# What is the most effective?



## AJH40 (Jan 3, 2014)

Hello,

Is Judo more effective or is Ju-Jitsu. I'm curious to know which art  is the most effective for self-defense or a street fight. Interested in trying one of the two and I am not sure which one would give me practical application for real fight scenarios. Also, I heard that traditional Jujitsu is really only taught in Japan and that Ju-Jitsu taught here  in the States is not genuine; is this true? It would great if you could give me resources such as websites to research into this more.

Thanks,


----------



## KydeX (Jan 3, 2014)

I am not an expert on either. You are probably gonna get a heated discussion out of this. Also there are a lot of different jiujutsu styles with different tactics. My opinion from what I know it's that both can work for self defense. Whether one is more effective than the other I am not really qualified to say anything about. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2014)

Hi AJH40,

There's a lot to cover here, and honestly, I don't think you have enough of an idea yet to really get what the answers would be, so let's see if we can fill some gaps in...



AJH40 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Is Judo more effective or is Ju-Jitsu.



No. 



AJH40 said:


> I'm curious to know which art  is the most effective for self-defense or a street fight.



Neither.



AJH40 said:


> Interested in trying one of the two and I am not sure which one would give me practical application for real fight scenarios.



None of the above.



AJH40 said:


> Also, I heard that traditional Jujitsu is really only taught in Japan and that Ju-Jitsu taught here  in the States is not genuine; is this true?



Nope.



AJH40 said:


> It would great if you could give me resources such as websites to research into this more.
> 
> Thanks,



Oh boy... okay....

First things first, there is no such art as "Jujutsu". Jujutsu is a particular categorisation of martial arts, not a single approach itself. It refers to Japanese (or Japanese-sourced) combative arts, largely unarmed or lightly armed (small weapons) used against armed or unarmed opponents. Commonly, many Jujutsu systems and methods focus more on grappling methods (note: not BJJ/MMA ground work, the grappling here is largely standing, occasionally sitting as well), meaning throws, locks, and chokes. There may be some striking, lots of striking, or none at all. It might be purely unarmed, it might integrate some small weapons, or might be part of a larger syllabus which includes complete weaponry curriculums, and more. It might be a more over-arching approach, with most of the mentioned areas covered, it might be more restricted to focusing on joint locks to the exclusion of throws, or vice versa. There might be multiple syllabus' for different foci on different methods (such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who have four separate "jujutsu" sections in their methods), or just one amongst other sections (of weaponry or other topics).

Here are some examples of Jujutsu (traditional):





Takenouchi Ryu, the oldest extant Jujutsu-centric system in Japan, dating from about 1542. Takenouchi Ryu survives in three main lines, with a range of banpa ryu (branch, or ancestor schools) also existing, which teach their Jujutsu in a couple of syllabi, including a primarily unarmed method, and a kogusoku (small dagger) approach, as well as a comprehensive weaponry study.





Sekiguchi Ryu, also well known for their sword and Iai methods.





Shibukawa Ryu





Sosuishitsu Ryu, a banpa ryu of Takenouchi Ryu





Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, a source school for Judo





Kito Ryu, another primary source for Judo... in fact, this series of kata are preserved in Judo as the Koshiki no Kata (Ancient Methods)





Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who employ both solo and paired methods of training their kata... and have a heavy emphasis on striking strongly.





Yagyu Shingan Ryu again... with some of their more acrobatic counters (called Nigemi)





Asayama Ichiden Ryu, very little throws, primarily locks





Fusen Ryu, more of a "throwing" art... 

When we get to more modern forms, the following are also realistically just other forms of Jujutsu:





Judo, here showing the Nage no Kata





Aikido





Hakko Ryu... like Aikido, this is a modern art derived from Daito Ryu.

Modern non-Japanese arts include:





Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, derived from early Judo mixed with a few other influences





Miyama Ryu, based on a mixture of older and more modern methods





The WJJF... some questions as to where this actually comes from, other than some basic Judo... hmm...





Quantum Jiu-Jitsu... very modern, very flashy... not sure where this comes from.... 

So, as you can see, "Jujutsu" covers quite a lot... and Judo is Jujutsu, really. So which is more "effective"? Neither. They're just different approaches. And the thing to remember, especially as you look over these clips, is that each and every martial art is designed to deal with a particular context or environment... there's no point expecting one to cover all bases, as that just doesn't exist. What that means is that you need to first off understand what it is you're expecting the art to be "effective" at... simply being "effective" doesn't really mean anything.

Any other questions, just ask. I've only just started to scratch the surface of what's involved here so far....


----------



## the8th_light (Jan 10, 2014)

With all due respect, please note that the video clip chosen to illustrate Hakkoryu above is an extremely poor choice. What the people in that clip are attempting to demonstrate doesn't resemble or represent mainline Hakkoryu in any manner, nor are they affiliated with the school in any manner. Please dismiss it as unrelated.

Devon Smith, Secretary
Hakkoryu Jujutsu & Koho Shiatsu, North America


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 12, 2014)

Cool, thanks for the heads up on that one. In that case, it can still be watched as relevant to the initial question, but as more of a semi-traditional take on Jujutsu (to show the range of what Jujutsu can refer to), while not a good (or accurate) example of Hakko Ryu.

Thanks again.


----------



## the8th_light (Jan 12, 2014)

My pleasure, Chris. The clips below are representative for those interested.

http://youtu.be/oB1kSszjNqA
http://youtu.be/WAdsKs4oYo8
http://youtu.be/K2hnb-MoyC4
http://youtu.be/oKW13cdBVzc
http://youtu.be/RiSrO5W_7hE
http://youtu.be/K00iznmJfgY
http://youtu.be/OI6RVLTi9mo
http://youtu.be/UF22uH_WDNs
http://youtu.be/70H8d8sAAiU

Regards,

Devon Smith, Secretary
Hakkoryu Jujutsu & Koho Shiatsu, North America


----------



## AJH40 (Feb 4, 2014)

Thanks for telling me about the range of Ju-jitsu approaches. How has Judo and BJJ evolve from classical JJ? How has the environment you use them in changed?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 5, 2014)

I'm not quite following what you're asking there... both Judo and BJJ are derived from (evolved from) older forms of Jujutsu (with BJJ being derived in a large part from early Judo, really)... are you asking what the exact specific evolutions/changes that came up are? When it comes to the environment, well, the development/evolution of the differing systems is in a large part due to them being used in a different environment/context... that's why they've evolved/developed, really.


----------



## AJH40 (Feb 16, 2014)

Sorry about misunderstanding of my question, I meant say what are the appropriate  environments  to uses Judo & BJJ?

Thanks


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 17, 2014)

Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.


----------



## AJH40 (Feb 19, 2014)

So You wouldn't say that BJJ and Judo would be well suited for some kind of street fighting environment ?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2014)

No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.

Look, the real issue here is that you're asking a question that can't be answered... none of them are "best", or "most effective" in comparison to any other. How well trained in the system are you? How well do you understand how it needs to be adapted? How naturally skilled are you? What's your training been like? All of that is far, far more important than "which system"... as "which system" really means nothing.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 19, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.




Given that BJJ sport competition wasn't even invented until the art had been around for 40 years or so and many practitioners still don't train for it, I'd say this statement is at best a partial truth.



			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.



For a much more in-depth examination of what BJJ is "about" or "designed for", take a look at my post on page 4 of the "Modern vs Antiquated Self-defense" thread.


----------



## Mr. President (Feb 22, 2014)

Few things - 

1) Calling it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is somewhat of a misnomer. First of all, you're not supposed to pronounce it as "Jiu Jitsu". That's just how the Brazilians handled Japanese forms of pronunciations, but I'm a traditionalist in that regard. It's supposed to be pronounced "Brazilian Jujutsu".

2) It's also a misnomer because it's actually much more Brazilian Judo than it is Jujutsu. Sure, the arts have plenty in common, but Judo is a more sport-appropriate synthesis of traditional forms of Japanese unarmed combat, and BJJ came directly from Kodokan Judo. 

3) I think the problem Judo and BJJ have is the same problem Taekwondo (and to some extent - Karate) have - In today's world, these methods are primarily practiced as combat sports, and most schools have neglected various martial applications. 

4) So yeah, you can learn how to toss people around in Judo and how to choke them in BJJ, but those schools might not teach you how to get into that position where you can apply these moves in the first place without being bombarded by fists, kicks and elbows first. In other words - They'll teach you the mechanisms of the moves themselves, but not so much how to apply them. 

5) These are problems you won't encounter with Krav Maga, for example, because there is no sport Krav Maga. Every school focuses solely on real life self defense. Many Filipino and Indonesian Martial arts are the same way, except they also teach you how to use weapons, as well as disarming your opponent of them.

6) But I digress. Bottom line - You'll only learn what you're taught, so if you have your heart set on Judo and BJJ, you need to be 100% certain that the school you're giving your money to, will focus on self defense (disarming, multiple opponents, different environments, unpredictable encounters etc). If they will, then you'll be fine. Just make sure that's what they teach before you give them one single dollar.  

7) In order to be sure - Ask the students of that school, not the instructors. Why? Because the students aren't after your money. Just make sure that the students aren't beginners. If they are, maybe they simply weren't exposed to that yet.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 22, 2014)

I'm with Tony here in that BJJ at least the sport side has not been around as long as the self defense/personal protection side of the system.  BJJ can be very effective in a one on one physical confrontation.  The way I was taught in each class was starting in the first hour with a self defense application then moving to the ground and covering maybe three techniques then we would roll for anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour.  Overall conditioning in BJJ is fantastic.  You will be in shape which is a cornerstone in my opinion for being able to protect yourself.  Plus BJJ has been proven very, very effective in a one on one confrontation.  Very effective!!!  The self defense curriculum in BJJ has been around a long time and is very comprehensive when taught at the right school!

Judo (my experience is working with high level judo players learning BJJ) is a fantastic throwing art and those throws can easily end a physical encounter quickly.  Now most Judo schools also have newaza or grappling and while maybe not practiced as much as in a BJJ class they still are very effective at grappling. (though this can vary from dojo to dojo)

Both are sporting martial systems with roots in older systems that were geared towards personal protection.  As long as you understand the limitation of not wanting to go to the ground with potential multiple opponents around they can be really effective in a situation that requires personal protection.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Few things -
> 
> 1) Calling it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is somewhat of a misnomer. First of all, you're not supposed to pronounce it as "Jiu Jitsu". That's just how the Brazilians handled Japanese forms of pronunciations, but I'm a traditionalist in that regard. It's supposed to be pronounced "Brazilian Jujutsu"..



The rest of your post may be terrific, but I couldn't get past this.  My name is steve.  Because I am American, and not Spanish, my name is steve and not Esteban.  If I were French, it might be Étienne, or possibly Stefan.  

But I'm not.  I'm steve.  Telling someone in Brazil or America that they are doing it wrong is silliness.  In japan, you might be correct.  In America, referring to something Japanese, you might still be correct.  But you aren't.  It's Brazilian and the correct spelling and pronunciation is Jiu Jitsu.  Calling it jujutsu in 21st century English is wrong.  The convention has been set.  You are as wrong in this as you would be to say I pronounce my name wrong.  It's not Stefan.  It's steve.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## oaktree (Feb 22, 2014)

Hey steve 
What does jiu jitsu mean?
for example jiu and ju are not the same word
Nor is jutsu or jitsu so what
Do you think jitsu means?


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2014)

Jiu jitsu is a brazilian grappling art.  What do you think it means?  It's often preceded by either Gracie or Brazilian, but not necessarily.

Jiu jitsu isn't a Japanese word.  It's a Portuguese word with a Japanese root.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 24, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Given that BJJ sport competition wasn't even invented until the art had been around for 40 years or so and many practitioners still don't train for it, I'd say this statement is at best a partial truth.



Hey Tony,

Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field. The sophistication of sweeps, counter-sweeps, submissions, escapes, and so on simply doesn't happen in anything that is geared towards pure combative pragmatism. It developed as a sport, it developed through the sporting approach, and is very much custom designed for competition... which isn't anywhere near a bad thing or a criticism, nor is it saying that that's all their good for... but it is what it is, a current observation, rather than a partial truth.



Tony Dismukes said:


> For a much more in-depth examination of what BJJ is "about" or "designed for", take a look at my post on page 4 of the "Modern vs Antiquated Self-defense" thread.



Yeah, I've got to get back to that one... I'll address it there.



Mr. President said:


> Few things -



Okay.



Mr. President said:


> 1) Calling it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is somewhat of a misnomer. First of all, you're not supposed to pronounce it as "Jiu Jitsu". That's just how the Brazilians handled Japanese forms of pronunciations, but I'm a traditionalist in that regard. It's supposed to be pronounced "Brazilian Jujutsu".



