bjj judo jujitsu

[Mekugi]

Sweet....keep going...

[Jeff C.]

Kit, what exactly is your bias? I'm not really picking up on it. You are putting forth what I feel are accurate analysis, with no apparent bias.

Most of us here are biased towards what keeps one alive when a bad guy is trying to kill us - in other words, if it works, it is good, and to hell with where it came from.

Here is the Jeff Cook non-sport take on it: a good ju-jitsu system produces generalists, NOT specialists. Judo specializes in tachiwaza (generally speaking); BJJ specializes in newaza (generally speaking). Neither one is a comprehensive system regarding battlefield CQC tactics (thus the MACP incorporates other things with BJJ). I LOVE both arts, and both arts certainly produce people QUITE capable of being effective on the battlefield. That is a testament to the inidividual though, not the system.

As things progress and evolve, we will see Judo and BJJ becoming more similar to each other, with all of the cross-training occuring. That is a very GOOD thing in my opinion, both for the sport-minded folks and the combat-minded folks.

Kit, please don't feel guilty at all. Your opinion is valued here. Not everyone is going to agree with every opinion any of us puts out though (obviously).

BTW, I was a junior olympian in judo at one time a long time ago, so I can attest to the skill level you speak of. I sucked big-time, but somebody has to be the loser in those competitions.

Jeff Cook

[KIT]

Judo had the first “competitive” approach to Jujutsu:

Incorrect. There was extensive competition between jujutsu schools “back in the day.” Somewhat different, and nastier, than how we view modern competition, and more along the lines of what jujutsu practitioners would do in “musha shugyo.” Kano’s early student’s had several practitioner who already had a reputation for being highly skilled at exactly this kind of competition – anyone remember Yokoyama Sakujiro’s descriptions of what it was like in his Tenjin Shinyo-ryu days related to us in detail through EJ Harrison’s work? Also some of the information that Ellis outlines above comes from an excellent source “Jujutsu in The Old Days” a review of a book in Japanese by Dr. Bodiford.

They competed. A lot. How ‘bout Sumo? One of the things that puzzles me most re: modern Daito-ryu discussion is the frequent analysis of how to get to the level of skill Takeda Sokaku attained – and while it is frequently mentioned that he was a highly competitive amateur Sumotori (his father being a champion, and Takeda winning local tourneys when he was young – at a very small size), that he did sumo until nearly the end of his life (from accounts by Takuma Hisa, his student and also a sumo man).

How ‘bout kenjutsu? Takeda was very successful in shinai challenge matches during a time when they included a significant grappling element as well.

But you don’t hear too much about Daito-ryu today having a significant competitive grappling or fencing element within their practice. Maybe they do, and just keep it secret.

BJJ Marketing:

I think this is a good point, and is well known and being increasingly accepted in the BJJ community.

The problem is the dismissive attitude that many Judoka have toward BJJ because of the marketing. This has crept in to people’s assessment of the technique – typically absent any meaningful practice with any quality BJJ practitioners. This attitude is prevalent in the Judo dojo I attend.

I equate it to the supercilious attitude many koryu/traditional jujutsuka have toward Judo. Since I have done all three, and don’t have a particular loyalty to any one of them as a “martial artist,” I see the same myopic attitudes cast on to the “other.”

CONTD

[TonyU]

Kit, excellent keep it up and everyone else as well.
This is good reading for a "have no clue" on grappling arts like myself.
This thread, imo, epitomizes what this forum is about.

[Mekugi]

The Kosen Taikai (AKA "Kosen Rule" matches) began around 1908-1912 from Dr. Kano's wishes after changing the rules of Judo.

Errata: the rule change was official in 1925. Oops.

[KIT]

Jeff,

If I had to say I had a bias, its a performance bias. You will take that bias differently than others, because of your background, I think.

and BTW, being a Junior Olympian was probably more fun than being slammed through the mat by one in randori. Talk about making a guy feel humble! That is one of the greatest advantages to Judo, BJJ, sub grappling, wrestling - you are repeatedly reminded that you "ain't all that and a bag of chips." People lacking a strong legitimate randori element in their training tend to forget that. I have seen it happen, in public, with embarassing results for some. We simply have to be reminded of exactly how good (or not so good) we are on a regular basis to stay safe. Police training lacks it, and a lot of combatives training and trad. JJ training lacks it as well.

