# judo and jiu jitsu questions



## berry king

Hi everyone, i am planning to start training soon, and there is a great school not too far from my house that teaches judo, jiu jitsu and sambo. I know what sambo is and i basically understand what judo and jiu jitsu are, but i havent been able to understand the difference beetween judo and jiu jitsu. Is judo more focused on throws, whereas jiu jitsu is more focused on floor grappling? Are they both effective for self defense? From what i have read, it seems that jiu jitsu is more effective for defense and judo is more sport oriented, but i havent read much and could be wrong.  If anyone wants to check out the school im going to, go to www.gokor.com. Thanks to all for your comments and answers.


----------



## arnisador

Judo is the sport form of jujutsu; jujutsu is the older self-defense art. Judo emphasizes throws, matwork (Grappling on the floor), and competition. Jujutsu _generally_ emphasizes standing locking techniques (armlocks, wristlocks) and throws, possibly with some weapons training, but it varies from style to style. The spelling *JIU-JITSU* at the web site you gave makes me wonder if its Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), which is more like judo in that it's principally a sport. Where judo emphasizes standing throws over matwork, however, BJJ is just the opposite, and many consider it more effective for self-defense. All in all you'll get good self-defense training out of all this.

See also the Grappling, MMA, and Russian Martials Arts fora here.


----------



## J-kid

Judo -  Is a sport , But it can be used well in self defense infact i have found judo very useful in pankration matcheds, Throws take downs, etc

Jujutsu is more arm locks wrist locks and some legs locks
more on the ground.

Sambo AKA jacket Wrestling has alot of leg locks arm locks , no chocks.


I can answer any questions you might have and if i cant i can ask my coach.


----------



## Aegis

> _Originally posted by Judo-kid _
> 
> *Jujutsu is more arm locks wrist locks and some legs locks
> more on the ground. *



I must disagree with this. Much of modern Judo is based on groundwork. Most classical styles of jujitsu do next to nothing on the ground. Slight mix up there.


----------



## Jay Bell

> Sambo AKA jacket Wrestling has alot of leg locks arm locks , no chocks.



Not true...it depends on the version of Sambo being worked on.  Many Sambo competitions remove chokes from the program, but there is quite a bit of choke work involved in Sambo.

Just as Judo has emphasis to not locked any joint of the leg in competition, but it is still taught.


----------



## Qasim

> _Originally posted by Aegis _
> 
> *I must disagree with this. Much of modern Judo is based on groundwork. Most classical styles of jujitsu do next to nothing on the ground. Slight mix up there. *



More than a slight mix up Aegis.  As you know we avoid going to the ground for as you also know, in self defense, once you're on the ground, and more opponents are involved or are coming, the fight is lost.

Judo-Kid, a match is not the same as self defense.


----------



## Jay Bell

I don't really agree with that principle.  Many traditional ryuha of Jujutsu contain suwari gata, ne waza, etc.  (Takagi Yoshin ryu, Kito ryu, etc)  Also...in Judo-shiai, much of what is focused on is nage waza and ne waza...even though much more is contained.  I would say that the curriculum of Kodokan Judo has much more emphasis on nage waza as opposed to ne waza.


----------



## J-kid

why judo no longer has leg locks, They will try and give you a load of bs but the true reason is because the sombo guys where beating the judo guys.  If you cant beat them chang the rules !@


----------



## arnisador

I think the leg locks were taken out long before that for safety reasons.


----------



## Jay Bell

> I think the leg locks were taken out long before that for safety reasons.



Yes


----------



## Aegis

As well as certain throws.... Some of which certainly shouldn't be in shiai of randori. However, this has led to competetive Judoka not bothering to learn them at all. In the BJA, you don't need to know the (competetive) illegal techniques up to and including 5th Dan (someone correct me if that's something written on another syllabus). That means that even the 5th Dans don't need to know leg locks, head locks, wrist locks, atemi-waza or other techniques not used in shiai... I have to say that this disappoints me more than a little.