Hmm. Look, I'm usually one of the first to call out against the mistransliteration of &#26580;&#34899;, however that's just not the case here. The only time you really have to ensure that it's correct is when the system/teacher is making a claim to be a Japanese art (which, although derived from them, BJJ doesn't claim to be). It really, really is "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu".



Mr. President said:


> 2) It's also a misnomer because it's actually much more Brazilian Judo than it is Jujutsu. Sure, the arts have plenty in common, but Judo is a more sport-appropriate synthesis of traditional forms of Japanese unarmed combat, and BJJ came directly from Kodokan Judo.



Your history is a bit out. For one thing, Judo is Jujutsu... it was originally called Kano-ha Jujutsu. BJJ is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Completely and accurately.



Mr. President said:


> 3) I think the problem Judo and BJJ have is the same problem Taekwondo (and to some extent - Karate) have - In today's world, these methods are primarily practiced as combat sports, and most schools have neglected various martial applications.



That's a problem? Really? Honestly, I don't see one... it's perfectly suited to it's needs, really, and is incredibly good at what it does. The honing of technique and methodology through competition has been nothing but benefit to BJJ... it has cemented the approach of the system, clarified it, given a level of sophistication almost unseen in the range of ground work before, and more. Personally, I had a range of issues with it's approach, but all that means is that it didn't suit me and my needs... there's nothing negative about BJJ whatsoever, unless it doesn't fit what you're looking for... which is fine, it just means that BJJ isn't for you. 



Mr. President said:


> 4) So yeah, you can learn how to toss people around in Judo and how to choke them in BJJ, but those schools might not teach you how to get into that position where you can apply these moves in the first place without being bombarded by fists, kicks and elbows first. In other words - They'll teach you the mechanisms of the moves themselves, but not so much how to apply them.



I'd say that's almost completely opposite to the reality, myself. They focus almost entirely on how to apply the techniques... you're just expecting it to happen in a context that isn't what these systems deal with. And, really, that's your issue, not the arts. 



Mr. President said:


> 5) These are problems you won't encounter with Krav Maga, for example, because there is no sport Krav Maga. Every school focuses solely on real life self defense. Many Filipino and Indonesian Martial arts are the same way, except they also teach you how to use weapons, as well as disarming your opponent of them.



Except that the problems you're identifying aren't actually problems... nor do they have the drawbacks you're trying to claim. I train in very non-sporting systems, and believe me, you've missed exactly how the different contexts affect the way an art operates and functions.



Mr. President said:


> 6) But I digress. Bottom line - You'll only learn what you're taught, so if you have your heart set on Judo and BJJ, you need to be 100% certain that the school you're giving your money to, will focus on self defense (disarming, multiple opponents, different environments, unpredictable encounters etc). If they will, then you'll be fine. Just make sure that's what they teach before you give them one single dollar.


 
That depends entirely on what you're after, of course. And if you're just after self defence, I wouldn't suggest a sporting system... nor would I suggest a traditional one. I might, however, suggest either as a base... and recommend supplementing it with proper education and RBSD methodologies. 



Mr. President said:


> 7) In order to be sure - Ask the students of that school, not the instructors. Why? Because the students aren't after your money. Just make sure that the students aren't beginners. If they are, maybe they simply weren't exposed to that yet.



While I agree with asking the students about the school, I'm not sure that the thrust of your reasoning is actually that sound... it's just as likely that the students might think they're learning self defence, when they're simply learning fighting techniques, or even sporting methodology...the BJJ school I trained with had a pretty constant rhetoric of "for the streets, real self defence" (to the point that it was the "theme" of a seminar by Royce Gracie while I was there), however the training methodology, the techniques, and so on were (in many cases) fairly opposed to actual realities of modern violence and self defence... and I was often told that I needed to adjust my technique, not due to better mechanics, safer application, openings in my position or anything else, but because "it'd cost you the point". 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I'm with Tony here in that BJJ at least the sport side has not been around as long as the self defense/personal protection side of the system.  BJJ can be very effective in a one on one physical confrontation.  The way I was taught in each class was starting in the first hour with a self defense application then moving to the ground and covering maybe three techniques then we would roll for anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour.  Overall conditioning in BJJ is fantastic.  You will be in shape which is a cornerstone in my opinion for being able to protect yourself.  Plus BJJ has been proven very, very effective in a one on one confrontation.  Very effective!!!  The self defense curriculum in BJJ has been around a long time and is very comprehensive when taught at the right school!



Definitely agreed on the fitness approach of BJJ training... those guys work damn hard! That said, the level of fitness they work towards (as well as the type of fitness) is really geared towards competition, where it's far more of a factor. But "BJJ has been proven very, very effective in one on one confrontation"? You mean, like a competitive match? In sports? Which is what it's trained for? Why would it be surprising, or even doubted that that would be the case? I'm not sure what your point is here... 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Judo (my experience is working with high level judo players learning BJJ) is a fantastic throwing art and those throws can easily end a physical encounter quickly.  Now most Judo schools also have newaza or grappling and while maybe not practiced as much as in a BJJ class they still are very effective at grappling. (though this can vary from dojo to dojo)



Grappling does not, nor has it ever, equal ground fighting. Ne waza is just that, ne waza... all of Judo's throws, standing locks, pins, chokes, and so on are grappling. It just means "to seize or grasp", as opposed to striking.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Both are sporting martial systems with roots in older systems that were geared towards personal protection.  As long as you understand the limitation of not wanting to go to the ground with potential multiple opponents around they can be really effective in a situation that requires personal protection.



Hmm. Yes, they certainly can be "really effective"... I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assessment of their respective histories, though... 



Steve said:


> The rest of your post may be terrific, but I couldn't get past this.  My name is steve.  Because I am American, and not Spanish, my name is steve and not Esteban.  If I were French, it might be Étienne, or possibly Stefan.
> 
> But I'm not.  I'm steve.  Telling someone in Brazil or America that they are doing it wrong is silliness.  In japan, you might be correct.  In America, referring to something Japanese, you might still be correct.  But you aren't.  It's Brazilian and the correct spelling and pronunciation is Jiu Jitsu.  Calling it jujutsu in 21st century English is wrong.  The convention has been set.  You are as wrong in this as you would be to say I pronounce my name wrong.  It's not Stefan.  It's steve.



As I said, in BJJ, it is "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu", that much is definitively correct... however.... 

If it's a Japanese art (BJJ isn't), then it's Jujutsu. As far as your name, Steve, that's also not really correct... commonly, if you're speaking in a different language, you are able to (in cases, encouraged to) alter your name to suit that language. In Japanese, my name is &#12463;&#12522;&#12473;(Kurisu), not Chris. In French, it's Christophe. You may be American, but you're not dealing with English at that point.



oaktree said:


> Hey steve
> What does jiu jitsu mean?
> for example jiu and ju are not the same word
> Nor is jutsu or jitsu so what
> Do you think jitsu means?





Steve said:


> Jiu jitsu is a brazilian grappling art.  What do you think it means?  It's often preceded by either Gracie or Brazilian, but not necessarily.



No it's not. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is a Brazilian grappling art, focusing on ground work, but jiujitsu is not necessarily that. Gracie Jiu-Jitsu is one subset of BJJ.



Steve said:


> Jiu jitsu isn't a Japanese word.  It's a Portuguese word with a Japanese root.



No, it's not. It is a Japanese loan-word. Same as sushi... or, are you going to suggest that, when you have sushi in an American based Japanese restaurant, it's no longer a Japanese word?

What is has become is a Brazilian-ified (hmm, not sure if that works...) version of the Japanese term (note: not a Portuguese version), and has come to represent (in this instance) the body of systems and approaches for what is known as BJJ. And, in that sense, it's spelt correctly. But to claim that it's not a Japanese word is just, well... wrong.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 24, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Tony,
> 
> Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field. The sophistication of sweeps, counter-sweeps, submissions, escapes, and so on simply doesn't happen in anything that is geared towards pure combative pragmatism. It developed as a sport, it developed through the sporting approach, and is very much custom designed for competition... which isn't anywhere near a bad thing or a criticism, nor is it saying that that's all their good for... but it is what it is, a current observation, rather than a partial truth.



What you are describing is one aspect of how BJJ has developed and how it is practiced by a significant percentage of practitioners.  It is not the original nor the only way it has developed and is practiced.  That's why I said it's a partial truth - it is an accurate observation of how many people train in the art, but it is certainly not universal.  With all due respect - I think I have rather a lot more experience in the art than you do and thus a lot more data points to draw upon.  I have no doubt that you are correctly describing what you have seen.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> As I said, in BJJ, it is "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu", that much is definitively correct... however....
> 
> If it's a Japanese art (BJJ isn't), then it's Jujutsu. As far as your name, Steve, that's also not really correct... commonly, if you're speaking in a different language, you are able to (in cases, encouraged to) alter your name to suit that language. In Japanese, my name is &#12463;&#12522;&#12473;(Kurisu), not Chris. In French, it's Christophe. You may be American, but you're not dealing with English at that point.
> 
> ...


Okay.  Hold on.  If you choose to alter your name, that's one thing.  But, one's given name is just that.  Your name is Christopher.  My name is Stephen.  I go by Steve.

Ultimately, though, it seems that names weren't a perfect analogy.  Etymology is an interesting field of study, and English is a complex language with many influences.  When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he brought a strong French influence into our language.  Many English words have a French root, and while one could say that they were "borrowed," that in no way means that the word now is the same as the French word.  In some cases, the English word no longer means precisely what the French word did (or does.)  He and his court are largely responsible for bringing us from Middle English into the English that more closely resembles the language we all speak today.

For example, there are many words we use every day in English.  The words are English words and have English meanings, even though these words came from old King William and those pesky Normans.  Cinema is a common English word, taken from the French word cinematographe, which was a term taken from ancient Greek (kinema). 

Or what about the term, "a la mode?"  In English, the derivative does not mean the same thing as in French.  In America, specifically, "a la mode" refers to adding scoop of ice cream to a piece of pie.  

"Amateur" is another English word with roots in French.  In the French language, it's a much more general term for someone who loves an activity or does it "for the love of" it.  In American English, the term is much more specific and used as the synonym for a professional.  It typically refers to someone who is not paid, but can also refer to someone who isn't very good at the activity.  The word is an English word.  It's pronounced differently than it would be in French, and it has a distinct definition that is not the same as its root.

Sushi is indeed an American word borrowed from the Japanese, but I would suggest that American Sushi is NOT what you would typically find in Japan.  In America, the term "sushi" refers to a uniquely American experience that overlaps with the Japanese experience in some ways.  One is not better than or worse than the other.  But they are different, and in America, if you went to a sushi restaurant expecting a very Japanese experience, you would be disappointed in the same way you would be expecting actual Chinese food in a Chinese restaurant.

So, in this way, sushi said in America is an American word used to describe an Americanized dining experience.  

Also, if anything, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the subset of Gracie Jiu Jitsu.  While it's true that Oswaldo Fadda lineage is alive and well, all but a very, very few Jiu Jitsu black belts trace their lineage in some way back through the Gracies.  In modern usage, most people use the term Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to indicate that they are not directly affiliated with the Gracie family.  However, BJJ... particularly in America, stems from GJJ and not the other way around.  

Finally, Chris, have you ever see this famous painting by Rene Magritte?  It's called the Treachery of Images.  The caption, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," is an integral part of the piece.   Translated, it means, "This is not a pipe."  




This painting came to mind as we discuss symbols.  One might say that it is clearly a pipe, but it's not.  It's a picture, a painting.  And, really, this is even more removed.  It's a digital copy of a painting of a pipe.  But it's still not a pipe.   In the same way, Jiu Jitsu might seem to be a Japanese word, but it's not.  Heck, jujutsu isn't even a Japanese word, nor is this:

View attachment $j_jiu_jitsu.jpg

These are symbols that *stand for *words which mean something in the language in which they are spoken.  In Brazil, if you say jiu jitsu, it doesn't mean something Japanese.  It means something Brazilian.  And the spoken word is itself a symbol for the thing to which it refers.


----------



## Mr. President (Feb 24, 2014)

> Look, I'm usually one of the first to call out against the mistransliteration of &#26580;&#34899;, however that's just not the case here. The only time you really have to ensure that it's correct is when the system/teacher is making a claim to be a Japanese art (which, although derived from them, BJJ doesn't claim to be). It really, really is "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu".



Hmmm.... sorry, but no. Just because the Brazilians took a Japanese martial art and gave it a Brazilian twist, does not mean that the words are no longer Japanese. Same way that if the Americans created their own Krav Maga system and called it "American Krav Maga", that does NOT mean that the words "Krav" and "Maga" are now American words, or English words. These are still Hebrew words.

