrite their history is it makes them look ignorant of the facts of history and Japanese martial art, but mostly importantly, it is blatantly disrespectful in that it ignores the original contributions made by the Helio Garcie and the Gracie family to their art and instead ties those innovations to some mythical ancient art (rather than where the real credit is due, the Gracie Family). The Gracies can truly take credit for taking a particular aspect of the original art (Judo's newaza) and developing it to a level of sophistication that is unmatched.

[Erik]

Honestly Jeff, I really do not understand why it is that BJJ has a need to run away from it's Judo origins or make up links to ancient Jujutsu that simply does not exist.

What I find particularly disturbing about the attempt by some in the BJJ community to rewrite their history... instead ties those innovations to some mythical ancient art (rather than where the real credit is due, the Gracie Family). The Gracies can truly take credit for taking a particular aspect of the original art (Judo's newaza) and developing it to a level of sophistication that is unmatched.

I'm with you all the way on this, Robert.

Why fuss? There exist two awesome sports for us all to enjoy.

Add JJJ to the mix and we now have three ways to have fun.

I wonder if wrestling went through such silliness once upon a time. Greco is better than Freestyle is better than Catch is better than Collegiate is better than Greco which is better than....

[Archimedes]

why don't you go ahead and give me a counter-argument if you have drank the cool-aid and believe otherwise.

I'm totally puzzled by this.

You earlier made the statement that pre-WWII Judo was more like jujutsu with less emphasis on newaza, and I would agree with that general statement. My point was that there was a subset of pre-WWII Judo called KOSEN Judo--whose acronym stands for some sort of scholastic league--that was an exception to the above generalization because it was very focused on newaza.

So I'm making two points here: 1) KOSEN Judo was a subset of pre-WWII Judo, and 2) KOSEN Judo was very big on newaza.

I'm trying very hard to see what the problem is here because you yourself seem to be in agreement with these two points.

I've picked up from the context of this thread that there are apparently some kind of "KOSEN Koolaid" drinkers out there who apparently have made exaggerated claims about KOSEN. I think the problem is that you and Jeff are so reactionary to these Koolaid drinkers that any time someone simply mentions KOSEN and makes a factual statement about it, you jump to the conclusion that you're dealing with a Koolaid drinker and wrongly impute to that person the errors of the Koolaid drinkers.

Gentlemen, kindly point out any erroneous statements I have made about KOSEN Judo in ths thread. Thank you.

[Webmaster]

I'm totally puzzled by this.

You earlier made the statement that pre-WWII Judo was more like jujutsu with less emphasis on newaza, and I would agree with that general statement. My point was that there was a subset of pre-WWII Judo called KOSEN Judo--whose acronym stands for some sort of scholastic league--that was an exception to the above generalization because it was very focused on newaza.

So I'm making two points here: 1) KOSEN Judo was a subset of pre-WWII Judo, and 2) KOSEN Judo was very big on newaza.

I'm trying very hard to see what the problem is here because you yourself seem to be in agreement with these two points.

I've picked up from the context of this thread that there are apparently some kind of "KOSEN Koolaid" drinkers out there who apparently have made exaggerated claims about KOSEN. I think the problem is that you and Jeff are so reactionary to these Koolaid drinkers that any time someone simply mentions KOSEN and makes a factual statement about it, you jump to the conclusion that you're dealing with a Koolaid drinker and wrongly impute to that person the errors of the Koolaid drinkers.

Gentlemen, kindly point out any erroneous statements I have made about KOSEN Judo in ths thread. Thank you.

First, Kosen is not an acronym. It is the Japanese word that is roughly equivalent to "secondary school".

Second, Kosen is not a subset of Kodokan Judo. It is Kodokan Judo with the rules modified to emphasize newaza for school competition. Again, think of it in terms of one art, but with different rules, means of scoring and training methods (more newaza) to accommodate those differences.

Anyway, if you think that Jeff and I are over-sensitive to this subject, then my apology. Really, I think that we are probably closer in our opinions than our limited use of the language is revealing. It is just that over the years, this revisionist history relating to BJJ and it's connection to Judo or Koryu Jujutsu has come up over and over, and we've been over this subject endless times. Yet, there are some that have latched on to the revisionist history espoused by a few within the BJJ community and refused to see the facts of history.

[Abbax8]

Some of the confusion may stem from how different BJJ rules are from current Judo rules. For those of us started judo in the 1960's , Ne-Waza was a regular part of the training. You hoped to win by the throw but had to train for the ground.