----------



## Abbax8

Late response, but I need to jump in. Kodokan judo is a complete method of attack and defense. Nage Waza, Ne Waza, and Atemi Waza. How it is taught and practiced is an entirely different matter than what it is. Some schools stress competition so much that much that is good for self defense is never taught. This has led to serious misunderstandings of what judo truly is.

                                                                   Peace
                                                                    Dennis


----------



## arnisador

Historically I agree, but as a practical matter it's hard to find it taught that way today!


----------



## Abbax8

That's how I try to teach it.

                                                          Peace
                                                           Dennis


----------



## ace

HOG WASH CHECK OUT WALLY JAY'S BOOK
DYNAMIC JU JITSU RE-LESAED IN 1982

CHECK OUT GEORGE KIRBYS BOOK 
BASIC TECHNIQUES OF THE GENTAL ART!
 RE-LEASED IN 1983 

JU JITSU HAS STAND UP & GROUND TECHNIQUES
THE PROBLEM IS NOT EVERYONE TEACHES THE SAME.
:asian:


----------



## sammy3170

> _Originally posted by berry king _
> *Hi everyone, i am planning to start training soon, and there is a great school not too far from my house that teaches judo, jiu jitsu and sambo. I know what sambo is and i basically understand what judo and jiu jitsu are, but i havent been able to understand the difference beetween judo and jiu jitsu. Is judo more focused on throws, whereas jiu jitsu is more focused on floor grappling? Are they both effective for self defense? From what i have read, it seems that jiu jitsu is more effective for defense and judo is more sport oriented, but i havent read much and could be wrong.  If anyone wants to check out the school im going to, go to www.gokor.com. Thanks to all for your comments and answers. *



Good choice of school.  You lucky bugger.

Cheers
Sammy


----------



## arnisador

"Judo to Jujutsu Migration??"
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5837


----------



## James Kovacich

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *HOG WASH CHECK OUT WALLY JAY'S BOOK
> DYNAMIC JU JITSU RE-LESAED IN 1982
> 
> CHECK OUT GEORGE KIRBYS BOOK
> BASIC TECHNIQUES OF THE GENTAL ART!
> RE-LEASED IN 1983
> 
> JU JITSU HAS STAND UP & GROUND TECHNIQUES
> THE PROBLEM IS NOT EVERYONE TEACHES THE SAME.
> :asian: *



A side note. George Kirby will tell you that his instructor Jack Seki always said that Jujitsu is Jujitsu. Meaning no ryus.

It seems like he was taught that they were all supposed to be one.


----------



## ace

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *A side note. George Kirby will tell you that his instructor Jack Seki always said that Jujitsu is Jujitsu. Meaning no ryus.
> 
> It seems like he was taught that they were all supposed to be one. *




Classical Ju Jitsu does nothing on the Ground.
Not at all True. Armlocks or Kansetsu Waza Are seen in Pictures 
as far Back as the Early 1900's

Also Shime Waza or Chokeing Techniques has always been apart of it.

Check out he Text book of Ju Jitsu 
By S.K. Uyenishi,Published in 1905 it shows Many Locks
On The Ground.


----------



## Infight

Original Japanese Jujutsu was praticed with everything (it was a military art ), ground, standing, throwing, bow n arrow in a horse ( it has a name, but i cant remember now ), kenjutsu (later iaido ).


----------



## arnisador

I forget the name for the form on a horse--it's in a thread in Japanese MartialArts--General though.


----------



## motion-martial-ats

Hi 

This is my first post and hope to make many more in the future - I have just set up a website called Motion Martial Arts and my first information page is titled WHAT IS JU JITSU. I am not highly ranked in any art but love all types of martial arts and in my spare time want to research them ALL. I have started with Ju jitsu as I think this is one of the most amazing arts their is - but as I esearch more and add to my very young site -Motion Martial Arts I may find otherwise. I do not ever wish to spam on this site so I will only post when I have something to offer or I have put a new page up. If interested in a detailed look at what is Ju jitsu then visit my site (very early in construction) and I hope you can see the potential it has in the future. I research and look at martial arts videos as I have a huge interest in martial arts and hope to later be able to contribute and learn from everyone on this forum - thanks


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, this is a pretty big necro here....