Brazilians kept calling it JJ because their version of it doesn't have strikes at all, so it's still considered "gentle". Since "Ju" and "Jutsu" translates into "Gentle art", the Brazilians can call it "Brazilian Arte Suave", which translates exactly the same way. 

Yes, the Japanese would probably understand if you pronounce like the Brazilians do, as "Jiu Jitsu", simply because they're aware of the world around them, but "Jiu" is still a mispronunciation of "Ju" and "Jitsu" is still a mispronunciation of "Jutsu". 



> For one thing, Judo is Jujutsu... it was originally called Kano-ha Jujutsu. BJJ is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Completely and accurately.



Judo and Jujutsu are distinct enough that they are considered completely separate arts, and have been quite a while now. BJJ techniques were developed from watching and refining the martial art of Judo, not the martial art of Jujutsu, even if the term "Jujutsu" doesn't indicate one single method but rather an approach.

Not that I really care that much, or at all. You can call it whatever you want. I'm just stating technical observations.



> That's a problem? Really?



It is for the guy who started the thread, because he specifically said he wants to learn these arts from a "street effective" standpoint. He's the one I responded to.



> The honing of technique and methodology through competition has been nothing but benefit to BJJ



This, while valid, does not address the concern of the guy who opened the thread, and like I said, I was responding to him.



> I'd say that's almost completely opposite to the reality, myself. They focus almost entirely on how to apply the techniques... you're just expecting it to happen in a context that isn't what these systems deal with. And, really, that's your issue, not the arts.



I've visited more than one BJJ school in my vicinity and did encounter the problem I was saying. In the local sporting center, they offer BJJ, so I spoke to the instructor and asked him about his approach to street situations and does he address it. To his credit, he fully admitted that the answer is no and he's teaching it from a "fitness, sport, fun for the whole family" kind of approach, and not survival.

He did refer me to a friend of his who teaches in a close by city, but he too did not have any "street survival" scenarios in his curriculum. Only people rolling around, passing guards, applying chokes etc on a mat.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist in BJJ. I know for a fact that it does. The Gracies have a comprehensive program regarding these scenarios. They too, by the way, agree with my concern, as you can see here:






And here:








> Except that the problems you're identifying aren't actually problems... nor do they have the drawbacks you're trying to claim.



My point is still very very valid. You have sporting schools and self defense schools, and I know this is true because I've been in both. A martial art that emphasizes real life events and has no competition, will only have schools that address self defense. With BJJ, that is not the case. I'm not saying it's "good" or "bad". I'm just saying it's true. When I said "concern" before, I was referring, again, to the concerns of the guy who opened the thread.  



> That depends entirely on what you're after, of course. And if you're just after self defence, I wouldn't suggest a sporting system...



Nor would I. That was my point.



> it's just as likely that the students might think they're learning self defence



You can simply ask them if there was any attention paid to real life scenarios.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 24, 2014)

Hi Steve 
Jiujitsu is a phonetic sound for jujutsu though
Erroneous. Hepburn one of the first to romaji 
Japanese into English in the late 1880's called it
Jujutsu.  Hepburn translation dictionary is regarded as
The standard for nonjapanese translations.
the thing is in order for it to be a japanese word it must
Be able to phonetically be able to be spelled in hiragana katakana or kanji. Jiujitsu can be but it won't mean anything martial related. However hepburn romaji does accurately use a long u in ju thus allowing for it to be written correctly in hiragana. 
if you want to call your art jiujutsu thats fine even though
What the Gracies are doing has no legit trace to any koryu and can only trace back to judo. I think we will have to disagree maybe someone like Karl Friday can weigh in on something like this.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 24, 2014)

I just noticed Steve you
Put the kanji up. Now why not put the hiragana up.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 24, 2014)

Heres a great article on
Bjj judo and jujutsu.http://web.archive.org/web/20120204191750/http://members.multimania.co.uk/fight/judo/judo.html


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2014)

oaktree said:


> Hi Steve
> Jiujitsu is a phonetic sound for jujutsu though
> Erroneous. Hepburn one of the first to romaji
> Japanese into English in the late 1880's called it
> ...


I would agree with you that Jiu Jitsu is a uniquely Brazilian martial art related closely to, but distinct from, modern Judo.  I would presume (perhaps mistakenly) that modern BJJ is as closely related to any kind of koryu art as modern Judo.  However much that might be.

Regarding phonetic spellings, if we're translating Japanese into English or vice versa, then that's relevant.  But Jiu Jitsu doesn't refer to something Japanese.  It refers to something Brazilian, and so any romanization of kanji is relevant only as a footnote to discussing the etymology of the term.  It's trivia and may be interesting, but has no bearing on the correctness of the modern usage of the word.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2014)

oaktree said:


> I just noticed Steve you
> Put the kanji up. Now why not put the hiragana up.


Do you think that the scribbles on the page below are jujutsu?   &#12376;&#12421;&#12358;&#12376;&#12421;&#12388;

If so, my point wasn't clear.  The scribbles on the page above, like the kanji and any other words, are symbols representing words that in turn represent some thing.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 24, 2014)

I suppose Steve. I guess I'll have to learn to live with that
Like taiji people live with tai chi and karateka have
To listen to korotty. And bjj will have to live with male eroticism undertones...eh better then larping


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2014)

oaktree said:


> I suppose Steve. I guess I'll have to learn to live with that
> Like taiji people live with tai chi and karateka have
> To listen to korotty. And bjj will have to live with male eroticism undertones...eh better then larping


Could be just me, but this reads pretty passive aggressive and judgmental.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 24, 2014)

My experience in Brazilian Jiujitsu always had a self defense component.  Now I agree that is not the norm with everyone but it is the norm with all the schools I have encountered affiliated with most of the Gracies. (mine were initially affiliated with Rorion)  Helio Gracie was adamant on teaching the self-defense and the sporting side as were his sons and now grand sons.  Heck I have been in the room with Royce showing self-defense moves, just as I learned them from my instructor.


As Steve has mentioned the word jiujitsu is now distinctly Brazilian.  A traditionalist may not like it but hey it is, what it is!


Chris fitness is some thing that will always help someone out in self-defense and yes the Gracie's have proven their form of jiujitsu works great in a one on one confrontation whether for self-defense or in competition.  A whole heck of a lot of street fights have documented this in brazil.  If you want I can send you a video tape of some of them.  It is not at it's base a sporting system but a system for personal protection. (that is how the Gracie's see it and how Helio Gracie saw it)  Though not all Brazilian Jiujitsu instructors now not affiliated with the Gracie's see it that way!


----------



## oaktree (Feb 25, 2014)

Hi Steve 
I didn't mean it as passive aggressive. I did mean it as tongue in cheek that as martial artist we have to accept what others will think or think in error or misunderstand.
  As someone who does classical Koryu I will have to accept that people will call jujutsu jiujitsu just the same that I have to accept people who call taijiquan taichi and
karateka have to accept korotty and even grapplers have to accept the public perception that two grown men together on the floor has male erotic undertones but those aren't my thoughts they are the public opinion.


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2014)

oaktree said:


> Hi Steve
> I didn't mean it as passive aggressive. I did mean it as tongue in cheek that as martial artist we have to accept what others will think or think in error or misunderstand.
> As someone who does classical Koryu I will have to accept that people will call jujutsu jiujitsu.


But what you do is not what I do.  You do jujutsu.  I do Jiu Jitsu.  They aren't the same.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## oaktree (Feb 25, 2014)

Steve said:


> But what you do is not what I do.  You do jujutsu.  I do Jiu Jitsu.  They aren't the same.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Which then begs the question what was Irving Hancock 
Talking about when writing the book Jiujitsu combat tricks in the early 1900's.


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2014)

oaktree said:


> Which then begs the question what was Irving Hancock
> Talking about when writing the book Jiujitsu combat tricks in the early 1900's.


Does it actually beg the question?  I don't think so, or at least, I don't know whether you and I are using the phrase in the same way.  Begging the question is a kind of circular logic.    

But, if you're asking that question, I'd say the answer is...  something else?  

We can talk about historic diction.  We can discuss contemporary diction.  We can even discuss both at the same time.  But we should be careful not to confuse the two.  Language is like fashion.  It ebbs and flows and changes all the time.  This is particularly true where other languages enter the mix.

Simply put, over the last 100 years, the vocabulary has settled.  And in the year 2014 AD, it's pretty clear that in English, jujutsu is not jiu jitsu.  They are loosely related, but the relationship between jiu jitsu and judo is much closer.  Australian Rules Football isn't American Football, even though they have similar names and are loosely related.  And, most people in the world have no trouble distinguishing the two.  In the same way, Jujutsu and Jiu Jitsu aren't the same, and I wonder why you have so much trouble distinguishing them.  

Let's talk about your fixation with male eroticism.  What's that about?


----------



## oaktree (Feb 25, 2014)

Hi Steve rather then discuss with you any more as we won't come to anything positive and I rather spend my time training think what you want.



> Let's talk about your fixation with male eroticism. What's that about?


Steve what I said was 


> *public perception *


Also it was in the term of how I can live with people thinking its jiujitsu just as how _*karateka have public perception as korotty or public perception of taiji as tai chi.

*_


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2014)

oaktree said:


> Hi Steve rather then discuss with you any more as we won't come to anything positive and I rather spend my time training think what you want.
> 
> 
> Steve what I said was
> ...



I don't know, oak tree.  You say public perception, but your public is definitely different from mine.  I've never even heard the term korotty before.  And even if someone says tai chi, I don't think it's as horrible as you seem to believe.  My mom does tai chi and really likes it.  It's really good for her and whether it's called taiji or tai chi, she certainly means no offense.  

Is English your first language?  I'm wondering if some of the disconnect we are having is in part due to a language barrier.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 26, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> What you are describing is one aspect of how BJJ has developed and how it is practiced by a significant percentage of practitioners.  It is not the original nor the only way it has developed and is practiced.  That's why I said it's a partial truth - it is an accurate observation of how many people train in the art, but it is certainly not universal.  With all due respect - I think I have rather a lot more experience in the art than you do and thus a lot more data points to draw upon.  I have no doubt that you are correctly describing what you have seen.



Hey Tony,

While not arguing that you have more experience in this field than I do, and also not arguing about the origins or focus of some schools of BJJ, I'd argue about the development not coming from the sporting side of things. Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application? The reason I ask is that I can't think of any form that shows the hallmarks of not developing in that fashion... and, to be absolutely clear here, I don't see anything negative about developing through sports at all... as I said, it is what gives BJJ it's sophistication and depth of knowledge on the ground. It's a great thing.



Steve said:


> Okay.  Hold on.  If you choose to alter your name, that's one thing.  But, one's given name is just that.  Your name is Christopher.  My name is Stephen.  I go by Steve.



No, it's not about "choosing to alter (my) name", it's that the name changes when spoken in a different language.



Steve said:


> Ultimately, though, it seems that names weren't a perfect analogy.  Etymology is an interesting field of study, and English is a complex language with many influences.  When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he brought a strong French influence into our language.  Many English words have a French root, and while one could say that they were "borrowed," that in no way means that the word now is the same as the French word.  In some cases, the English word no longer means precisely what the French word did (or does.)  He and his court are largely responsible for bringing us from Middle English into the English that more closely resembles the language we all speak today.
> 
> For example, there are many words we use every day in English.  The words are English words and have English meanings, even though these words came from old King William and those pesky Normans.  Cinema is a common English word, taken from the French word cinematographe, which was a term taken from ancient Greek (kinema).



It's a completely different thing when you're looking at the etymology of a language through the filters of it's source languages (for example, Greek as a basis for most scientific language, Latin for legal language, as well as French, Germanic, Celtic etc for English), and looking at where a loanword comes from. A loanword is brought in independent of the structure and etymology of the language it's being brought into... in other words, if there's no basis in the language from the language the new word is being introduced from, it's a loanword. So, unless you can say how Japanese is a root language of Portuguese, particularly as spoken in Brazil, it's not a true Portuguese word, it's a Japanese word that's been brought in as a loanword. 



Steve said:


> Or what about the term, "a la mode?"  In English, the derivative does not mean the same thing as in French.  In America, specifically, "a la mode" refers to adding scoop of ice cream to a piece of pie.


 
Yeah... you guys certainly have a way with words... it really means "in the style", or "trendy, fashionable"... but hey, I guess adding icecream is fashionable... in a way...  



Steve said:


> "Amateur" is another English word with roots in French.  In the French language, it's a much more general term for someone who loves an activity or does it "for the love of" it.  In American English, the term is much more specific and used as the synonym for a professional.  It typically refers to someone who is not paid, but can also refer to someone who isn't very good at the activity.  The word is an English word.  It's pronounced differently than it would be in French, and it has a distinct definition that is not the same as its root.