I disagree with you in that I don't think for most people today jujutsu is about "combat." Its sport to many, its a cultural/anthropological activity "about" combat for others. Its been very compartmentalized, which is why I have felt the need to move throughout different approaches in order to create that "generalized" combative approach to close quarters confrontation tactics. You don't get a complete method optimized for control and/or combative application across the spectrum of force with any one. Not to mention that with all of them you have to weed out what is not practical, and then integrate them together with modern weapons applications to make that system.

I for one disagree that "knife disarms are gun disarms." They aren't. There are inherent functional differences that make them different problems altogether.

There may be some commonality of principle and technique, but it is a grave mistake to assume that because the traditional ryu has an extensive tanto dori or muto dori curriculum that they have a gun defense method. Do they? How often to they practice with Sim F/X guns to prove that? Do they practice with actual resistance - in other words the minute the kata starts the uke starts to defend his gun - including pulling the trigger? Do they know how to clear a firearm malfunction? Can they differentiate between a malf and a
"jam" under duress? Have they randori'ed with Sim guns, stripped a weapon from an attacker, cleared a malf, and shot their attacker while the attacker attempted to get the weapon back at full force? So on and so on. How is it different from a long gun? I don't have to tell you, Jeff, that some jo dori (Russ, help me out with my Japanese if I am using bad terminology...) stuff is adaptable to long gun disarming, except of course that bullets don't come out of the end of a jo, and the weapon won't malfunction if its driven into someone's suigetsu and the trigger is pulled.

[TonyU]

I for one disagree that "knife disarms are gun disarms." They aren't. There are inherent functional differences that make them different problems altogether.

I agree wholeheartedly and stated as much in a similar fashion. When I used to teach recruits I always used to say to them (in a simplistic manner) "a gun will hurt you one way, while a knife in a multitude of ways".
Anyway, back to our scheduled program.

[KIT]

And I have seen and/or practiced Judo's and BJJ's weapons disarms.

Okay on their face, but in their self defense kata, both arts overlook the one thing that makes them such practical fighting systems and cornerstones of MMA preparation: antagonistic training in which the uke (the gunman) can defend the weapon disarm and try to shoot the tori when he tries to take the gun. (or knife). They do it elsewhere, why not there?

In this day and age we have the equipment to safely practice realistic combative dynamics with weapons. There is certainly some unreality, but I think less so than the far more forgiving, idealistic, approach codified in much trad. JJ and combatives. Most important is experiencing the dynamic between two (or more!) people moving against one another in a violent combative format.

Understanding that with some koryu schools what they show in public is not necessarily how they train in private.

I would say this - IF the school is not training regularly in a way similar to Judo or BJJ randori, they are short changing the combative ability of their students. Over generations, the school will be enervated.

By the same token, if a focus on self defense or combative application is the true goal, as opposed to preserving a tradition, which in my mind can be detrimental to combative performance (depending on how people view "preserving tradition"), we can see with Judo and BJJ what an overwhelming emphasis on sport results in. A fighting system tailor made for a particular rule set:

Excuse, but bellying out to avoid a pin? Judo at least recognizes the danger of a pin, but then instead of practicing valid techniques to escape pins, the majority of competitors belly out.

Excuse me, but "pins don't count in real fights?" Hell yeah, they do. My belief is that in some ways BJJ defines "combat" as vale tudo, not as street combat. Their positional heirarchy is street combat 101, but I am often curious how they rationalize the positional heirarchy while ignoring the importance of being pinned.

Neither one includes weapons. Start at top for my views on this.