Try this for a comparison - People viewing BJJ vs. Judo today see two different animals, like a horse and a deer. In the 1960's it would have been more like a horse and a zebra.



Peace

Dennis

[Mikey Triangles]

I don't necessarily agree. The ground "game" is different from one art to the other -- competition vs. non-sports applications -- and therefore there are a large number of ground techniques utilized in traditional jujutsu that you don't typically see in modern judo nor in BJJ and vice versa.

Well then I'd question how familiar you are with BJJ. The sheer number of transitions alone set it apart

[Cliff Hargrave]

I don't necessarily agree. The ground "game" is different from one art to the other -- competition vs. non-sports applications -- and therefore there are a large number of ground techniques utilized in traditional jujutsu that you don't typically see in modern judo nor in BJJ and vice versa.

What are some examples of those? Can those examples be practiced full speed against a resisting partner?

That is always the dividing line for BJJ. I would much rather rely on something I know I can pull off against someone in practice, versus something I can only practice in a static fashion.

[Jeff C.]

George, I am not calling YOU a kool-aid drinker (you haven't said enough to indicate if you are), but you are right - I am reactionary to this topic. Here is why:

I am a holder of black belt rank in judo and classical ju-jitsu. I study BJJ (two-stripe purple). The BJJ folks I run and roll with are extremely respectful of judo and other TMA's, and none of them have any weird history notions about the origins of BJJ. But there is a fringe BJJ crowd out there who are quite loud with their nonsense about the origins of BJJ. Not only do they show their ignorance, but they disrepect BJJ, judo, and classical ju-jitsu with their moronic ramblings. I am quick to try to correct them - it is a pet-peeve of mine.

I regret if it seems I was calling you a kool-aid drinker. I was not. Thanks for asking for clarification so we could clear up the misunderstanding.

Jeff Cook

[Jeff C.]

Mert, all of the principles of classical/traditional JJJ groundwork can be found in BJJ, in my opinion. Individual waza of classical JJJ groundwork may not be taught in a BJJ class, but the principle to make it work will be there. Let me give an example:

Uki gatame is a great hold-down from classical/traditional JJJ. The follow-up waza from a classical sense may be to move into a hojo-jutsu or tanto-jutsu technique, depending on the intent of the one doing the floating entanglement/hold-down. The "finishing waza" may be to pull your tanto and proceed to carve up your assailant in classical JJJ fashion, or to initiate a restraint with hojowaza from the more modern derivative of taiho-jutsu.

Uki gatame is also used extensively in BJJ, using the same principles and the same intent of classical JJJ - to restrain or finish your opponent. Give a BJJ guy a knife, and without any training in tanto work whatsoever I am pretty sure he will be able to inflict fatal damage on his opponent due to his extensive training in holding that superior position. Give him a set of handcuffs or a piece of rope, and I have no doubt that he can transition into a position to easily apply those devices with no additional training other than what he already has in his BJJ arsenal.

With that said Mert, I KNOW there are plenty of individual waza taught in JJJ ground work that a BJJ proponent may not have trained in. But the principles of movement to finish the opponent are certainly ingrained, and I would argue that the mindset to finish is probably stronger in the guy training in a living fashion, whether it is a BJJ player or JJJ player.

Jeff Cook

[Koshu]

Guys, please understand that there are past threads/posts, notably a recent fine contribution by Robert Carver, in this very thread . . .

. . . Newaza as we know it today in Judo or BJJ was unknown within the traditional (Koryu) ryuha of Jujutsu as it was not practical within the context of the battlefield where warriors were engaged in a tangle of swords, knives and spears. Going to the ground meant that you were going to die very shortly after hitting the ground. . . .

. . . that point to the key difference between traditional jujutsu and BJJ protocol: traditional jujutsuka assume that going to the ground is a worst-case scenario. You won't see most traditional jujutsuka relishing the finer points and various iterations of mount, guard, etc. Instead, you'll see myriad techniques designed to keep the jujutsuka on his/her feet, kneeling (as with the uki-gatame mentioned by Jeff C.) or in some other fashion able to readily engage another attacker standing, and the uke/attacker dispatched and neutralized on the ground. In our system, almost all takedowns then involve using the fallen uke as a shield/impediment/deterrant against other identified or potential attackers (complemented by verbal admonitions of additional attackers to back off or more damage will be done to the initial subdued attacker).