Sure... but French is a root language for modern English. Japanese is not for Portuguese.



Steve said:


> Sushi is indeed an American word borrowed from the Japanese, but I would suggest that American Sushi is NOT what you would typically find in Japan.  In America, the term "sushi" refers to a uniquely American experience that overlaps with the Japanese experience in some ways.  One is not better than or worse than the other.  But they are different, and in America, if you went to a sushi restaurant expecting a very Japanese experience, you would be disappointed in the same way you would be expecting actual Chinese food in a Chinese restaurant.



Seriously? Sushi is an American word? Really?

Look, Steve, I'm not arguing that a word can be applied with slight or larger differences in other cultures, but to say that sushi is an American word because there are sushi restaurants in the US is just plain... hell, I have a bit of trouble finding the word... ludicrous.



Steve said:


> So, in this way, sushi said in America is an American word used to describe an Americanized dining experience.


 
You're missing the point. The experience isn't the thing, it's where the word comes from... and it's a Japanese word. 



Steve said:


> Also, if anything, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the subset of Gracie Jiu Jitsu.  While it's true that Oswaldo Fadda lineage is alive and well, all but a very, very few Jiu Jitsu black belts trace their lineage in some way back through the Gracies.  In modern usage, most people use the term Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to indicate that they are not directly affiliated with the Gracie family.  However, BJJ... particularly in America, stems from GJJ and not the other way around.



So... although there are other forms of BJJ, other than Gracie, there's the Fadda lineage, there are groups that have grown out from the Gracies, there's the Machado's, BJJ is a subset of Gracie JiuJitsu? Really?

Uh, nope.



Steve said:


> Finally, Chris, have you ever see this famous painting by Rene Magritte?  It's called the Treachery of Images.  The caption, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," is an integral part of the piece.   Translated, it means, "This is not a pipe."
> 
> View attachment 18640
> 
> ...



While I get what you're saying, you're taking it to an extreme where it all loses meaning... the picture is a representation of a pipe, sure, and sure, the written word, whether alphabetical, pictographic, or otherwise, are simply representations of the words, which are simply representations of concepts and ideas, which are simply expressions of internal feelings, which are... really?

The written word is the written word. It's still the word. It's a symbolic representation of the word, but it's also still the word.

As far as "JiuJitsu", if spoken in Brazil not referring to something Japanese, that still doesn't change the fact that it's a Japanese word, mistransliterated, and applied within context to a Brazilian expression of a Japanese art. Hell, you call your uniforms "kimono"... are you going to tell me that that's not a Japanese word either? 



Mr. President said:


> Hmmm.... sorry, but no. Just because the Brazilians took a Japanese martial art and gave it a Brazilian twist, does not mean that the words are no longer Japanese. Same way that if the Americans created their own Krav Maga system and called it "American Krav Maga", that does NOT mean that the words "Krav" and "Maga" are now American words, or English words. These are still Hebrew words.
> 
> Brazilians kept calling it JJ because their version of it doesn't have strikes at all, so it's still considered "gentle". Since "Ju" and "Jutsu" translates into "Gentle art", the Brazilians can call it "Brazilian Arte Suave", which translates exactly the same way.
> 
> Yes, the Japanese would probably understand if you pronounce like the Brazilians do, as "Jiu Jitsu", simply because they're aware of the world around them, but "Jiu" is still a mispronunciation of "Ju" and "Jitsu" is still a mispronunciation of "Jutsu".



Look, I'm agreeing that the origins are Japanese, that BJJ is a Brazilian art derived from a Japanese art, that (when looking at Japanese arts) the transliteration is incorrect, but the resultant art is removed enough that separation has given rise to a different rendering of the term... almost a "Chinese Whispers" thing. Is it "correct" from the point of view of the actual Japanese term? No. However, it can't be ignored that, at the time, it was considered to be, if not the "correct" form, then it was the standard form of rendering the word. BJJ just happens to have kept it.



Mr. President said:


> Judo and Jujutsu are distinct enough that they are considered completely separate arts, and have been quite a while now. BJJ techniques were developed from watching and refining the martial art of Judo, not the martial art of Jujutsu, even if the term "Jujutsu" doesn't indicate one single method but rather an approach.



Judo and Jujutsu are distinct the same way each different Jujutsu system is distinct from the others... the way Takenouchi Ryu is different to Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, is different to Yagyu Shingan Ryu, is different to Sho Sho Ryu, is different to Takagi Ryu, is different to Sekiguchi Ryu, is different to Asayama Ichiden Ryu, is different to Kito Ryu, is different to Hakko Ryu, is different to, well, all of the others. BJJ developed from one form of jujutsu... specifically Kano-ha Jujutsu, along with a range of other influences.



Mr. President said:


> Not that I really care that much, or at all. You can call it whatever you want. I'm just stating technical observations.



But ignoring the contextual application of what you're observing. 



Mr. President said:


> It is for the guy who started the thread, because he specifically said he wants to learn these arts from a "street effective" standpoint. He's the one I responded to.



Okay.



Mr. President said:


> This, while valid, does not address the concern of the guy who opened the thread, and like I said, I was responding to him.



Which was dealt with at the beginning of the thread.. but okay.



Mr. President said:


> I've visited more than one BJJ school in my vicinity and did encounter the problem I was saying. In the local sporting center, they offer BJJ, so I spoke to the instructor and asked him about his approach to street situations and does he address it. To his credit, he fully admitted that the answer is no and he's teaching it from a "fitness, sport, fun for the whole family" kind of approach, and not survival.
> 
> He did refer me to a friend of his who teaches in a close by city, but he too did not have any "street survival" scenarios in his curriculum. Only people rolling around, passing guards, applying chokes etc on a mat.



Which is application, as I said... just application in a particular context.



Mr. President said:


> I'm not saying it doesn't exist in BJJ. I know for a fact that it does. The Gracies have a comprehensive program regarding these scenarios. They too, by the way, agree with my concern, as you can see here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Mr. President said:


> My point is still very very valid. You have sporting schools and self defense schools, and I know this is true because I've been in both. A martial art that emphasizes real life events and has no competition, will only have schools that address self defense. With BJJ, that is not the case. I'm not saying it's "good" or "bad". I'm just saying it's true. When I said "concern" before, I was referring, again, to the concerns of the guy who opened the thread.



Yeah... I've seen the program. And, honestly, those videos don't really fill me with a huge amount of confidence that they've really grasped the differences... the focus is still in the wrong direction, and no matter how much Rener tries to separate the two, they're really little more than variations on each other in that approach. And, when it comes down to it, that's what it would need to be. To be as removed as the boys were suggesting would be no benefit at all.



Mr. President said:


> Nor would I. That was my point.



Okay... but that was only half of what I said.



Mr. President said:


> You can simply ask them if there was any attention paid to real life scenarios.



Sure, but my point was that they wouldn't necessarily have the knowledge themselves to determine that.



Steve said:


> I would agree with you that Jiu Jitsu is a uniquely Brazilian martial art related closely to, but distinct from, modern Judo.  I would presume (perhaps mistakenly) that modern BJJ is as closely related to any kind of koryu art as modern Judo.  However much that might be.



JiuJitsu is not a uniquely Brazilian martial art, Steve. Brazilian JiuJitsu is. And, for the record, no, BJJ is definitely much more removed from Koryu than Judo is, on many, many levels.



Steve said:


> Regarding phonetic spellings, if we're translating Japanese into English or vice versa, then that's relevant.  But Jiu Jitsu doesn't refer to something Japanese.  It refers to something Brazilian, and so any romanization of kanji is relevant only as a footnote to discussing the etymology of the term.  It's trivia and may be interesting, but has no bearing on the correctness of the modern usage of the word.



We're not translating, though, Steve, we're transliterating. And, if you're not looking at romanization of the kanji, why are the kanji used? Why do BJJ practitioners get &#26580;&#34899; tattooed on themselves? Why does it turn up on videos, such as the ones linked above?



Steve said:


> Do you think that the scribbles on the page below are jujutsu?  &#12376;&#12421;&#12358;&#12376;&#12421;&#12388;
> 
> If so, my point wasn't clear.  The scribbles on the page above, like the kanji and any other words, are symbols representing words that in turn represent some thing.



They are the word. That is the word as written in hiragana syllabary.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> My experience in Brazilian Jiujitsu always had a self defense component.  Now I agree that is not the norm with everyone but it is the norm with all the schools I have encountered affiliated with most of the Gracies. (mine were initially affiliated with Rorion)  Helio Gracie was adamant on teaching the self-defense and the sporting side as were his sons and now grand sons.  Heck I have been in the room with Royce showing self-defense moves, just as I learned them from my instructor.



Mine claimed to, but was flawed across the board, including from Royce. There was a lot that was claimed to be self defence techniques... but, really, it was just altered sports methodology.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> As Steve has mentioned the word jiujitsu is now distinctly Brazilian.  A traditionalist may not like it but hey it is, what it is!



Except it's not. There are any number of Western, modern systems that use the same spelling. 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris fitness is some thing that will always help someone out in self-defense and yes the Gracie's have proven their form of jiujitsu works great in a one on one confrontation whether for self-defense or in competition.  A whole heck of a lot of street fights have documented this in brazil.  If you want I can send you a video tape of some of them.  It is not at it's base a sporting system but a system for personal protection. (that is how the Gracie's see it and how Helio Gracie saw it)  Though not all Brazilian Jiujitsu instructors now not affiliated with the Gracie's see it that way!



I'm not arguing against fitness, Brian, I was saying that the focus on, and type of fitness is different for sports as opposed to other aims.



Steve said:


> But what you do is not what I do.  You do jujutsu.  I do Jiu Jitsu.  They aren't the same.



Yeah, what you do is different... and you spell the term differently... sure. But the simple fact is that it's a Japanese word transliterated incorrectly. You use the older transliteration? Cool. The argument as to who does what is actually kinda besides the point, though.



Steve said:


> Does it actually beg the question?  I don't think so, or at least, I don't know whether you and I are using the phrase in the same way.  Begging the question is a kind of circular logic.


 
When you're claiming that that particular spelling and usage is Portuguese, and "uniquely Brazilian", then yes, it does, as there are quite a number of others, not Brazilian, not Portuguese, that use it the same way your system does. It's not circular logic as much as pointing out that your claim is easily refuted.   



Steve said:


> But, if you're asking that question, I'd say the answer is...  something else?


 
But you said that the usage of "JiuJitsu" is "uniquely Brazilian"... that it's part of the Portuguese language... and Oaktree came up with a usage that was not Brazilian, not your system, and not Portuguese in origin... which means that the usage is not uniquely Brazilian, nor Portuguese in origin. I feel that was perhaps the point...  



Steve said:


> We can talk about historic diction.  We can discuss contemporary diction.  We can even discuss both at the same time.  But we should be careful not to confuse the two.  Language is like fashion.  It ebbs and flows and changes all the time.  This is particularly true where other languages enter the mix.



Sure, but you still need to differentiate between what is a loanword imported from another language, and what is etymologically speaking part of the base language itself. JiuJitsu is, in this case, an imported Japanese loanword, and it's mis-transliterated.



Steve said:


> Simply put, over the last 100 years, the vocabulary has settled.  And in the year 2014 AD, it's pretty clear that in English, jujutsu is not jiu jitsu.  They are loosely related, but the relationship between jiu jitsu and judo is much closer.  Australian Rules Football isn't American Football, even though they have similar names and are loosely related.  And, most people in the world have no trouble distinguishing the two.  In the same way, Jujutsu and Jiu Jitsu aren't the same, and I wonder why you have so much trouble distinguishing them.


 
The football analogy is completely off base, Steve... no-one's arguing that "fuutbawl" is the same word as "football", but it's the way it's spelt in Swahili. And, while I'm at it there's no such thing as "in English" here... it's not an English word, although it has found a place within the lexicon (as a loanword). 



Steve said:


> Let's talk about your fixation with male eroticism.  What's that about?



Now, Steve, you wouldn't be trying to muddy the discussion there, would you?



Steve said:


> I don't know, oak tree.  You say public perception, but your public is definitely different from mine.  I've never even heard the term korotty before.  And even if someone says tai chi, I don't think it's as horrible as you seem to believe.  My mom does tai chi and really likes it.  It's really good for her and whether it's called taiji or tai chi, she certainly means no offense.
> 
> Is English your first language?  I'm wondering if some of the disconnect we are having is in part due to a language barrier.