[KIT]

In the end, I think the combined approach is not only recommended, its necessary, for these reasons:

When I look at traditional schools, I want to know if they 1) do legitimate randori, and not to offend, but this does not mean what many people practice as aikido style randori - or - 2) does the instructor have a strong background in Judo (or BJJ, or wrestling, or MMA) and does that play a part in his overall instruction.


And when I look at sport clubs, I want to know if they incorporate any self defense/armed based approach that is appropriately integrated with their grappling skills. It is surprisingly easy to adapt many sport grappling skills to a weapons-oriented approach, it ends up looking like the end point of many koryu kata. Why does this happen? Because I think that is how jujutsu developed - from weapons.


In the end, the combination of competitive training (not necessarily sport competition) with weapons based SD/combative application makes for a tougher, more adaptable, more tactically flexible fighting man in real confrontations. In a knock down, drag out fight:

a) The competitive fighter is generally speaking better prepared for the dynamic of a real fight than is the "combatives" man (modern or traditional) who has not engaged in competitive training;

b) The combatives man has some tricks and skills up his sleeve that the competitive fighter may not be prepared for. IF such tricks and skills are immediately effective, he may come out on top.

If not, he will be at the mercy of the competitive fighter.

c) The combatives man who also engages in competitive training is far and above more prepared for actual combative applications than either of the above.

And I pick "c."

[Jeff C.]

Kit, great stuff, and I agree with you totally. Let me explain and qualify one of my points you disagree with though. You said "I disagree with you in that I don't think for most people today jujutsu is about 'combat.' " Well, I agree with you there too. I should have said "I think jujitsu is about combat." That is my own personal take on it, not a comment on what I think jujitsu is to the masses.

Sorry for not making that clear.

Jeff Cook

[Abbax8]

Here are the 1905 Judo Competition Rules

http://www.judoinfo.com/rules.htm

As you can see, the 1905 rules allow for a very serious fight. I have read that competitors would actually make out their wills prior to competition as deaths did occur. Whether this occurred post 1905 or prior I am not sure.

The push for safety, competition, viewer enjoyment, trophies has driven the rule set and the training that people do. What is hard to convey to those who only do sport training is the vast difference between todays matches and a real street (or work) encounter. In the earlier days in judo, rules allowed for more realistic fights. I would assume the same might be said of the striking arts as well.

Peace

Dennis

[KIT]

I got ya, Jeff.

I want to say that I do not at all mean to denigrate any of the various approaches. A very good friend I have in koryu, that is also interested in combatives, tells me that he does koryu "because he likes it." He enjoys many aspects of koryu, it doesn't have to be "combative" or modern self defense oriented because he can get that training elsewhere.

And I know that on some levels, his koryu (a very robust one) does apply to his combatives. The deeper I get involved in teaching LE combatives, especially regarding FoF, the more commonality I see with aspects of the koryu teaching paradigm. Perhaps some koryu might be viewed as "finishing school" in this light. But for most people it is about something else.

Still, the art gets preserved and what is there gets carried on. I think that is an important aspect on the other side - of not tinkering too much with what has been preserved in a koryu - as the kernels of wisdom passed down may be more apparent to someone with a different experience base, say a soldier practicing a particular ryu, than it would be to a tax accountant who is practicing the same ryu and perhaps in a position as teacher and an arbiter of technique.

The soldier may have a very different way of organizing it mentally and physically based on his experiences because he has a sense, or a feel, for what it is (or was) supposed to be, perhaps even moreso than his teacher or even his teacher's teacher ever would, depending on their respective bases of experience.

Probably sacrilege from a student's perspective on koryu in modern times.

Same for the sport guys. I have learned a tremendous amount from purely sportive grapplers. They show me things sometimes that for them are a way to a tap or an ippon on the mat. They talk about "real situations" and they mean a competition.

But I look at it with different eyes, see something completely different and think "that's a great way of putting a guy down while tying his hands up at the same time so he can't get a weapon" or "if I did that, he would grab my gun and I'd be in a weapon retention situation."

