# How does Granpa Jujitsu compare to grandchild Brazillian Jujitsu?



## Towel Snapper (Sep 17, 2014)

How much of traditional jujitsu is ground fighting? 

Whats traditional jujitu like? Is it all about joint locks, throws/takedowns, and some dirty strikes thrown in here and there? 

Which art would be better suited to the street? BJJ or JJ?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 17, 2014)

Traditional Japanese Jujutsu has joint locks, throws/takedowns, kicks and strikes.

BJJ comes from Mitsuyo Maeda who was a student of judo's founder Kano Jigoro. But before training with Kano Jigoro I believe Mitsuyo Maeda had trained some Sumo, however I cannot be sure about the Sumo bits. Carlos Gracie trained with Mitsuyo Maeda and from that BJJ was born

However Kano Judo was referred to as Kano jiu-jitsu and Kano did originally train jujutsu before coming up with Judo


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of techniques being important&#8230; I've noticed it throughout your threads&#8230; so the first thing I'm going to advise is to forget about that. It's really not that important. 

From there, let's look at your questions:

Traditional jujutsu (note the spelling), meaning classical Japanese? Pretty much none, really&#8230; it's a minimalist area, and the idea of ground work as it's seen in BJJ is really not there at all. Of course, it'll depend on the ryu-ha in question for definite answers (the idea of "traditional jujutsu" covers an incredible amount of ground, so to speak), but realistically, ground work is not ideal in their context at all. It's kind of a last-ditch tactic, with most being recovery positions rather than anything else (if anything at all, really).

What's traditional Jujutsu like? Wow, how long you got?

In brief, there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, or forms of what would be identified as "jujutsu" from old Japan&#8230; often given a different name for various reasons&#8230; with no single unifying characteristic to link them, really, other than an emphasis on either unarmed or lightly armed combat&#8230; so, is it all about joint locks? No, but some systems would be yes. Throws, takedowns? Again, no, but some systems would be yes. Dirty strikes? No idea what you're meaning by that&#8230; 

Which art would be better suited? Really, neither. Classical jujutsu will be geared towards a context that doesn't exist anymore, and BJJ is geared towards a context that isn't "the street"&#8230; of course, both do have a lot that can be just as equally applied&#8230; so it's going to come more down to how it's trained.

It ain't the art, and it ain't the techniques. You're grasping the wrong end of that particular tiger&#8230; so careful it doesn't bite you.


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> You seem to be obsessed with the idea of techniques being important&#8230; I've noticed it throughout your threads&#8230; so the first thing I'm going to advise is to forget about that. It's really not that important.
> 
> From there, let's look at your questions:
> 
> ...



How can techniques NOT be important?


----------



## donald1 (Sep 17, 2014)

I didn't understand half of what he said but he knows what hees talking about so im going to also side on this one. 

I've never thought much on this topic so I don't know but I too would like to know the answer,  I could probably make a well thought out guess of what it might be but I'm almost skeptic whether it's right or not but I'm going to go ahead and guess if techniques are not important is it how you do the technique or how well you train,  maybe 

Good question


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> How can techniques NOT be important?



Training methods, tactical concepts, and physical principles are all more important than individual techniques. I won't go so far as Chris in saying techniques are not important, but they certainly are not *as* important.


----------



## Buka (Sep 17, 2014)

Techniques are merely tools in a tool box. My advice about fighting or self defense would be strategy first, tactics second, techniques last.

And the whine has to age a little from the vine to the glass before it's ready.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 17, 2014)

If you are training a single style or perhaps two it's better to concentrate on what you are being taught by your instructor/s rather than worrying about what other styles are doing. If you are training MMA it will be techniques from other styles but your instructors are still the best people to teach you what you need to know. They will already know what works and how to adapt it *if necessary* for your size, shape etc. Your instructors won't thank you if you second guess them.


----------



## Argus (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> How can techniques NOT be important?



Attempting to learn or imitate techniques without a strong foundation in, and understanding of the art that they come from, is pretty much a waste of time. 

Even when you train in an art and learn the techniques, the techniques are not so much what make up the art, as they are expressions of the art. The best way to approach martial arts is with a blank slate. Just choose a school, leave all of your preconceptions at home, show up to class, and learn. If you're interested in Juujutsu, commit a significant amount of time learning Juujutsu. If you're interested in Wing Chun, commit a significant amount of time to learning Wing Chun. You can't just cherry pick techniques from every art that you think is cool and expect to be able to learn and apply them in a meaningful way.


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 17, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Training methods, tactical concepts, and physical principles are all more important than individual techniques. I won't go so far as Chris in saying techniques are not important, but they certainly are not *as* important.