English is mine, Steve, so I'm going to say that no, that's not the issue.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 26, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Tony,
> 
> While not arguing that you have more experience in this field than I do, and also not arguing about the origins or focus of some schools of BJJ, I'd argue about the development not coming from the sporting side of things. Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application? The reason I ask is that I can't think of any form that shows the hallmarks of not developing in that fashion... and, to be absolutely clear here, I don't see anything negative about developing through sports at all... as I said, it is what gives BJJ it's sophistication and depth of knowledge on the ground. It's a great thing.



It might be easier to continue this discussion over in the "Modern vs Antiquated" thread, where I've already laid out some background on BJJ's development, but I'll go ahead and give an example here.

The original crucible for the development of BJJ was street fighting and challenge matches with practitioners of other arts.*  To this end, the Gracies developed the classic strategy of controlling the distance against strikers by using the pisão (a hybrid between a stomp kick and a side kick) to keep opponents outside of striking range until finding an opportunity to close directly to the clinch range, avoiding any opportunity for the opponent to land a punch.  This approach would be pointless against another BJJ practitioner, even if BJJ competition allowed strikes.  This was an original development for BJJ - I've never seen it anywhere in judo.

Another example, BJJ contains very effective methods for defending against strikes on the ground.  These weren't developed primarily for use against other BJJ practitioners.  They were developed for situations where the BJJ practitioner took down a bigger, stronger opponent who was able to reverse him and end up on top.  By negating the opponent's ability to strike, the BJJ practitioner could tire out and frustrate his adversary, leading to the opportunity for a submission.

*(As we know, street-fighting and challenge matches are not self-defense.  I'll agree that BJJ has relatively little in the way of original development in self-defense methodology, except for those ground techniques which are useful both for fighting and self-defense.  The stand-up self-defense curriculum is not unique to BJJ.)


----------



## Steve (Feb 26, 2014)

At some point, over the course of decades, or centuries, loan words become absorbed.  And like any other word that has been absorbed, it's etymology can be traced through several languages to its origins.  But at some point, it becomes just another word spoken in the language of the area.  "jiu jitsu" may or may not have been mistransliterated in the early 1900s.   What I'm suggesting is that in today's world, at least in America, if you see Jiu Jitsu on anything, it is referring to Jiu Jitsu/BJJ/GJJ.  If you see jujutsu on something, it is referring to something other than Jiu Jitsu/BJJ/GJJ.

And yes, the Machados are practicing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu which is an offshoot of Gracie Jiu Jitsu.  In fact, the Machados brothers' lineage goes through Carlos Gracie Jr., the founder of Gracie Barra.  There is only Fadda's line and Gracie's line, and the folks who practice Jiu Jitsu throughout the world are almost surely practicing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu derived at some point in the lineage from Carlos and Helio.  Oswaldo Fadda himself came into the Gracie fold late in his life.  When people use the term Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, it is not to obscure the connection to the Gracie's in their lineage.  It's to distinguish the lack of direct connection between their school and a contemporary Gracie affilliation, such as Gracie Humaita, Gracie Barra or the Gracie Academy.

To bring this back to the point, in America, the distinction is very clear.  

And, sushi is an American word in America, where Americans who don't speak Japanese use it all the time in their daily lives.  When used in America, it means something very specific, which is NOT what the word "sushi" means in Japanese.  Related?  Sure.  There's rice involved, and some kind of protein.  But, if you go into an American Sushi restaurant expecting food and atmosphere at all like what is in Japan, you'd surely be disappointed.  The words are specific, and there is no conflict at all in acknowledging that a term is derived from another language, while also accepting that the term has now been absorbed.

The bottom line here, once again, is that in the year 2014, in America, the terms "jiu jitsu" and "jujutsu" mean different things.  The rest is just a discussion of how we may or may not have gotten here.  But here we are.  

Regarding the male erotic undertones, I mentioned it only because it was brought up more than once and seemed really... really... strange.  At first, I thought it was because Oaktree was being a smartass, but then it occurred to me that he might not be a native English speaker, which I hope is the case.  

And, Chris, I know you're a native English speaker.  Why would you think otherwise?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 26, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It might be easier to continue this discussion over in the "Modern vs Antiquated" thread, where I've already laid out some background on BJJ's development, but I'll go ahead and give an example here.
> 
> The original crucible for the development of BJJ was street fighting and challenge matches with practitioners of other arts.*  To this end, the Gracies developed the classic strategy of controlling the distance against strikers by using the pisão (a hybrid between a stomp kick and a side kick) to keep opponents outside of striking range until finding an opportunity to close directly to the clinch range, avoiding any opportunity for the opponent to land a punch.  This approach would be pointless against another BJJ practitioner, even if BJJ competition allowed strikes.  This was an original development for BJJ - I've never seen it anywhere in judo.
> 
> ...



I would agree with everything Tony except your last few sentences.  I think Rorion and those at the Gracie Academy would disagree that there system has relatively little in the original development for self-defense methodology in Brazil. (it's origin)  Not totally disagreeing with you but I feel they would disagree based on my experiences training with some of them, talking, etc.  When training with Rolker Gracie a long time ago when he came from Brazil he talked about using Gracie Jiujitsu in self-defense in Brazil and understanding the difference between a violent encounter and a sporting match.  He was pretty specific about several things even if some of it was a little hard to follow at times.


Other than that I love your post!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 26, 2014)

*Chris that is too bad *it sounds like you were linked in with a group going for the sporting side of BJJ only.  Even if they had Royce in may be that his focus for that seminar was just the sporting side of BJJ. (he does that as well)  However, if you train with an affiliated Gracie school from the Gracie Academy or Royce I know for a fact you will get the self-defense side taught of BJJ.  This is pretty standard and I have good friends on each side and came from a Training Hall affiliated with them at that time. (now affiliated with Caique)  As groups broke away from the Gracies though some began to more specialize in the sporting side only. (some started to specialize when they were affiliated)  You can walk into a Brazilian Jiujitsu school and never learn any self-defense.  This is true.  Yet if they are affiliated with the Gracie Academy or Royce you are going to learn self-defense as Helio Gracie developed it.  I know that has not changed yet......


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 26, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would agree with everything Tony except your last few sentences.  I think Rorion and those at the Gracie Academy would disagree that there system has relatively little in the original development for self-defense methodology in Brazil. (it's origin)  Not totally disagreeing with you but I feel they would disagree based on my experiences training with some of them, talking, etc.  When training with Rolker Gracie a long time ago when he came from Brazil he talked about using Gracie Jiujitsu in self-defense in Brazil and understanding the difference between a violent encounter and a sporting match.  He was pretty specific about several things even if some of it was a little hard to follow at times.
> 
> 
> Other than that I love your post!



Yeah, I'm sure the folks at the Gracie Academy would probably disagree with me, but I've noticed they often have a tendency to conflate street fighting with self-defense.  Of course there is a curriculum of techniques which are clearly self-defense oriented (gun disarms, standing defenses against rear chokeholds, etc), but those can mostly be found in many other forms of jujutsu.  I'm not convinced that BJJ had a lot of original development in that department, compared to what was developed for street fights, challenge matches, and sport competition.


----------



## Steve (Feb 26, 2014)

Hey, one little thing I forgot, Chris.  You said: 





> No, it's not about "choosing to alter (my) name", it's that the name changes when spoken in a different language.


I've never, ever heard anyone else say something like this.  I've lived in a few countries over my life, and traveled through many more, and I've always been Steve.  And my given name, on my passport, has never changed.  I didn't become Etienne when I was in France, nor did I become Stefan or Stephan when I lived in Germany.  I have an employee who works for me named Juan.  Are you suggesting that it would be correct and appropriate for me to insist on calling him John?  I can't even imagine a scenario where that would be appropriate.


----------



## SamD (Feb 27, 2014)

Interesting questions. Firstly do you mean Japan jujutsu or Brazilian jiujutsu (BJJ). Neither Judo nor BJJ as it is taught in many dojos is designed for fights outside of a competition match on the mat. The emphasis is on regulated (rule based) competitions. The problem is that competition or sport arts and styles have many safety rule to protect participants and they are not used to distance variations when someone is no longer grabbing their GI, but is now throwing punches and kicks at them. Fighting for your survival has no real rules or disqualifying techniques. Look at MMA fighters and notice how they don't just walk up and clinch. They throw kicks and jabbing punches to test the range to their opponent before entering for grappling. They know if they just walk in and try and grapple they will be on their butt. The Gracie's have said the same thing. Saying that of course, I am sure if you were good at Judo or BJJ and one person started pushing you around you could deal with them. But often on the street the attacker is not alone and you don't want to be on the ground struggling. In my opinion I think Japanese style jujutsu is probably more useful for street fighting situations because it incorporates strikes as well as all the grappling, chokes and throws, but more importantly you learn defences against these attacks too. As for Japanese and non Japanese jujutsu well I think that is all snobbery. There are so many great styles out there including Judo and BJJ, you just have to figure out what you want from it and dedicate yourself to it. Just my opinion.


----------



## Steve (Feb 27, 2014)

SamD said:


> There are so many great styles out there including Judo and BJJ, you just have to figure out what you want from it and dedicate yourself to it. Just my opinion.


Terrific first post!  Welcome to MT.    

The snip above is something I really agree with.  I've said many times here that the most effective style is the style that you enjoy enough to train in regularly.  It doesn't matter how great a martial arts school is, if you never go to class.


----------



## wingchun100 (Feb 27, 2014)

In my experience I have seen judo schools leaning more toward sport than self-defense. As far as jiu jitsu, all I have ever seen is what got used in the UFC. Certainly there were some people from the judo school I went to who knew how to use it on the street, but it took them a LONG time before that payoff came since the school was more about sport.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 3, 2014)

> Is it "correct" from the point of view of the actual Japanese term? No. However, it can't be ignored that, at the time, it was considered to be, if not the "correct" form, then it was the standard form of rendering the word.



Think of it this way - It's the same thing if Americans developed their own Krav Maga and called it Krev Magu. A simple mispronunciation of the Hebrew word. Would that have been OK?



> Judo and Jujutsu are distinct the same way each different Jujutsu system is distinct from the others...



Not quite. The rest of the Jujutsu Ryus are more real life combat styles, designed for killing and self defense, so competitions without diluted rules are too dangerous. Judo was a competitive synthesis. It was designed with full speed grappling in mind, and therefore safer to practice under full speed, full intent situations. Plus Judo had enough exclusive techniques and moves added to its arsenal. If BJJ came from Jujutsu, it wouldn't have looked the same as it does now, and it would likely have a different approach to the competitive aspect.



> And, honestly, those videos don't really fill me with a huge amount of confidence that they've really grasped the differences... the focus is still in the wrong direction, and no matter how much Rener tries to separate the two, they're really little more than variations on each other in that approach.



That would depend on your definition of the word "little". His point about distance management is really the core of the issue. Learning competition style BJJ might prove more detrimental than helpful in self defense. In a competition, the competitors simply grab each other's lapels and begin careful negotiating of position, but what if someone if launching himself at you with a baseball bat? Ask him to grab your shirt? 

Self defense forces you to bring a completely different contextual approach to your combat sport. it's not just whether he's armed, but the environment in which you're fighting. The width of the space you're in, the type of ground you're standing on, the emotional context of the encounter, the number of people you're facing etc.

There was a very interesting example of that in the now canceled TV show "human weapon". In the Krav Maga episode, the host Jason Chambers is in Israel and is asked to defend against a knife attack. The knife isn't real and can't hurt him, so it's OK to do it at full speed. Chambers is a rather successful MMA fighter and a BJJ black belt, but in that simulation, he is stabbed multiple times in about 3 seconds into the simulation. With all his combat sport training, he didn't have a clue on how to stop it. And more than anything, THAT is the concern when picking a school for self defense. What will they work with you on?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 3, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Chambers is a rather successful MMA fighter and a BJJ black belt, but in that simulation, he is stabbed multiple times in about 3 seconds into the simulation.



Just nitpicking, but Jason Chambers is a BJJ brown belt and was a purple belt at the time of the show.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 4, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just nitpicking, but Jason Chambers is a BJJ brown belt and was a purple belt at the time of the show.



Fair enough. I thought it was black, but OK. Still, purple belt is above blue, and according to the Gracies, finishing blue belt means you're street ready and are able to defend yourself against a full-on knife attack.

Plus, Chambers learns BJJ at "10th planet Jiu Jitsu", which prepares students specifically for submission grappling tournaments and MMA, and Chambers does have quite the MMA record. I doubt that he would have been able to repel a knife attack even at black belt.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 4, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Think of it this way - It's the same thing if Americans developed their own Krav Maga and called it Krev Magu. A simple mispronunciation of the Hebrew word. Would that have been OK?



If it's not claiming to be the Israeli system, then yes. It's an ugly name, but so are some other legit ones.