My focus when viewing sport techniques tends to be towards those that I can readily apply in non-sport applications - but only because that is my primary interest. They probably don't understand my interest in certain details that aren't directly related to the submission, say, but when I explain things to them (including black belts with more skill, more total realization and expression of real jujutsu in their pinkies than I will ever have) they get it, and often get excited that I am showing them a point of view they never even thought of - because they don't carry a gun or a knife all the time.



I wouldn't want to "change" either approach. They are perhaps more pure, and/or more willing to explore aspects that I wouldn't, because some complicated combination of locks, or some obscure manipulation of an unresisting opponent's body to explore a principle, or the nth variation of the spider gaurd that involves using the sleeve and the gi lapel wrapped around your leg, passed over his back, twice around his neck and held between your big toe and the next one, isn't combat application. More than once I have dismissed techniques only to see them performed a little differently - or usually better by someone with real skill, and realized a gem in there. I think that some of this kind of jujutsu study is funand instructive, but for now, and for as long as I do what I do, it will not be my focus.


Problem is, people want what "they" do to be "all things."


BJJ groundwork comes out, is very successful - what happens next? Some art that spends no time on the ground suddenly discovers "Oh, WE have that as well...."

or even better "Well, our principles apply on the ground just as they do standing..."

Well, they do, but they don't.

Not unless you put the time in learning how to apply your principles in a very different relationship of your body to the ground, and to another's body in that environment, and - get this - against skilled grapplers. The only way you will accomplish that is to start spending most of your training time on the ground.

So, its easier to just go to the local BJJ club, learn BJJ, and then adapt what you think is practical based on your desires and your particular needs, or particular art's approach. Minimum time to know what you are looking at, 6 months.

Best of all, then we got "anti-grappling," where people show ludicrous defenses to "popular grappling (written and said with proper disdain) moves." And there it is, in picture or on film, the hero from "our" style showing what "we" do, against some rube who has obviously never grappled in his life.


Or, they run around with swords in hakama in training and suddenly now they are some kind of tactical combatives guru. Not. The way of samurai is the way of the sword is the way of gun is the way of true combat!!!

It ain't. Now Rory and Tony will I am sure tell you that they have found plenty of things that adapt quite readily from the one to the other (I have too) - but they have the professional experience and done the work - and at times paid in blood - to be able to tell what is practical in this light, and what is not.

Same with the combat sports. Guys who make no allowance for weapons, for how dangerous the ground really is, how hard it is to move when you are wearing kit and not a speedo or a lightweight gi. People who think the double leg takedown is the best "move" for the street, or pulling guard is their best answer to a knife attack, people who can't tell the difference between ring and street, and so they teach pure sport grappling or MMA as self defense or combatives.

This in fact dangerous. Senior practitioners of jujutsu or jujutsu-like arts, sport and non-sport alike, marketing to professionals, or doing quick seminars in "combat tactics" for the local PD, showing stuff that any gang member with a wrestling, boxing, or football background on the one hand, or a shank and a practiced ruse on the other - would defeat in a heartbeat.

And these teachers don't even know what they don't know.

[KIT]

My, my, I do go on.....sorry guys. Maybe that's why I don't like to do this anymore!!

[Cliff Hargrave]

And these teachers don't even know what they don't know.

That made me laugh. I have often said many martial artists don't know they suck.

[Mekugi]

Okay,...so instead of competative training, why not just go out and get into a lot of fights? One is more prepared for the real thing when they do the real thing, no?

I used to scrap A LOT as a kid and into my mid 20's. It made me kind of a jerk and I wonder why I never went to jail (I never started it and I generally ran away, that is probably why). When I was in Judo, I always thought that it was a lot (too much) effort to kick someone's butt that way, there were far easier ways around it. I felt the same way about BJJ when I dabbled in it. I used to chuckle about the claims that all fights went to the ground...and were won on the ground. In my experience I found the first to stand up and stomp on the other into a pulps was the winner. It was far easier just to freak out and beat the person down in any way and with anything available, wrestling and rrolling around was an in-between and style-be-damned. Knives and what were a problem, but easily handled with a coat/boot or a few hundred stitches in the belly.