Well then I'd question how familiar you are with BJJ. The sheer number of transitions alone set it apart

Michael --- I really like your contributions here, notably your penchant for identifying innovations in the BJJ ground game. But clearly you're assuming that traditional jujutsuka follow the same protocols as BJJ players, and that just isn't the case, as clarified above and elsewhere. Given the number of Gracie, Machado and other top-flight grappling schools in L.A., and the number of BJJ players who've visited our dojo on both friendly and non-so-friendly terms, I can tell you definitively that less than 10% of our protocols for dispatching an uke on the ground cross over with BJJ. For example, we virtually never go to the ground following nage-waza (throwing techniques) to gain a submission, unless we execute sutemi (sacrifice throws) -- and even then we put a premium on getting back up to our feet using the momentum of the throw and atemi as needed.

. . . Mert, I KNOW there are plenty of individual waza taught in JJJ ground work that a BJJ proponent may not have trained in. But the principles of movement to finish the opponent are certainly ingrained, and I would argue that the mindset to finish is probably stronger in the guy training in a living fashion, whether it is a BJJ player or JJJ player.

What are some examples of those? Can those examples be practiced full speed against a resisting partner?

That is always the dividing line for BJJ. I would much rather rely on something I know I can pull off against someone in practice, versus something I can only practice in a static fashion.

Yes, the stuff I'm discussing can be practiced at full or near full speed, but requires very seasoned uke (uke must know when he/she is had and go from resistance to instantaneous ukemi mode) and/or a RedMan suit (similarly, one of the koryu practitioners mentioned the use of kendo bogu for their full-power practice). I mentioned in a recent post elsewhere on BudoSeek! that while traditional jujutsu does not typically go to the same levels of resistance in the course of day-to-day training as other arts, the levels of resistance are sufficient to translate to highly effective use in the street and in law-enforcement applications. There's certainly no reason why the kata in a traditional system, for example, can't be taken from static with formalized attacks to live and unscripted attacks. I've had to point out to a number of people on YouTube in particular that waza/kata are like the alphabet. Once you can write the alphabet (i.e. go through the two-man requirements of the shodan-gi in a traditional jujutsu system), then it's time to spend the rest of your life learning how to use those tools to create increasingly extemporaneous and complex responses, whether for the purposes of self expression or self defense. Unfotunately, many traditional jujutsuka thnk being able to write the "letters" of their art alone is the purpose of the art. In our system, there was always an emphasis, going back to the Japanese founder, of learning waza/kata specifically to develop henka and ability to otherwise move beyond the formal techniques and develop the ability for spontaneous utilization in a real-life conflict -- to make the art one's own. This really isn't any different than with the vaunted grappling arts, now is it (e.g. Michael's pride in his triangles)?

Cliff --- Most of our takedowns are predicated on sen-no-sen, with direct and/or indirect atemi to the face, then capitalizing on kuzushi, osae and disorientation / visual impairment from that atemi to immediately bring the uke to the mat. Whether an uke is cooperative or resisting, the key is to fully commit to the technique, take away vision and balance, and make the attack and takedown truly a single move. Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to adequately capture what makes our protocols different from other self-defense-oriented schools (traditional jujutsu or otherwise) that preach "our defense is an attack." I've posted this elsewhere on BudoSeek!, but in any case one of these techniques is demonstrated at 05:00 of this video (if it has to be labeled, then it's a henka of a Hakkoryu waza called Hakko-Zeme). From the takedown, tori typically immediately kneels onto the uke's neck (across the carotid artery), while securing an armbar across the other knee, ude-osae or some other compliance using the uke's arm. Yes, most people who see it vs. experience it are skeptical of its efficacy. The BudoSeek!ers who were at the Minami-ryu benefit can vouch for it.

Jeff --- I agree that many principles of movement and techniques (uki-gatame, juji-gatame -- heck, kote-gaeshi for the non-chump-minded BJJ player -- etc.) cross over. It's the strategy and purpose, and the preferred types of positional superiority that're radically different as described above and demonstrated in the YouTube video. For example, Erik Michaels and others have often discussed BJJ and other grappling schools that eschew tachi-waza, and Cliff launched a thread specifically addressing the de-emphasis of self-defense, specifically when standing, in GJJ. In traditional jujutsu, I'd say that the takedown is part and parcel for the finish (e.g. in many traditional jujutsu systems you set kansetsu from the get go while standing and ride that all the way to the finish, vs. taking down the uke then formulating the submission from there).