Mr. President said:


> Not quite. The rest of the Jujutsu Ryus are more real life combat styles, designed for killing and self defense, so competitions without diluted rules are too dangerous. Judo was a competitive synthesis. It was designed with full speed grappling in mind, and therefore safer to practice under full speed, full intent situations. Plus Judo had enough exclusive techniques and moves added to its arsenal. If BJJ came from Jujutsu, it wouldn't have looked the same as it does now, and it would likely have a different approach to the competitive aspect.



Er... are you seriously trying to tell me, of all people, what the different Japanese Jujutsu Ryu-ha are about? Really? Poor choice, mate.... oh, and no, that's not correct. At all. In anything you said (save that BJJ came from, in part, Japanese Jujutsu, in particular, early Judo).



Mr. President said:


> That would depend on your definition of the word "little". His point about distance management is really the core of the issue. Learning competition style BJJ might prove more detrimental than helpful in self defense. In a competition, the competitors simply grab each other's lapels and begin careful negotiating of position, but what if someone if launching himself at you with a baseball bat? Ask him to grab your shirt?



I define "little" as "small", "less than big", "not a lot"... you have a different definition? Distance management is also the core of sporting success, just a different form of distance management (which is part of what I was talking about when I said I wasn't impressed with the way they were describing things... there's a lot they don't get, based on that clip... and everything else I've seen. Very good technicians, absolutely, but that's not the same thing).

Oh, and you're really talking to the wrong person if you think you're educating me about the differences between sporting methodology and non-sporting/self defence methodology... and your examples are more strawmen than anything else.



Mr. President said:


> Self defense forces you to bring a completely different contextual approach to your combat sport. it's not just whether he's armed, but the environment in which you're fighting. The width of the space you're in, the type of ground you're standing on, the emotional context of the encounter, the number of people you're facing etc.



Yeah.... you've really misjudged who you're addressing with those comments.



Mr. President said:


> There was a very interesting example of that in the now canceled TV show "human weapon". In the Krav Maga episode, the host Jason Chambers is in Israel and is asked to defend against a knife attack. The knife isn't real and can't hurt him, so it's OK to do it at full speed. Chambers is a rather successful MMA fighter and a BJJ black belt, but in that simulation, he is stabbed multiple times in about 3 seconds into the simulation. With all his combat sport training, he didn't have a clue on how to stop it. And more than anything, THAT is the concern when picking a school for self defense. What will they work with you on?



Okay. Of course, Koryu Jujutsu dealing with weapon defence isn't the same thing either.... 



Mr. President said:


> Fair enough. I thought it was black, but OK. Still, purple belt is above blue, and according to the Gracies, finishing blue belt means you're street ready and are able to defend yourself against a full-on knife attack.



Ha! Nah, I've seen their knife defence... and I really doubt they'd say that anyone, at any level, is necessarily "able to defend yourself against a full-on knife attack". Anyone who's spent any time dealing with actual knife attacks doesn't say such things.



Mr. President said:


> Plus, Chambers learns BJJ at "10th planet Jiu Jitsu", which prepares students specifically for submission grappling tournaments and MMA, and Chambers does have quite the MMA record. I doubt that he would have been able to repel a knife attack even at black belt.



And your training is in....?

To be clear, that's not an attack, it's a comment on the realities of dealing with knife assaults, and the fact that even black belts in anything will have one hell of a time "repelling" a knife attack... so is your training better? If so, how so?


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 5, 2014)

> If it's not claiming to be the Israeli system, then yes.



I'd probably still call it Krav Maga, but whatever.



> Er... are you seriously trying to tell me, of all people, what the different Japanese Jujutsu Ryu-ha are about?



I'm saying that when Kano developed Judo, he threw out all the Jujutsu moves and techniques that did not conform to his vision of maximum efficiency under real time testing, which meant Nage waza and Katame waza without Atemi outside of Kata.



> Oh, and you're really talking to the wrong person if you think you're educating me



Well, if you think learning a combat sport prepares you just fine for the street then you need to be educated. If you don't think that, then there's no argument.



> and your examples are more strawmen than anything else.



No. I think they're dead on.



> Yeah.... you've really misjudged who you're addressing with those comments.



Is this the part where I bow to you?



> and I really doubt they'd say that anyone, at any level, is necessarily "able to defend yourself against a full-on knife attack". Anyone who's spent any time dealing with actual knife attacks doesn't say such things.



Check out the video I linked to in this thread. They do say it.



> And your training is in....?



Street fighter video games, mostly.



> To be clear, that's not an attack, it's a comment on the realities of dealing with knife assaults, and the fact that even black belts in anything will have one hell of a time "repelling" a knife attack...



I think that learning Krav Maga for 3 years prepares you for a knife attack much better than 3 years in your run-of-the-mill BJJ school does. It doesn't mean it's better or worse, but it does address different situations and scenarios.

Krav Maga is more suited if you're clearing houses of insurgents in Gaza, but for an MMA match, I'd prefer BJJ.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 9, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> I'd probably still call it Krav Maga, but whatever.



Then you missed the point. If it isn't the Israeli art of Krav Maga, why would you insist that it is called Krav Maga?



Mr. President said:


> I'm saying that when Kano developed Judo, he threw out all the Jujutsu moves and techniques that did not conform to his vision of maximum efficiency under real time testing, which meant Nage waza and Katame waza without Atemi outside of Kata.


 
Yeah... that's not correct. And my point was that your description of other jujutsu ryu-ha was not correct either.



Mr. President said:


> Well, if you think learning a combat sport prepares you just fine for the street then you need to be educated. If you don't think that, then there's no argument.



No, the point was that you seemed to be "correcting" me, when I've been saying that for years.



Mr. President said:


> No. I think they're dead on.



No, you were creating false hypotheticals in order to prove that sports based arts aren't designed with non-sports applications. That makes them strawmen arguments, so... no. They're not "dead on".



Mr. President said:


> Is this the part where I bow to you?



No, it's the part where you start to realize that I know a lot more about this than you do.



Mr. President said:


> Check out the video I linked to in this thread. They do say it.



I missed the exact statement... okay, then, they're either using marketing rhetoric, or they don't really get what they're saying.



Mr. President said:


> Street fighter video games, mostly.



Right. And the Aikido fits in where?

My point was that your training might be just as inadequate for knife defence, when it all comes down to it.



Mr. President said:


> I think that learning Krav Maga for 3 years prepares you for a knife attack much better than 3 years in your run-of-the-mill BJJ school does. It doesn't mean it's better or worse, but it does address different situations and scenarios.
> 
> Krav Maga is more suited if you're clearing houses of insurgents in Gaza, but for an MMA match, I'd prefer BJJ.



Sure, that's agreed, but none of it changes the fact that dealing with a knife is one hell of a challenge for anyone, regardless of what they've trained in. Some will give a slightly better chance than others, but that's really about it. And that's really more to do with the incredibly small margin of error allowed.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Think of it this way - It's the same thing if Americans developed their own Krav Maga and called it Krev Magu. A simple mispronunciation of the Hebrew word. Would that have been OK?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That demo in human weapon was a bit rigged.

When the presenters defended the knife they got sewing machine attacked and got mauled.

Then the instructor did the drill and the sewing machine stopped.

Not to mention that was after he was trained in the philipino fighting.

(Maybe. the episode came after)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Weapon


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Krav Maga is more suited if you're clearing houses of insurgents in Gaza, but for an MMA match, I'd prefer BJJ.



Machine guns.

Wrestling.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 11, 2014)

AJH40 said:


> What is the most effective?



I'm sorry, that question was incorrect. Please try again.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 15, 2014)

> If it isn't the Israeli art of Krav Maga, why would you insist that it is called Krav Maga?



Because the words are still the words. Is it OK that Americans pronounce it "Keradee" instead of Ka-Ra-Te? Well, at least they didn't change the spelling.



> Yeah... that's not correct. And my point was that your description of other jujutsu ryu-ha was not correct either.



Just saying "that's not correct" isn't good enough.



> No, the point was that you seemed to be "correcting" me, when I've been saying that for years.



Good.



> No, you were creating false hypotheticals in order to prove that sports based arts aren't designed with non-sports applications.



What is it specifically that makes that hypothetical invalid?



> they're either using marketing rhetoric, or they don't really get what they're saying.



I agree that their blue belt talk is nonsense, but the overall point about distance management and a different approach between sport and street is spot on.



> dealing with a knife is one hell of a challenge for anyone, regardless of what they've trained in. Some will give a slightly better chance than others, but that's really about it. And that's really more to do with the incredibly small margin of error allowed.



Knives are short, so they can only really be used as an extension of your hand. One could argue that the same defense you would use for blocking/evading/countering an unarmed attack could also use to defend against a knife. As in - The knife is really nothing more that a more dangerous punch.

In fact, I believe that's the point of Filipino martial arts. That all knife/stick techniques are the same moves you would use when you're unarmed. The principle doesn't change just because a knife is involved.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 16, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Because the words are still the words. Is it OK that Americans pronounce it "Keradee" instead of Ka-Ra-Te? Well, at least they didn't change the spelling.



It's not the same word, though, it's derived from the word. If you're not getting that, you're really not going to understand the distinction.



Mr. President said:


> Just saying "that's not correct" isn't good enough.



Really? I point out that your take on classical jujutsu is incorrect, as it really just isn't correct at all. You state that "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic) are real life combat and self defence", when that's just not the case. Some were arresting methodologies, others were for unarmed methods for handling armed assault (or using light arms), some were more about an expression of a particular range of tactics to fit in with, or provide a basis for weaponry study, some are more competitive in nature, and so on. So, you were wrong. You stated that Kano's Judo was a "competitive synthesis", which is also not correct... competition was kind of a side-benefit of the methodology of Judo... it was more about a more logical progression and training device than the overly complex methods of the Koryu he had studied. It was also less of a synthesis, and more of a natural development of his personal study... sure, aspects were taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu and Kito Ryu (with some other influences), but they weren't synthesised together, they were simply part of what went into Judo. You state that Judo was designed "with full speed grappling in mind", implying that other systems weren't... uh, what? Other arts are only designed to work with half speed attacks? Dude, so far wrong it's difficult to begin to point out how wrong it is. "Therefore safer to practice under full speed, full intent"? Again, what makes you think that other arts don't have such methods and training practices? "Exclusive techniques and moves added to it's arsenal"? Wow, have you missed the point on that one... "techniques and moves" aren't the unique aspect of any art, and none of it is exclusive, especially when almost all of it can be traced to older systems and approaches.

So yeah, saying "that's not correct" is good enough when everything you put down was not correct.



Mr. President said:


> Good.



Yeah... you really don't seem to quite know what I mean here. But that's fine.



Mr. President said:


> What is it specifically that makes that hypothetical invalid?



The fact that it's a false hypothetical which had no basis in reality, and was the same as insisting that a shark is a terrible bird as it can't fly as well as an eagle.



Mr. President said:


> I agree that their blue belt talk is nonsense, but the overall point about distance management and a different approach between sport and street is spot on.



Do you seriously think that sports don't have distance management? Really? And, it has to be noted, the distance management is not the real difference between "sport and street", no matter how much Royce's kids want to say it.



Mr. President said:


> Knives are short, so they can only really be used as an extension of your hand. One could argue that the same defense you would use for blocking/evading/countering an unarmed attack could also use to defend against a knife. As in - The knife is really nothing more that a more dangerous punch.



Really? Wow, I really hope you don't actually approach, or, for gods sake, teach knife defence with that idea.... it's delusional to the point of suicidal.



Mr. President said:


> In fact, I believe that's the point of Filipino martial arts. That all knife/stick techniques are the same moves you would use when you're unarmed. The principle doesn't change just because a knife is involved.



Yeah... that's not what they mean.


----------



## K-man (Mar 16, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Knives are short, so they can only really be used as an extension of your hand. One could argue that the same defense you would use for blocking/evading/countering an unarmed attack could also use to defend against a knife. As in - The knife is really nothing more that a more dangerous punch.
> 
> In fact, I believe that's the point of Filipino martial arts. That all knife/stick techniques are the same moves you would use when you're unarmed. The principle doesn't change just because a knife is involved.


Really? Interesting concept. 
:hmm:


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 16, 2014)

> It's not the same word, though, it's derived from the word.



No. It's not derived from that word. It's a mispronunciation of it.



> Some were arresting methodologies



Which is real life, like I said. As in - Non competitive.



> others were for unarmed methods for handling armed assault



As above.



> some were more about an expression of a particular range of tactics to fit in with, or provide a basis for weaponry study



As above.



> You stated that Kano's Judo was a "competitive synthesis"



I'm not saying Kano created it for competition. Synthesis means "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system", which is exactly what Judo is. He took all of the Jujutsu principles and concepts that conformed with his vision of what Judo should be, and formed a new system from it.