My point is, it seems from this line of thinking (competative equals more prepared) can only conclude that in fact being devient will get you to the level you really want. It's just that we cannot do that in a polite society, so we just play games. Am I wrong here?

[KIT]

Russ

Read carefully how I am contrasting it. Competitive only equals more prepared when one has a base in self defense/combative theory and practice.

Going out and getting into a lot of fights is a very viable way to learn how to fight. More viable than martial arts training, to be sure. That's how criminals learn to do it. First getting "jumped in" with gangs, then the gladiator academies of serious Juvie, Jail, and Prison time, etc.

Some learn to do exactly what you did - freak out on people, go nuts, get the first hits in, overwhelm the opposition, and win. By and large, against an uprepared/inexperienced opponent, it works. Against the average, blue to white collar dojo practitioner with no background in real violence, it is a winning strategy certainly.

Now, here's the difference. Serious predators get better at visiting violence on people. They learn how to set things up prior so that the blitz either requires less energy, or isn't needed at all because they have closed distance or blindsided you so efficiently that you never saw it coming.

They instinctively apply the best of Sun Zi, Musashi, and Boyd because they spend all their time thinking on how to get theirs by doing the least work. Jujutsuka could learn a lot from the bad guys that way.

They do actively train this, stuff. Setting up victims, other criminals, and the cops. For the professional criminal, it is hardly simply "go nuts" and blow through everybody. That is a fairly pedestrian, bar fighter, toughest-guy-on-the-block mentality. It only goes so far when dealing with savvy opponents.

That's one reason that balanced training is important. In short it is the civilized way to gain fighting experience - when done appropriately.


Many serious fights, the ones that go past that initial blitz, do end up with one or both on the ground. True, you are better off being the first to stand up - here's the secret - the better grappler will be the first guy to stand up. If he goes down at all.

Or he will be the guy that always ends up on top - and stays there. If most fights go to the ground, I want to make sure I end up on top.

That's another reason why you'd train.


Now perhaps you think Judo is a lot of effort training to kick someone's butt 'cuz you have rules, you both have to do the same thing, and you have to take on people of all different sizes and skills in a fair fight.

The greater the skill deficit, the easier and easier it gets. There are a few people that I train with that can toss me about or roll me around, at will, barely breaking a sweat. I outweigh them and am stronger than they are. The skill deficit is just too great. Another reason to train diligently in a competitive format.

That skill deficit is what makes it easier in real fights, against people who don't know how to defend against footsweeps especially. Its actually hard not to hurt people who don't do judo in a real fight, but that's another thing. If you need to hurt them, it makes it easier.

It also makes it far easier to deal with the tweaks etc. who you can't seem to hurt and don't seem to get tired because of the drugs on board, as you can much more readily gain positional dominance to prevent them, at the very least, from doing much hurt to you.


So, there is a big deficit between the people that grow up with violence, live day to day with violence, and have no compunction using it on others. To some extent, I think you are correct in that those of us in polite society are pretty much just playing games. The FBI's recent study in Violent Encounters revealed some very telling information regarding what they called "street combat veterans," criminals and gang members who among them had far more real fight experience, multiple shootings (even multiple gunshot wounds), and far less compunction to use force, including lethal force, than most cops.

What saves the day for cops is realistic training. So again, training, applicable training, is how we overcome that experience deficit.

No one can argue that force on force training has proven its superiority in both police and military circles. The dynamics that ensue from a careful, progressive, graduated program allowing officers to engage bad guys who shoot back (causing pain, and the uncertainty of how one will react under chaotic, rapidly evolving circumstances), and ultimately who are able to act with an opposing will (in other words, at advanced levels the bad guys fight back and try to win, not just allow the good guys to win) is actually being codified in training doctrine. Appropriately so. The level of preparation that such training creates is worlds beyond what the range produces.

Wed that approach to empty hand arrest and control tactics, and survival based tactics such as weapon retention and ground survival (thus incorporating weapons), and the preparation you will see with officers is worlds beyond what you see with rote, I lock your wrist and put you in a come-along, or straight arm bar you to the ground for cuffing, no fighting back training you see with a lot of police in service training.