First off, welcome aboard. It may be an idea to visit the Meet and Greet section to let people know a little bit about yourself (for instance, I'm wondering what the blue belt you hold is in, as there's no art listed on your profile).

As to your site, it's not bad, easy to read, fairly clearly set out... however there is a real danger in putting something like that together when the expertise isn't there to support it. For instance, there are a number of errors and gross generalisations in your "What is Jujitsu" page to begin with, as well as a number of typographical and editorial issues (constantly going back and forth between the two spellings, for instance, although it looks like you're using the "Jitsu" spelling to indicate the Japanese ones, and the "Jutsu" spelling for others... which is incorrect from the get go).

To address simply the matter of the spelling, in Japanese it is pronounced "Jutsu", never "Jitsu". That is a different word altogether. Some non-Japanese (modern, typically Western) systems use the spelling of "Jitsu", mainly because they don't know any better and are just following the mistakes of decades ago. But honestly, a lot of the terminology you are using is slightly or grossly out, the history is inaccurate, and the descriptions need work.


----------



## JohnEdward

Judo or Jujitsu for self-defense. When the word self-defense comes up it usually means  forced to apply skills to a situation where a person uses defensive techniques at a public place or in your home. Many years ago I would have said this, take jujitsu it is for self-defense. But, a half dozen years ago, I wouldn't have said that, I would have said take up the sport. It gives you contact fighting experience, because what is a self-defense situation any way, but a fight. Today, though,  I say a traditional jujutsu ryu ha/ koryu, as it is taught and practiced for the intention of preserving historical combat fighting methods against archaic weaponry and self-defense situations with the intent to maim and kill keeping such methods from being lost to time.  

Jujitsu as it is commonly taught  provides very little in terms of effective self-defense in the modern world. To make that happen, to be effective for people today facing a threat many modifications as how it is taught and learned must be made.  Judo (technically being selected historic combined jujitsus techniques applied to sport) does prepare for modern day self-defense situations better because of things like sport competition. Though as modified jujutsu and it's narrow scope of kata- indented for technical reference as Japanese don't throw out the old- Judo lacks as an effective self-defense.  That being said, neither make for good self-defense, Jujitsu and Judo are limited and not comprehensive to needs for effective modern self-defense.  

There is this myth that says if you want to be able to defend yourself martial arts/sports is what you take. It is true that techniques from martial arts or martial sports have value to self-defense, but self-denfense isn't just about isolated or confined application of techniques. The scope of self-defense is broader. If you want self-defense don't take either, take both and then some. If you want to learn Japanese martial art, Budo, like any other Japanese art-Ikebana, Bonsi, Shodo, Chado, Kenjitsu,- take up jujutsu. If you want to learn a unique Japanese sport, like Sumo, Kendo, Karate-do, take Judo. This myth is dangerous, because there are no stats on the number of self-defense situations where Jujitsu or Judo where used vs. those trained for self-defense. I will mention that is it better to know something then nothing at all when faced in a threatening situation, but don't mistake that as being the whole enchilada. 

To answer the question neither is good for self-defense. What you need for self-defense today is lacking in both Jujitsu and Judo. Your better off taking boxing. 

To entertain this thought of learning MMA.  If you find yourself on the ground and conscious, either you will be kicked and stomped by one or many, you're sat upon and engage with someone who  pummels you with a flurry of their fists, or  a weapon, or a person who stabs/shoots you. In case your engaged with someone who has training in MMA your are either  1. better at MMA than the attacker.   2. Your attacker is better than you at MMA.  Lastly, the attacker waits for you to get up, before resuming the attack. Being on the ground is tricky and in my book not favorable, and if you find yourself on the ground conscious the most ideal situation but least likely is you're facing a single someone who sucks at MMA and your better at it, with the situation at hand working in your favor. 99.9 percent of fights don't start on the ground, though many fights can end up on the ground, boxing for self-defense could be the better choice.