By "competitive" I mean that he wanted it to be a safe system to practice with full speed sparring. Since many of the other Ryus, such as Daito Ryu, are designed for warfare and contain various strikes that could cause severe injuries in full speed training, these were excluded from Judo, or at the very least, highly de-emphasized. 



> Again, what makes you think that other arts don't have such methods and training practices?



Outside of Judo and probably Sumo, Japanese martial arts are practiced with a compliant Uke, and do not contain sparring as such, since the point of these arts is not to fight, but to merely defend oneself. 

I'm not sure that is correct for 100% of Jujutsu ryus, but that's the overall point.



> The fact that it's a false hypothetical which had no basis in reality



Are you saying that the example I brought cannot happen in real life? If not, why not?



> Do you seriously think that sports don't have distance management?



I'm saying that combat sports have a different idea of what distance management is. 



> Yeah... that's not what they mean.



I've actually heard this in several places. One of them is at the 5:45 mark on this video:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v945665g2WkCnew?h1=Human+Weapon+Philippines+and+eskrima


----------



## K-man (Mar 16, 2014)

> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Knives are short, so they can only really be used as an extension of your hand. One could argue that the same defense you would use for blocking/evading/countering an unarmed attack could also use to defend against a knife. As in - The knife is really nothing more that a more dangerous punch.
> ...


 I think you have misquoted what he said. He said the system of *striking* is the same with the stick, the knife or the hand. In that context you are correct in saying the knife is the extension of the hand. When it comes to defending against a knife, with empty hands, the defence is not the same as defending against empty hand. The defence is similar but not the same. 

If your attacker purely used thrusting strikes or simple slashes you _might_ get away with the same techniques that you use against empty hand in _some_ MAs. Krav is an example of that. But if you reckon you can use those same techniques against a series of short slashes and thrusts as in 'slice and dice', all I can say to you is, "Good Luck, may your God be with you".
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 17, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> No. It's not derived from that word. It's a mispronunciation of it.



Your construct was not Krav Maga, it was an American system that was derived from, or based in Krav Maga. Not the same thing, therefore not requiring the same name. 



Mr. President said:


> Which is real life, like I said. As in - Non competitive.



Your exact words were "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic) are more real life combat styles, designed for killing and self defence". Arresting methodologies (taihojutsu, toritejutsu, etc) do not fall into that very limited and inaccurate description.



Mr. President said:


> As above.



Again, not necessarily falling into your limited and inaccurate description, as many systems that have methods for dealing with armed assaults don't have them as realistic combative applications, nor as "killing" methods... not even self defence, as it's quite removed from that context (even back in their day).



Mr. President said:


> As above.



And here, you completely lose credibility in discussing this... I specifically point out that some systems have methods that have nothing to do with "real life application", and you say "as above (which is real life, like I said)"? Really? Uh, no. I was giving a very specific example of not "real life" methods.

The point is, you're not showing any real understanding of what the range of classical systems are... some are actually fairly competitive in and of themselves, which again goes against what you think is reality.



Mr. President said:


> I'm not saying Kano created it for competition. Synthesis means "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system", which is exactly what Judo is. He took all of the Jujutsu principles and concepts that conformed with his vision of what Judo should be, and formed a new system from it.
> 
> By "competitive" I mean that he wanted it to be a safe system to practice with full speed sparring. Since many of the other Ryus, such as Daito Ryu, are designed for warfare and contain various strikes that could cause severe injuries in full speed training, these were excluded from Judo, or at the very least, highly de-emphasized.



"All of the Jujutsu principles"? No, not at all. As for the rest? Ha, no, not at all. Daito Ryu designed for warfare? Not at all.



Mr. President said:


> Outside of Judo and probably Sumo, Japanese martial arts are practiced with a compliant Uke, and do not contain sparring as such, since the point of these arts is not to fight, but to merely defend oneself.



Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Kito Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, Fusen Ryu, Takagi Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Shibukawa Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu.... all of these systems contain sparring (randori), none of them have the point of "not to fight", not much of what's there is actually focused on defending themselves at all, and more. I could go on, but, well... 



Mr. President said:


> I'm not sure that is correct for 100% of Jujutsu ryus, but that's the overall point.



Then listen to the guy who has a hell of more thorough grounding there than you do.



Mr. President said:


> Are you saying that the example I brought cannot happen in real life? If not, why not?



No, I'm saying that your example was completely pointless.



Mr. President said:


> I'm saying that combat sports have a different idea of what distance management is.



Oh dear lord.... 



Mr. President said:


> I've actually heard this in several places. One of them is at the 5:45 mark on this video:
> 
> http://www.veoh.com/watch/v945665g2WkCnew?h1=Human+Weapon+Philippines+and+eskrima



I didn't say they didn't say it, I said you misunderstood what they meant by it.


----------



## oaktree (Mar 17, 2014)

> Originally Posted by *Mr. President*_
> _
> _By "competitive" I mean that he wanted it to be a safe system to practice with full speed sparring. Since many of the other Ryus, such as Daito Ryu, are designed for warfare and contain various strikes that could cause severe injuries in full speed training, these were excluded from Judo, or at the very least, highly de-emphasized._


I thought I would address the Daito ryu statement. I was told some techniques were taught to the foot soldiers mainly jujutsu doubtful they would have learned anything beyond the first scroll but that is if we are to accept Daito ryu history before Takeda, there are a lot of techniques and principles directly from Sumo and somethings are for sure not warfare battlefield  but deal with you holding a package or you only having your wakazashi. Daito ryu strikes can hurt an opponent but it is the throws, joint locks that are a lot nastier though Gyakuu de dori uses a nasty strike but it is kuden why it is. Also a lot of the things seen as strikes are not strikes they are knife stabs. Takeda I believe like to carry a knife with him at all times.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 21, 2014)

> Your construct was not Krav Maga, it was an American system that was derived from, or based in Krav Maga. Not the same thing, therefore not requiring the same name.



Nothing is required. You can call it whatever you want, but if the words came from a mispronunciation, then people should stick with the original one. Or not.



> Your exact words were "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic) are more real life combat styles, designed for killing and self defence". Arresting methodologies (taihojutsu, toritejutsu, etc) do not fall into that very limited and inaccurate description.



I was trying to give specifics so I wouldn't have to use "street" and "sport" in the statement. You took it too literally.



> Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Kito Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, Fusen Ryu, Takagi Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Shibukawa Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu.... all of these systems contain sparring


 
Yeah, except your definition of sparring is extremely generous. Throwing a (albeit unscripted) halfhearted attack (and that's a an understatement), fully expecting Tori to execute a certain move as a counter, not protesting too much. That's true for pretty much all these systems, with the possible exception of Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo.

So my point stands. 



> No, I'm saying that your example was completely pointless.



What is it about the example that makes it pointless?



> Oh dear lord...



Yes?



> I said you misunderstood what they meant by it.



What did I misunderstand?


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> Nothing is required. You can call it whatever you want, but if the words came from a mispronunciation, then people should stick with the original one. Or not.


 
Actually, no. Not if it's not referring to the actual thing itself (in this case, a specific martial system/approach, whether Jujutsu or Krav Maga).



Mr. President said:


> I was trying to give specifics so I wouldn't have to use "street" and "sport" in the statement. You took it too literally.



Well, that was a complete fail on your part&#8230; you were trying to give specifics, but I took it too literally, thinking you meant what you said (specifically)? Are you sure that's correct? I mean, if I was taking it too literally, then your argument is that you weren't being specific&#8230; if you were being specific (accurate in your terminology and use of language), then I couldn't have taken it "too literally"&#8230;. but, of course, if you had said "sport/street" in your comment instead, you still would have been completely wrong, for the same reasons.



Mr. President said:


> Yeah, except your definition of sparring is extremely generous. Throwing a (albeit unscripted) halfhearted attack (and that's a an understatement), fully expecting Tori to execute a certain move as a counter, not protesting too much. That's true for pretty much all these systems, with the possible exception of Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo.



How well do you know these systems? The reason I ask is that, well, you're completely wrong. Again. In fact, I don't know any system that employs the method you're describing, let alone it being any of the ones I listed&#8230; where did you grab that piece of ill-informed rubbish from? Oh, and "Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo"&#8230; really? In what way? How much of Kito Ryu are you familiar with? Cause...





Kito Ryu





Judo.

Now, to be fair, there's a relatively easy out for you&#8230; but it's not as simple as that&#8230; 



Mr. President said:


> So my point stands.



Er&#8230; no, it really doesn't when it's based on no real understanding, misinterpretation, and flat out incorrect descriptions of the training methods of these arts.



Mr. President said:


> What is it about the example that makes it pointless?



You're kidding, yeah? I mean, I've pointed out that it's a strawman, it's a false hypothetical, it's completely ignorant of the context of the system, it has the same relevance of asking what good a shark is if it can't fly like an eagle. Completely pointless.



Mr. President said:


> Yes?



Okay, a little clue here&#8230; when I say that, it's shorthand for me saying things that would get me banned from the site, or at least given some serious infraction points. In this case, it was an indication that the sentence I quoted was so ignorant of the realities of what you're trying to debate with me that it's difficult to know what level to give a reply to&#8230; simple statements and explanations seem a bit beyond your grasp, and are simply refuted out of hand due to them not matching your inexperience in these areas.



Mr. President said:


> What did I misunderstand?


 
Everything. The systems in question, the cultures they come from, the reasons for blade work being prevalent, the reasons for treating everything as if it's a bladed attack (not the same as saying "hey, a blade only adds a few inches, we should be fine with just our unarmed defences, right?"), and so on.

Seriously. Everything.


----------



## Mr. President (Mar 26, 2014)

> Actually, no. Not if it's not referring to the actual thing itself



This point seems to be getting redundant. The Brazilians did not decide to call it "Jiu Jitsu" so it would be distinct from Jujutsu. It was how they pronounced Kanji characters, so it came to be written that way. As far as they were concerned, they were saying Jujutsu as best they could, until the Jiu Jitsu form of writing took over.



> Well, that was a complete fail on your part&#8230;



Really? That's your beef? Seriously? You can't just say "oh I get what you meant now" and move on? You have to bash me for it? Dafuq?



> How well do you know these systems? The reason I ask is that, well, you're completely wrong. Again.



No, I don't think I am. Randori, as it is performed in Aikido and various Jujutsu schools, is a bunch of people attacking you from random angles in a rather halfhearted fashion. They do not attack full force and do not offer maximum resistance once you apply the counter. 

If I'm wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Show me. 



> "Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo"&#8230; really? In what way? How much of Kito Ryu are you familiar with? Cause...



From Wikipedia (as reliable as that may be): Jigoro Kano trained in Kit&#333;-ry&#363; and derived some of the principles that were to form the basis of modern judo from this style. Judo'sKoshiki-no-kata is based on Kit&#333;-ry&#363;.[SUP][1][/SUP] Since Kano Jigoro got the Kit&#333;-ry&#363; densho from his Sensei, Judo is the current Kit&#333;-ry&#363; official successor.




> Er&#8230; no, it really doesn't



I think it does.



> I mean, I've pointed out that it's a strawman



There's a difference between saying something is a strawman, and showing *how *it's a strawman. You've done the former, not the latter.



> Everything. The systems in question, the cultures they come from, the reasons for blade work being prevalent, the reasons for treating everything as if it's a bladed attack (not the same as saying "hey, a blade only adds a few inches, we should be fine with just our unarmed defences, right?"), and so on.



I think we can agree that knives aren't magical. They can only hurt if they touch you, so unless your assailant is throwing it at you Rambo style, he's going to have to close the distance, and since knives are short, that means he has to get close. The same can't be said, for example, for a baseball bat. It's substantially longer, so you have to manage distance differently. 

My point wasn't that in FMA, the techniques are entirely identical throughout the style for armed and unarmed, but that the principles surrounding the movements are the same whether you're armed or not.


----------



## frank raud (Mar 26, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> This point seems to be getting redundant. The Brazilians did not decide to call it "Jiu Jitsu" so it would be distinct from Jujutsu. It was how they pronounced Kanji characters, so it came to be written that way. As far as they were concerned, they were saying Jujutsu as best they could, until the Jiu Jitsu form of writing took over.
> 
> "Jiu Jitsu is the most common Westernised spelling of the kanji characters. It is how it is spelled in Portuguese, is the only spelling that shows in my copy of Le Petit Robert(standard French dictionary), and is one of two variants shown in Merriam Webster dictionary  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jujitsu. My collection of martial arts books goes back to the 19th century, of the roughly 600 books I have the majority spell the word as jiu jitsu or ju jitsu. If you put the word jiu jutsu into Google translate, it asks you if you want jiu jitsu. While some may want to argue that the term is an incorrect translation and therefore meaningless, the vast majority of dictionaries in various Western languages will show that it is a common, proper spelling of the word in the chosen language.  The folks who make the entries in dictionaries for words may not speak Japanese or read kanji, but they are considered authorities in the language the dictionary is for. But realise I'm old school, I still spell Kiev as Kiev, not Kyiv.