Now you obviously have to start somewhere. Rote technique - ypu do this and this, and if done correctly, he'll do this. You start with the ideal, he cooperates and does what he is supposed to so that you get a feel for what the technique should be like.

That is where a lot of self defense, combatives, and martial arts training ends.

It is analogous to teaching Judo by way of kata, and non-resistive uchikomi (critical and necessary drilling to learning how to throw correctly, BTW), never doing randori, and throwing your students in to a competition. How do you think they will do??

There has to be the intermediate step in combatives training. Competitive training, appropriately balanced with combative sensibilities, is a good bridge.

Understand that much of kata training can absolutely be done (and I am sure is) in this (FoF) fashion. I think some schools have a format for doing so. Not competitive in terms of "sport" but competitive in terms of opposing wills, or better yet, opposing goals.

My uke comes at me with a knife. He attacks in the prescribed manner. I defend as per the kata, but -

My uke does not stand there and allow what I am supposed to do to happen. He does at first, but as I get better, more comfortable, he starts to tense up, or he changes his angle after my initial defense, or he grabs me with his off hand and now I have to deal with that while at the same time defending the knife. We continue as he tries to sink the knife into me and I try to keep it from happening. We go to conclusion, and then figure out what worked and what didn't.

At advanced levels, maybe only the starting point of the kata is the same. He is free to change his attack in mid-stream in order to intentionally screw me up....

As the tori, what I am now dealing with is uncertainty. Uncertainty is the biggest bugbear for many people as relates to combative performance - What will happen? How will I do when its real? What if he does this? Or that? Or there is two of them? What if my technique doesn't work?

And so on.

So we have to induce greater and greater uncertainty, under more and more complex or difficult parameters, in order to develop flexibility of mind and body, and fudoshin, so to speak.

I take a police recruit who has just worked on several rote weapon retention techniques, no resistance, and have him stand in place.

Bad guy role player comes in, grabs his gun from the recruit's front. Recruit does whatever he can to protect his weapon.

Next I put bad guy behind the recruit. Same drill.

Next I put bad guy behind the recruit, sitting on the ground.

Next, I make recruit lie on his back, bad guy on top.

Now start allowing strikes, etc.etc. You can get more and more complex and progress through greater and greater levels of uncertainty as you watch the recruit's skill develop.

The "kata" start similarly each time. The problem is solvable by what he has been taught. Thing is, they are free to adapt in mid-fight. If the recruits stuff is working, or if he is getting in and getting better, he will learn much faster to deal with the uncertainty he has of "what will the bad guy do" and "what if he takes my gun." This is much more realistic in terms of an actual weapon retention dynamic, and the learning curve is incredible to watch.

On a side note, the competitive combat athletes who do these things always do better than those who don't have that background - so long as they are able to adjust focus to include the weapons orientation.

That is not to say that we have not had combat athletes go into sport mode, completely ignore the weapon in favor of striking, or getting the tap, using both their hands while bad guy pulls their gun unopposed.

I am getting into a lot of FoF training and theory here - but that is what I do.

In short, ya gotta do both. I hope I am making that point effectively.

[KIT]

That made me laugh. I have often said many martial artists don't know they suck.

Yep. There are also a lot who are very good at their martial art, but have no idea what they don't know about being in a fight.

[jwinch2]

Kit,

I have to thank you. Your last few posts are some of the most informative and insightful that I have read in my almost three years on this site.

[KIT]

Thanks, Jason!

Folks may be interested in the cutting edge work of the Force Science Research Center. A lot of their findings are driving the progress in use of force analysis and training:

http://www.forcescience.org/

[TonyU]

Thanks, Jason!

Folks may be interested in the cutting edge work of the Force Science Research Center. A lot of their findings are driving the progress in use of force analysis and training:

http://www.forcescience.org/

Yeap. Ever since you mentioned it to me in the past I've been keeping up with their stuff.