They are important, he is either ignorant or trolling


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> They are important, he is either ignorant or trolling



I frequently disagree with Chris, but he is most assuredly neither ignorant nor trolling.

Just a suggestion - when someone who has been training much, much longer than you have tells you something you don't understand then you will learn a lot more if you ask for clarification and keep an open mind then if you dismiss them because they don't agree with your preconceptions.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> How can techniques NOT be important?



Because there are no techniques, only movement.

(Posting against my bettetter judgement since TS sees trolls, loosers and ignorance when he is given sound advice)


----------



## Buka (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm confused. What is Grandpa Jujitsu?


----------



## donald1 (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm guessing koryu Jujitsu(Japanese) or maybe just old in general (I've heard not all of its considered koryu,  not sure how true that is)


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 17, 2014)

Buka said:


> I'm confused. What is Grandpa Jujitsu?



Something like this maybe


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> They are important, he is either ignorant or trolling



You're being rather quick to throw out the troll accusation anytime you don't like what someone has said.  That's not trolling. 

He's said that, by looking at techniques in isolation, you're missing what the art is about.  You can't find the principles that underlie the power generation by looking only at one punch.  You can't see the tactics and strategies that allow the strike to land by looking at only one combination.  It's really another example of the classic adage about teaching someone to fish...  Or, another way to put it...  I can teach you how to cut a dovetail.  I can take a board that's so many inches long, hand you a template or jig custom set for that job, and be done.  Even let you do it with a router rather than a saw and chisel.  But you'll be lost if you have to cut 'em without the jig and router.  You won't know how to measure them, how to lay them out...  or even how they work.  You won't be able to take the principle, and apply it to locking two logs together with an axe and bow saw.  Or, I can teach you what a dovetail is.  How it works.  The underlying principle.  And then you'll be able to use it in lots of applications, from drawers to framing a log cabin.

You keep asking "what art has the hardest punch/best kick/most perfect stance?" Even this thread, headed up as if it were a comparison between classical jujutsu and Brazillian jujitsu (in a rather rude/dismissive/disrespectful manner) is asking the same sort of thing, slightly rephrased.  Really, the comparison isn't much different from comparing catch wrestling and BJJ or pancration and MMA.  There are probably dozens of styles of jujutsu in Japan... Maybe more.  BJJ is what the Gracies developed from one particular take on it, passed through Kano first, to Maeda... then to them.  They then took that and adapted or adjusted it to the questions of fighting in Brazil.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 17, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> You're being rather quick to throw out the troll accusation anytime you don't like what someone has said.  That's not trolling.



He's is quick to call people trolls, ignorant and losers too when he doesn't like what is said. Beginning to think we are dealing with a rather young person who does not know any better.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2014)

In defense of the Mr. Whippersnapper (see what I did there? :lfao: ) he did ask:



Towel Snapper said:


> How can techniques NOT be important?



But he shouldn't have called Chris "ignorant." I'm still all....:lfao:.....over that one....:lfao:

At any rate, as an old school judoka (and BJJ blue belt) who rolls pretty regularly with young school BJJ players, I gotta say two things:

1) I've seen very little _technique_ in BJJ that isn't in the original judo syllabus in one form or another. (THough today's "Olympic judo" players and students might not ever see any of it...)

2) The chief difference is in transitions, angles and strategy-things that have nothing to do with technique, but everything to do with how it's applied.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> How can techniques NOT be important?



Ok. Do this for me (actually yourself) Stand in whatever stance you feel is superior and make the movements of a boxing Jab and Straight Rt combination. That is the technique. Jab-Straight Rt.
Now give me ten (10) different applications for that technique with none being a punching application. When you are able to do that you will begin to understand that technique in not important but what is available within the movement and the principles that create the movement.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> How can techniques NOT be important?



That's a fair question, and I understand that, particularly when you're very new to this, it can be confusing. I'm going to go through it, but at the end, I'm going to get blunt&#8230; and ask a few questions of yourself. Okay?

To begin with, a number of other posters here have addressed aspects of what I meant, so I'm going to highlight their responses, and possibly add to it where I can.



donald1 said:


> I've never thought much on this topic so I don't know but I too would like to know the answer,  I could probably make a well thought out guess of what it might be but I'm almost skeptic whether it's right or not but I'm going to go ahead and guess if techniques are not important is it how you do the technique or how well you train,  maybe



Yeah, you're on the right track, Donald.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Training methods, tactical concepts, and physical principles are all more important than individual techniques. I won't go so far as Chris in saying techniques are not important, but they certainly are not *as* important.