----------



## Tanaka

How is boxing a better choice for self defense when it has the most limited atmosphere?  From my experiences in real fights the striking distance normally gets closed and they both "tie up"(for slang purposes). Meaning it ends up in grappling with fist being thrown or tackling. Boxing is good for boxing ring. Boxing can also be used in self defense against someone not trained in anything at all. But most Jujutsu schools were born off surviving an attack. Not following any rules of sport. For some reason you act like Jujutsu is about being on the ground. I rather not sit around and play "rock-em sock-em robots" with someone. I rather effectively throw them to the ground with little to no effort using their energy. And from that point on I will only suggest you do what is legally allowed in your country/etc.


----------



## JohnEdward

It takes less time to K.O. someone. It is easy to learn. You feel what it is like to get punched and keep fighting. There is no illusions of what you can and can't do. If you miss a throw or a lock your going to punch anyway.  Boxing accommodates through combos missing your target. Judo is a Japanese sport and a good one. Jujitsu is a Japanese martial art. Both have applicable techniques that can be used for self-defense, just as any historic martial art, say Medieval martial arts grappling.  Putting things in their proper context helps people make a more educated and informed decision in what they want and what they are getting. That helps to respect Jujutsu and Judo for what they are. I am not slinging mud on either art, I feel am clearing up misconceptions that will benefit each. Use the right tool for the right job, respecting the tools.


----------



## JohnEdward

There is a difference with fighting and self-defense. Both terms over-lap, but they type of violent struggle you [Tanka] describe is approached and treated as a contest, as combatants get "tied up" in the same manner as a fighting contest.  Young men usually take this approach who have some level of fight contest training. Women will take this approach contest approach to but usually don't have the training. Contest fights are driven by proving each others strength or skill.  A good identifier of this approach is the signs of pre-physical verbal intimidation and physical posturing between the fighters testing each other. Each fighter are in the same environment in close proximity and may know each other or have seen each other, i.e. at the same bar, club, party, restaurant, neighborhood, etc.  A self-defense is when a victim is ambushed by an attacker usually a criminal with intent to kill or rape, or both. The victim being surprised by the attacker must immediately and decisively defend themselves with a disabling attack, i.e. eye gouge, the victim must assume many variables, such as a weapon being used by the attacker. Such attacks are pre-meditated and calculated where neither the victim or the attacker wants a struggle or the conflict to be over in seconds and doesn't want to be "tied up". Or does either one want them to go to the ground, unless it is a rape situation.  Here we have thumb nail sketches conflicts where one is likely go to the ground if you don't K.O. the other fighter first. Again you don't want that because you are more susceptible to being stabbed, pummeled or stomped/kicked on the street. I am not saying there isn't any value to fighting on the ground, and no fight will go to the ground. Rather, not all fights go to the ground, contest fights have a higher probability of going to the ground than self-defense situation.


----------



## lklawson

Necro-thread is right!



Tanaka said:


> How is boxing a better choice for self defense when it has the most limited atmosphere?  From my experiences in real fights the striking distance normally gets closed and they both "tie up"(for slang purposes). Meaning it ends up in grappling with fist being thrown or tackling. Boxing is good for boxing ring. Boxing can also be used in self defense against someone not trained in anything at all. But most Jujutsu schools were born off surviving an attack. Not following any rules of sport. For some reason you act like Jujutsu is about being on the ground. I rather not sit around and play "rock-em sock-em robots" with someone. I rather effectively throw them to the ground with little to no effort using their energy. And from that point on I will only suggest you do what is legally allowed in your country/etc.


Boxing is good for striking, not just "in the ring." It has an excellent striking menu, fantastic footwork, and wonderful body movement/evasion skills against other hand-striking attacks. Hand-striking attacks (everything from a boxing punch, through a "karate" punch, to a haymaker) are pretty common initial attacks and boxing provides an excellent vehicle to address that.

If the encounter lasts beyond a few seconds of hand-striking AND if one participant feels they are "losing" the hand-striking component (or if they are more comfortable with grappling) then that participant will tend to crash range and into the clinch, sometimes just clinching for defensive reasons or even dragging the other to the ground.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka

Boxing training is a great prep for real world self defense. Besides the ability to recognize the approach of a punch, a "sucker punch" being the most common method of street attack, boxing also gives a person the real world experience of serious contact. You know the old saying, "everyone has a plan....until they get punched in the face."