----------



## Steve (Mar 26, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Your construct was not Krav Maga, it was an American system that was derived from, or based in Krav Maga. Not the same thing, therefore not requiring the same name.


Chris, you have completely flipped your position.  When I argued the same position you are now asserting, you were adamant that I was wrong.  I think I'll go have some sushi.  LOL.  This proves that you just enjoy arguing.  Not a bad thing, but man, it explains a lot!


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 27, 2014)

Mr. President said:


> This point seems to be getting redundant. The Brazilians did not decide to call it "Jiu Jitsu" so it would be distinct from Jujutsu. It was how they pronounced Kanji characters, so it came to be written that way. As far as they were concerned, they were saying Jujutsu as best they could, until the Jiu Jitsu form of writing took over.



Yeah&#8230; as Frank showed, your history's backwards there&#8230; but more to the point, it's not the Japanese art, and isn't written in kanji. Of course, when the kanji is used (including in tattoos I see BJJ practitioners with on occasion&#8230, the correct transliteration is "Ju-jutsu" (well, really, it's "jyuu-ju'ts", written as &#12376;&#12421;&#12358;&#12376;&#12421;&#12388&#8230; but that isn't the case here. And it's even less the case in your hypothetical American system that isn't Krav Maga.



Mr. President said:


> Really? That's your beef? Seriously? You can't just say "oh I get what you meant now" and move on? You have to bash me for it? Dafuq?



You think that was me bashing? No&#8230; 

The fact remains that your descriptions were inaccurate. The way you described "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic)" is inaccurate for a large range of the very systems you were trying to describe&#8230; and saying that you meant, but didn't want to use the terms, "street" and "sport" shows again that you just don't have the education to discuss this area&#8230; which is what I meant when I initially asked if you were seriously trying to tell me what these arts are about.



Mr. President said:


> No, I don't think I am. Randori, as it is performed in Aikido and various Jujutsu schools, is a bunch of people attacking you from random angles in a rather halfhearted fashion. They do not attack full force and do not offer maximum resistance once you apply the counter.



And you think that your experience in (what sounds like a rather poor form of) Aikido randori means you know what's seen in the rest of the systems? You think it means you know what their training methods are? That you know what their form of randori is? Really? 



Mr. President said:


> If I'm wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Show me.



Randori in many Koryu systems is part of keiko, which is not really shown to those outside the Ryu themselves. So, what I did, was to list a range of systems that don't have what you're describing&#8230; in fact, in a number of cases, the form of randori is far closer to Judo's than anything else.

I mean&#8230; you do know where Judo's randori comes from, yeah&#8230;? Kano didn't just make it up, and was the first to apply it, you know&#8230;. 



Mr. President said:


> From Wikipedia (as reliable as that may be): Jigoro Kano trained in Kit&#333;-ry&#363; and derived some of the principles that were to form the basis of modern judo from this style. Judo'sKoshiki-no-kata is based on Kit&#333;-ry&#363;.[SUP][1][/SUP] Since Kano Jigoro got the Kit&#333;-ry&#363; densho from his Sensei, Judo is the current Kit&#333;-ry&#363; official successor.




And this is what I meant when I said there was a fairly easy out for you, but that it wasn't that simple&#8230; I mean, if you'd done a little more research, you might have realised that the gentleman in the red/white belt in the Kito Ryu clip is a high ranking Kodokan Judoka&#8230; 

But, of course, none of what you put actually answers my questions&#8230; In what way is Kito Ryu "a style similar to Judo"? Not what influence Kito Ryu had on Judo's development, but what makes it "similar" to Judo? Can you see where it is within Judo? Care to try again?



Mr. President said:


> I think it does.



Not when you got the actual methods of randori seen in these systems completely wrong, the connections between some of them wrong, the development of randori wrong, the forms of randori applied wrong, and more. Again, randori didn't turn up uniquely in Judo&#8230; 



Mr. President said:


> There's a difference between saying something is a strawman, and showing *how *it's a strawman. You've done the former, not the latter.



A strawman is a specific style of argument&#8230; saying it is a strawman really is all that needs to be pointed out. But, if you insist (again), the definition of a strawman argument is one in which the key aspects of an argument are disregarded, with a superficially similar hypothetical being employed in it's stead. This is, frankly, exactly what you did&#8230; which is exactly what I pointed out. Hell, let's look at your actual comments:



Mr President said:


> Learning competition style BJJ might prove more detrimental than helpful in self defense. In a competition, the competitors simply grab each other's lapels and begin careful negotiating of position, but what if someone if launching himself at you with a baseball bat? Ask him to grab your shirt?



In this comment, you ignore the realities of the discussion (the fact that sports training and self defence training are different isn't disputed, but your reasoning is false and inaccurate&#8230; you're looking at the wrong things), and try to emphasise that point by taking it to an illogical extreme, and insisting that the sports practitioner would do something completely out of whack with the reality of the situation you put them in. You might as well have said you're going to take a world class swimmer, put them in a track and field race, and ask what they're going to do, breast-stroke? in order to say that swimming isn't good. Complete strawman.



Mr. President said:


> I think we can agree that knives aren't magical. They can only hurt if they touch you, so unless your assailant is throwing it at you Rambo style, he's going to have to close the distance, and since knives are short, that means he has to get close. The same can't be said, for example, for a baseball bat. It's substantially longer, so you have to manage distance differently.



Yeah&#8230; don't teach knife defence. You'll get people killed. 



Mr. President said:


> My point wasn't that in FMA, the techniques are entirely identical throughout the style for armed and unarmed, but that the principles surrounding the movements are the same whether you're armed or not.



You said that a knife thrust is "really nothing more than a dangerous punch." That was followed immediately with "In fact, I believe that's the point of Filipino Martial Arts".

That's where you went wrong.

The reason the principles are the same, and easily go back and forth between bladed and unarmed actions in FMA, isn't anything to do with "a knife is really nothing more than a dangerous punch"&#8230; it's because that's how a good, congruent art works. It's blade-centric because that's a large part of the culture of the Philipines&#8230; it's the same in a range of African systems, particularly South African.

Seriously. You missed the point on everything.



Steve said:


> Chris, you have completely flipped your position.  When I argued the same position you are now asserting, you were adamant that I was wrong.  I think I'll go have some sushi.  LOL.  This proves that you just enjoy arguing.  Not a bad thing, but man, it explains a lot!



Ha, no, Steve, I haven't&#8230; there have been discussions of the proper transliteration of &#26580;&#34899;&#8230; and that I've always said should be "jujutsu". I have also pointed out that the exceptions are non-Japanese systems, including BJJ&#8230; you've argued that all forms of &#26580;&#34899; can be transliterated as "jiujitsu"&#8230; which simply isn't the case. 

I'll make it as clear as I can&#8230; if it's a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's Jujutsu. If it's not a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's not a Jujutsu system&#8230; call it what you want.


----------



## Steve (Mar 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, no, Steve, I haven't&#8230; there have been discussions of the proper transliteration of &#26580;&#34899;&#8230; and that I've always said should be "jujutsu". I have also pointed out that the exceptions are non-Japanese systems, including BJJ&#8230; you've argued that all forms of &#26580;&#34899; can be transliterated as "jiujitsu"&#8230; which simply isn't the case.
> 
> I'll make it as clear as I can&#8230; if it's a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's Jujutsu. If it's not a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's not a Jujutsu system&#8230; call it what you want.


Haha.  Yeah.  That's actually not what I was arguing at all.  Chris... it's in this thread, man.  

My position was that, in America, words borrowed from other languages become American English terms with American English meanings.  In 2014 AD, in the USA, Jiu Jitsu commonly refers to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and if you are training at any kind of legitimate BJJ school, it will be spelled that way.  Often, in order to distinguish itself from BJJ, a traditional Japanese style will spell it Jujutsu.  

You went on at length about loanwords and crazy talk that is in direct conflict with your current position (which I happen to agree with).  

Remember the sushi analogy?  You just couldn't believe that I would suggest that sushi has become, through usage, an American English word with an American meaning. While the term is certainly related to the Japanese term, they have each evolved along different paths.  

In the same way, Jiu Jitsu/jujutsu or the kanji or any other alternative spelling may or may not have meant some things.  Now, it means several different things, depending upon the context, and those meanings are pretty specific.  

I mentioned Kanji only to suggest that written language is nothing more than symbols which mean something to someone in some language.  In the same way, the letters that comprise the term jiu jitsu only have meaning if the meaning is commonly understood by those using the term. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.  If anything, I was trying to point out that the Kanji really don't matter unless we're discussing the Japanese term in a Japanese context... which we're not.  We were (at least, I was) discussing an American term that is derived from Japanese by way of Brazil, in a Western English context.  

In Brazil, the term jiu jitsu is a Portuguese term.  What's the simplest way to test this?  People who don't speak Japanese in Brazil use it commonly to refer to a martial art that is distinctly Brazilian, and when the term is used it is specific and meaningful.  While the term is certainly derived from a Japanese term and the etymology can be traced, it has become something different.  Languages are constantly evolving and the definitions of words are always changing.   And the same is true in America.

When you say that, in America, Krav Maga is something different and American, I agree.  Completely.  It's an excellent point, and the SAME point you argued against vehemently earlier in the thread.  

So, thanks.  I'm glad you've come around.  It took a while, and I'm sure you'll try again to tell me what I really meant, but I'm just happy you finally see reason.


----------



## Jameswhelan (Mar 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> ... there have been discussions of the proper transliteration of &#26580;&#34899;&#8230; and that I've always said should be "jujutsu". I have also pointed out that the exceptions are non-Japanese systems, including BJJ&#8230; you've argued that all forms of &#26580;&#34899; can be transliterated as "jiujitsu"&#8230; which simply isn't the case.
> 
> I'll make it as clear as I can&#8230; if it's a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's Jujutsu. If it's not a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's not a Jujutsu system&#8230; call it what you want.



Tani Yukio's book, translated into Japanese and published in Japan:







A part of a Hontai Yoshin ryu certificate from the 1980s:









Chris Parker said:


> ... Of course, when the kanji is used (including in tattoos I see BJJ practitioners with on occasion&#8230, the correct transliteration is "Ju-jutsu" (well, really, it's "jyuu-ju'ts", written as &#12376;&#12421;&#12358;&#12376;&#12421;&#12388 &#8230;




No. It is correctly romanised as 'j&#363;jutsu'. Macron, no hyphen and lower case in mid sentence. Correctly romanised in Hepburn romanisation, that is. There are other correct romanisations, depending on the system of romanisation used. Hepburn isn't the exclusive system used in Japan. It is rubbish for IT for example as it doesn't replace one-to-one with hiragana or katakana. 

Running an astute eye over one's JLPT certificate, a Japanese government document, one will notice it doesn't use Hepburn. 

I saw a Japanese book once with the title 'Sibukawaryuu *Zyuuzyutu*'. This is the Nihon Shiki romanisation system for what in Hepburn is romanised as Shibukawa ry&#363; j&#363;jutsu.   

There is a nuance that is being missed here. Hepburn, Nihon Shiki and the others are systems for writing the Japanese language with the Roman alphabet. How the word is written in standard English need not necessarily be bound by this. &#26481;&#20140;, the capital city of Japan, is correctly romanised in the Hepburn system as 'T&#333;ky&#333;', but in standard English it is written 'Tokyo'.

Dictionaries look for the spelling forms of the earliest attestations of words in texts. The OED isn't really as bothered about the correct Hepburn romanisation of &#26580;&#34899; as it is about the form 'jiu-jitsu' in late ninteenth century English language books and articles.

Nuances and nuances. And no absolutes.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 19, 2014)

AJH40 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Is Judo more effective or is Ju-Jitsu. I'm curious to know which art  is the most effective for self-defense or a street fight. Interested in trying one of the two and I am not sure which one would give me practical application for real fight scenarios. Also, I heard that traditional Jujitsu is really only taught in Japan and that Ju-Jitsu taught here  in the States is not genuine; is this true? It would great if you could give me resources such as websites to research into this more.
> 
> Thanks,



I'm not going to say which is more effective, but let's just say if given the choice, I would pick Judo.

If its between Judo and Grace Jiu-Jitsu, I'd go with the choice I went with; Gjj. Not because one is more effective than the other, but because Judo hurts.


----------