Certainly a skilled BJJ player, if given weapons and restraints, could make good use of them. However, on the flip side, it's clear that not much attention's paid to weapon defenses whether standing or on the ground in many (i.e. competition-oriented) BJJ schools. I certainly doubt anyone would argue that staying on your feet with a weapon in play is the way to go! Again, there's the primary difference in the schools of thought. The BJJ players with practical applications on the brain (e.g. Cliff, Jeff C.) attest to using tachi-waza from GJJ and other non-ground-based techniques from traditional jujutsu and elsewhere. On the other hand, other BJJ players here have patently told me that BJJ is simply for fun/sport and on the ground. To each his/her own, but I'd still rather apply my finishing moves while on my feet and the uke on the ground.

[Archimedes]

First, Kosen is not an acronym. It is the Japanese word that is roughly equivalent to "secondary school".

KOto SENmon

Second, Kosen is not a subset of Kodokan Judo. It is Kodokan Judo with the rules modified to emphasize newaza for school competition.

No comment...

Really, I think that we are probably closer in our opinions than our limited use of the language is revealing.

Agreed!

[Archimedes]

But there is a fringe BJJ crowd out there who are quite loud with their nonsense about the origins of BJJ.

Jeff, I find it beneficial to be made aware of pseudo knowledge so as to be able to combat it. Would you mind giving me a sentence or two highlighting the major tenets held by those you mention above?

[Webmaster]

KOto SENmon

I stand corrected. See http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt...2004/04/nevara

I noticed that while Kosen is a compound of koutou senmon, it is not used as a true acronym, but forms a new word for "technical colleges" and is not spelled in all capitals.

No comment...

Hey that's not fair! I wrote more than that!

The reason I do not classify Kosen Judo as a sub-set of Kodokan Judo is that it came about for exactly the reason I mentioned previously. The rules for competition in early Judo were pretty rough, and the Kosen rule set was designed minimize injury so that Judo competition could be introduced within the high schools.

The history of Kosen Judo is as convoluted as any history you will find within the martial arts community. Some versions of that history has it that Kosen became so popular that the Kodokan changed the rules so that if a Judoka was pulled to the ground more than three times in a match he would lose. The purpose being to limit the amount of time spent on the mat. Others states a literal split from the Kodokan. However, if such a split had actually happened and a true sub-set of Kodokan Judo occurred, I would expect to find a little more authoritative history available than just a few minor websites that are written with an "agenda", a curriculum, rank structure, a thriving community of practitioners (rather than a couple of scattered dojo) and all of those other things that formalize a "style".

Maybe the best way to think of Kosen Judo would be that they were a group of "Judo Heretics" that the Kodokan wanted to squash because they did not conform to the Kodokan's vision of Judo. I guess whatever floats their boat, but since I am a Judo traditionalist snob, I'll stick with the Kodokan's orthodoxy.

Agreed!

Good God, we agreed on something?

[Jeff C.]

Jeff, I find it beneficial to be made aware of pseudo knowledge so as to be able to combat it. Would you mind giving me a sentence or two highlighting the major tenets held by those you mention above?

George, just go to that cesspool known as Bullshido.net (you can spend DAYS seeing what I am talking about over there); we are in pretty good shape here as far as not having any nutrider wannabe's I carry my ire over to here from other places, unfortunately.

I think Robert gave a sentence or two of their basic and flawed tenets here in this thread.

Mert, as usual that was a pretty damn good post! And you do bring up some pretty good points. We've got a pretty unique crowd of BJJ'rs around these parts, I guess. We actually work tachiwaza with finishers from standing, but not to the extent of JJJ. We also work (with the BEGINNERS no less!) nagewaza where they remain on their feet after putting their partner down. That is entry-level stuff at our school.

I think part of the issue is Cliff and I see those principles that cross over, but many BJJ'rs don't due to non-exposure to JJJ.

Good stuff.

Jeff Cook

[STORMCROW34]

Lurking here, I just want to say this is good reading, in my typical one or two line fashion. Thanks everyone.

[Erik]

Mert, as usual that was a pretty damn good post!

Yeah, Mert, you write great stuff, Bro. I like reading your posts.

[Koshu]

Jeff, Erik --- Thanks for the compliments. Yeah, I've tried to champion the "jujutsu is jiu-jitsu and vice versa" angle from time to time, and while I'm glad that there are some kindred spirits who are BJJ players, the reality is that the arts occupy largely different parts of the martial arts gamut (fortunately, in the spirit of why this thread was started, judo is vibrant common link) .

[Archimedes]

George, just go to that cesspool known as Bullshido.net

That takes in a lot of territory...Is the problem in a nutshell that some parties are trying to fastball non-Kano influences into BJJ through Maeda?