Jiu-jitsu and Judo training is great prep for real world self defense as well, as close quarters and ground fighting are an integral part of fighting. It's where you usually end up once past the initial punch range. Most, if not all, Martial Arts are a great prep for real world self defense.  It's all good, it's what we make of it.


----------



## lklawson

JohnEdward said:


> There is a difference with fighting and self-defense. Both terms over-lap, but they type of violent struggle you [Tanka] describe is approached and treated as a contest, as combatants get "tied up" in the same manner as a fighting contest.  Young men usually take this approach who have some level of fight contest training. Women will take this approach contest approach to but usually don't have the training. Contest fights are driven by proving each others strength or skill.  A good identifier of this approach is the signs of pre-physical verbal intimidation and physical posturing between the fighters testing each other. Each fighter are in the same environment in close proximity and may know each other or have seen each other, i.e. at the same bar, club, party, restaurant, neighborhood, etc.  A self-defense is when a victim is ambushed by an attacker usually a criminal with intent to kill or rape, or both. The victim being surprised by the attacker must immediately and decisively defend themselves with a disabling attack, i.e. eye gouge, the victim must assume many variables, such as a weapon being used by the attacker. Such attacks are pre-meditated and calculated where neither the victim or the attacker wants a struggle or the conflict to be over in seconds and doesn't want to be "tied up". Or does either one want them to go to the ground, unless it is a rape situation.  Here we have thumb nail sketches conflicts where one is likely go to the ground if you don't K.O. the other fighter first. Again you don't want that because you are more susceptible to being stabbed, pummeled or stomped/kicked on the street. I am not saying there isn't any value to fighting on the ground, and no fight will go to the ground. Rather, not all fights go to the ground, contest fights have a higher probability of going to the ground than self-defense situation.


There's a lot more too it than just that.

Robberies often turn violent and the attacker's goal is not primarily to injure the victim.  The attacker wants something the victim has and the violence is merely a tool used to achieve that.

Further, not all random "ambushes" are intended to kill, or even seriously injure.  Some "ambushes" are simply an attacker who is angry enough to punch someone.  Maybe he believes you were "looking at his girl" or maybe he has something to "prove" to himself/others.  I've had both happen to me.

Additionally, many violent attacks by criminals are anything but sudden ambushes.  They are frequently multi-stage events which include an Interview Phase which can often be comparatively lengthy.  Just because it takes the victim by surprise doesn't mean it was an ambush, there are frequently plenty of warnings and red flags.  I recently watched a video of an attack (suspected attempted robbery or car-jacking) at a gas station where the attack was carried out by a two-person team with the first man spending somewhere around a full minute "chatting up" the victim during the Interview Phase (fortunately, in this case, the victim was a CHL holder and used his firearm to defend himself successfully even though he was taken by surprise by the attack).

To sum up, while some fights are two (or more) "tough guys" with something to prove which involves a lengthy lead up, and some fights are deadly ambushes, to try to limit all (civilian) fighting to just these two is far too limiting.  There is a whole range of fighting which we have only just touched on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Cyriacus

Lets join in this fun coversation, shall we. Instead of just observing 

Boxing is the Art of Striking with the Hands.
Striking with the Hands is a part of Fighting.
Its easy to say that people may well clinch up, but consider the power of a single Bare Knuckle punch, to the Anything.
Even against trained opponents, it can daze them long enough to follow up.
Then theres Infighting, or, Dirty Boxing, if you prefer.

For example;




 (Embedding would be inappropriate)
Just up until he beats the guy whilst hes on the ground.

This is an example of an exchange of strikes, which leads to being on the ground after clinching. Granted, its sparring. But an actual assault wouldnt play out too terribly differently in terms of the cycle. Optimally, at least.

Attacker comes in, tries to delve in to his opponent.
Defender reacts, and pacifies his opponent.
Defender forces opponent into Submissive Position which HE, the Defender, is comfortable in.
Defender Neutralises Opponent.

This particular Defender preffered going to the ground, to just pounding the guys head in with Fists of Knees once he was bent over.
But both Roads would have led to Rome.

I do however, agree that limiting yourself to Stand Up or Ground Work is a hinderance.

Thats pretty close to how a real fight would function, based on what most of you are saying.
Of course, real hits would be a fair bit harsher. But its the same logic.


----------



## JohnEdward

Here are videos to define what I was saying clearer 

*Boxer fights off several attackers*





*A fight situation not a self-defense situation*





*Ambush situations- one strike knock outs not always the case- point is the ambush tactic
*









*One strike knock outs, ideal fight situations, where no clinch or tied up happens, and only one person goes to the ground*


----------



## JohnEdward

I couldn't find any videos where a person is attacked on the street and uses jujitsu for self defense. This is outside MMA and BJJ jujitsu.


----------



## Tanaka

I think Jujutsu is much better for self defense. I can punch and kick, that comes normal. In Jujutsu I have also learned good footwork and body movement. I have also learned vulnerable area's to strike. I remember when Mike Tyson sucker punched another Boxer(on the street). Guess what happened to Mike Tyson's hand? He broke it. Guess what happened to the other guy? All he required was a few stitches. Relying on punching and kicking especially without gloves can end up injuring yourself more than the other person. Especially if hes bigger than you.  So instead of trying to counteract energy with energy. I rather take the Jujutsu approach. Where it doesn't matter how big they are, if they don't know how to neutralize the techniques I apply. They will be flying faster than a falcon. And I won't have to injure myself at all. Not to mention Jujutsu looks less lethal to viewers and to police. It's much easier to explain a broken bone or choked out man. Rather than someone you had to savagely beat in order to subdue him. Where they will most likely be cut up due to your knuckles and bleeding all over the place. Everyone knows what a punch and kick is on the street. Not everyone knows what I will be doing to them, and why I am doing things the way I am doing them. Unless they have knowledge of grappling. I don't really see boxing as something I would take for self defense. Although of course it is good for self defense. Its philosophy isn't geared towards it. I rather be up-close and neutralizing them, rather than letting them move around freely as I try to knock them out.(Big keyword is "try")  There's people with natural steel chins. I just can't see 5'6 man at 180 lbs   Boxing  6'5 man at 260lbs.


----------



## Cyriacus

Tanaka said:


> I think Jujutsu is much better for self defense. I can punch and kick, that comes normal. In Jujutsu I have also learned good footwork and body movement. I have also learned vulnerable area's to strike. I remember when Mike Tyson sucker punched another Boxer(on the street). Guess what happened to Mike Tyson's hand? He broke it. Guess what happened to the other guy? All he required was a few stitches. Relying on punching and kicking especially without gloves can end up injuring yourself more than the other person. Especially if hes bigger than you.  So instead of trying to counteract energy with energy. I rather take the Jujutsu approach. Where it doesn't matter how big they are, if they don't know how to neutralize the techniques I apply. They will be flying faster than a falcon. And I won't have to injure myself at all. Not to mention Jujutsu looks less lethal to viewers and to police. It's much easier to explain a broken bone or choked out man. Rather than someone you had to savagely beat in order to subdue him. Where they will most likely be cut up due to your knuckles and bleeding all over the place. Everyone knows what a punch and kick is on the street. Not everyone knows what I will be doing to them, and why I am doing things the way I am doing them. Unless they have knowledge of grappling. I don't really see boxing as something I would take for self defense. Although of course it is good for self defense. Its philosophy isn't geared towards it. I rather be up-close and neutralizing them, rather than letting them move around freely as I try to knock them out.(Big keyword is "try")  There's people with natural steel chins. I just can't see 5'6 man at 180 lbs   Boxing  6'5 man at 260lbs.


Its all a matter of application - Kyokushin Karate for example, practitions Bare Knuckle Full Contact Striking. And due to bare knuckle physical conditioning, they dont break their hands.
But that aside, in a Self Defense situation, id likely use a good Takedown if possible, but you cant necessarily rely on that. You cant rely on anything. You need to be ready for things going bad.

On a completely different note;
 "I just can't see 5'6 man at 180 lbs   Boxing  6'5 man at 260lbs."

For Punching, Punches to the Upper Sternum wont bounce off anyone. Or Upset Punches to the Lower Sternum. Or Hooks to the Kidneys. 
Leg Kicks. But thats Kicking.

You need to be able to react in a way applicable to the situation - Not be too afraid to hit the person, because you might perhaps hurt yourself in the process.
Consider a Takedown - If someone was that much bigger than you, is there not the possibility that hed barrel you to the ground before you could do anything, and not allow himself to be positioned for your technique?
Take a Wrist Grab > Leg Sweep, from which you stand to his side. What if you cannot get to his side, as a result of him pulling accross with his bigger arm?

Of course its possible for something to go wrong, and being prepared to block strikes you cant reverse, and possibly striking back certainly cannot hurt.
Much in the same way that being prepared to go to the ground, or perform throws certainly cant either.

It all works.


----------



## lklawson

Tanaka said:


> I can punch and kick, that comes normal.


You *think* you can punch and kick and that it comes [natural].  It doesn't.  Most people punch and kick in way that will either injure themselves or put themselves in vulnerable/off-balance positions.

Striking bare-handed takes training and skill if you want to do it right and safely to yourself.  Skill requires training.

And there's a lot more to boxing than just "punch."  Foot work, body movements, evasions, "reading tells," etc.



> In Jujutsu I have also learned good footwork and body movement.


You have learned these skills in the *context* of JuJutsu and *not* in the context of striking.  I assure you, they are different.  Similar yes, but with subtle and very important differences in timing, ranges, and direction/movement of the body.



> I remember when Mike Tyson sucker punched another Boxer(on the street). Guess what happened to Mike Tyson's hand? He broke it. Guess what happened to the other guy? All he required was a few stitches. Relying on punching and kicking especially without gloves can end up injuring yourself more than the other person. Especially if hes bigger than you.


Tyson broke his hand because he punched wrong.  Simple as that.  He didn't punch the way he needed to for *bare knuckle*.  Instead, he punched the way he learned to with gloves and wraps.  Before the general adoption of "mufflers" or "mittens" (gloves and now, in the modern context, gloves and wraps), bare knuckle boxers learned how to punch bare knuckle (surprising, I know).  If every punch they threw broke their hands, each contest would be over in no more than 4 punches and one round at most and boxer's professional careers would last approximately one bout.  Instead there were boxers with careers lasting decades and boxing matches would often last for hours (or in a few notable cases, spread over two days as sunlight failed before the match ended) and would last for sometimes over 100 rounds.




> I rather take the Jujutsu approach. Where it doesn't matter how big they are, if they don't know how to neutralize the techniques I apply.


Of course it matters.  Size always matters.  It's just that it matters less if your skill is significantly higher than the "big" opponent.




> Not to mention Jujutsu looks less lethal to viewers and to police. It's much easier to explain a broken bone or choked out man. Rather than someone you had to savagely beat in order to subdue him.


I know it sounds good, I agree, but, legally it's mule-muffins.  If you have to apply force in self defense, then your defense should always be "Your Honor, I felt I was in danger of serious bodily harm or worse so I had to act defensively."  Choked, joint-dislocation, busted nose, stabbed, or shot, it all works out the same.  Your defense is: he attacked me, I had to defend myself.



> Everyone knows what a punch and kick is on the street.


No they don't.  But they *think* they do.




> Not everyone knows what I will be doing to them, and why I am doing things the way I am doing them. Unless they have knowledge of grappling.


In the same way as people thinking that they know what punching and kicking should be, despite not having any training, people also tend to *think* they know what grappling is.  I've been watching the phenomenon for decades.  I remember back when Hulk Hogan had every 3rd pre-teen thinking they knew wrestling because they watched it on TV.

Same with firearms, knives, or any weapon.  People *think* they know what's what but are completely ignorant and self-deluded because they've not studied the issue and have no training.




> I don't really see boxing as something I would take for self defense. Although of course it is good for self defense. Its philosophy isn't geared towards it. I rather be up-close and neutralizing them, rather than letting them move around freely as I try to knock them out.(Big keyword is "try")  There's people with natural steel chins. I just can't see 5'6 man at 180 lbs   Boxing  6'5 man at 260lbs.


You have a number of preconceived notions about what boxing is and about what punching and kicking are which are, I'm sorry to say, not 100% spot on and reveal a lack of knowledge and subsequent bias.  Your phrase, "savagely beat" or "bleeding all over the place" says to the observer that you are going by hearsay and what you've seen on TV.

Please don't take these criticisms as insult.  It is not intended that way.  I am encouraging you to expand your repertoire and see what things actually are instead of just assuming that you already know.

For the record, I am a huge fan of grappling and think it has a major place in self defense.  I've been doing grappling in one form or another for a bunch of years now.  I remember the "grappling vs. P/K" debates that raged for years after UFC 1.  Even then the "grappling vs. P/K" debate was old hat and echoed arguments fought (mostly in the press) in the early part of the 20th C. as English boxing advocates waged war against the exponents of that new-fangled "Jui Jitsu" that those "tricky Japanese" dudes (Tani and Uyenishi) were teaching as Self Defense (meanwhile, British Catch-as-Catch-Can proponents were having a similar argument vs JuJutsu, arguing that CaCC already had all that stuff that the JJ proponents were saying was only in JJ and made it specially effective).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

I should also note here that I am not (in any way) saying that someone with no training cannot make effective use of a punch, knife, gun, trip, throw, or a choke. 

The easier the "tool" to use, the more effective the untrained will be using it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tanaka

Well I don't really want to discourage anyone from taking Boxing as self defense. And to be honest I didn't know there was boxing training specifically for "bare knuckle." 

But as far as the savagely beat and bleeding all over the place. Boxing is pretty popular around where I live. And a lot of guys take up boxing around here. And a lot of them that have got in fights. Show me up close and personal their swollen knuckles and busted up hands. I just like Jujutsu the "Gentle Art."  What if you were in a situation where you didn't really want to subdue them with striking? Like a family member that has mental issues, and you just want to subdue them until help can be called? With Jujutsu I know I could hold them in a position without causing them much injury. 
What do they teach in self defense boxing about that?


----------



## lklawson

Tanaka said:


> Well I don't really want to discourage anyone from taking Boxing as self defense. And to be honest I didn't know there was boxing training specifically for "bare knuckle."


It's less common now than it was during the 18th-19th C and running up to the early part of the 20th C.  There are still some who practice it.



> But as far as the savagely beat and bleeding all over the place. Boxing is pretty popular around where I live. And a lot of guys take up boxing around here. And a lot of them that have got in fights. Show me up close and personal their swollen knuckles and busted up hands.


That's what happens when they don't train to use bare knuckle.  Like I said, just because they think they know how to punch doesn't mean they actually do.



> I just like Jujutsu the "Gentle Art."  What if you were in a situation where you didn't really want to subdue them with striking? Like a family member that has mental issues, and you just want to subdue them until help can be called?


I already admitted that I'm a grappling fan too.  I'm the bald guy grinning like a lunatic as I sink a "front chancery" (guillotine) on my sparring partner in this recent pic.







In this one, I'm the bald lunatic on the left working a collar choke from the bottom position.




I'm yudansha in Tomiki Aikido, a brown belt in Judo, practice (intermittently) old irish style collar and elbow, republished 10 or 15 antique wrestling manuals (most CaCC), and I've written a book about the grappling which accompanied pre-Marquis of Queensberry boxing (see my .sig).

At the same time, I'm a fan of striking too.  I started off in Tang Soo Do (a bunch of years ago) and have expanded into pre-MoQ boxing, dabbled in la Savate, several Euro styles of stick-fighting, and some other stuff.

As for family members with "mental issues," what I ended up doing would probably have a lot to do with what said family member was doing and what he knew. 



> What do they teach in self defense boxing about that?


Depends on who's doing the teaching.  If it's me, you'll learn a combination of London Prize Ring era and Broughton era boxing which has plenty of standing grappling in it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