That's a big part of it, yeah&#8230; of course, the reason I say that "techniques" (specific techniques) aren't important is the other part&#8230; but we'll get there.



Buka said:


> Techniques are merely tools in a tool box. My advice about fighting or self defense would be strategy first, tactics second, techniques last.



Yep. Of course, the distinction between strategy and tactics is another discussion&#8230; but that might just confuse things here.



Tez3 said:


> If you are training a single style or perhaps two it's better to concentrate on what you are being taught by your instructor/s rather than worrying about what other styles are doing. If you are training MMA it will be techniques from other styles but your instructors are still the best people to teach you what you need to know. They will already know what works and how to adapt it *if necessary* for your size, shape etc. Your instructors won't thank you if you second guess them.



Yep, definitely agreed, and very cogent advice for Towel here&#8230; while it's not what I was meaning (in this case), it's certainly something I agree with. Again, more on that later.



Argus said:


> Attempting to learn or imitate techniques without a strong foundation in, and understanding of the art that they come from, is pretty much a waste of time.
> 
> Even when you train in an art and learn the techniques, the techniques are not so much what make up the art, as they are expressions of the art. The best way to approach martial arts is with a blank slate. Just choose a school, leave all of your preconceptions at home, show up to class, and learn. If you're interested in Juujutsu, commit a significant amount of time learning Juujutsu. If you're interested in Wing Chun, commit a significant amount of time to learning Wing Chun. You can't just cherry pick techniques from every art that you think is cool and expect to be able to learn and apply them in a meaningful way.



Again, not what I was getting at exactly, but absolutely agreed.



jks9199 said:


> He's said that, by looking at techniques in isolation, you're missing what the art is about.  You can't find the principles that underlie the power generation by looking only at one punch.  You can't see the tactics and strategies that allow the strike to land by looking at only one combination.  It's really another example of the classic adage about teaching someone to fish...  Or, another way to put it...  I can teach you how to cut a dovetail.  I can take a board that's so many inches long, hand you a template or jig custom set for that job, and be done.  Even let you do it with a router rather than a saw and chisel.  But you'll be lost if you have to cut 'em without the jig and router.  You won't know how to measure them, how to lay them out...  or even how they work.  You won't be able to take the principle, and apply it to locking two logs together with an axe and bow saw.  Or, I can teach you what a dovetail is.  How it works.  The underlying principle.  And then you'll be able to use it in lots of applications, from drawers to framing a log cabin.
> 
> You keep asking "what art has the hardest punch/best kick/most perfect stance?" Even this thread, headed up as if it were a comparison between classical jujutsu and Brazillian jujitsu (in a rather rude/dismissive/disrespectful manner) is asking the same sort of thing, slightly rephrased.  Really, the comparison isn't much different from comparing catch wrestling and BJJ or pancration and MMA.  There are probably dozens of styles of jujutsu in Japan... Maybe more.  BJJ is what the Gracies developed from one particular take on it, passed through Kano first, to Maeda... then to them.  They then took that and adapted or adjusted it to the questions of fighting in Brazil.



Again, a side aspect, but also, agreed.



elder999 said:


> 1) I've seen very little _technique_ in BJJ that isn't in the original judo syllabus in one form or another. (THough today's "Olympic judo" players and students might not ever see any of it...)
> 
> 2) The chief difference is in transitions, angles and strategy-things that have nothing to do with technique, but everything to do with how it's applied.



The second point. Note the second point.

So let's get to what I was really getting at.

As I said, a focus on techniques, even the techniques themselves, isn't the important thing. As noted by some, techniques are expressions of the principles and concepts of a particular art&#8230; by themselves they are nothing magical, special, powerful, or anything else. What's important is whether or not you can apply said principles and concepts in the context you are wanting to&#8230; whether it's actually "the technique" proper or not. But, more to the point, the technique doesn't matter because it's not what's successful. It doesn't matter if you generate success with a kick, a strike, a throw, a lock, a choke, or anything else&#8230; if it generates success, it generates success&#8230; it doesn't matter what it is. Thinking that "x-kick from y-system, and punch-z from art-w" is what actually "works" is to miss entirely everything about the way martial arts work.

Do you need to develop your technique properly, powerfully, accurately etc? Yes, absolutely you do. But the reason isn't because each of the techniques are the "answer" in and of themselves&#8230; they only "work" in the particular art because they take advantage of structure and applications of the system itself. And, in the end, all they are are expressions&#8230; they aren't the "power"&#8230; and every technique can be replaced by another (within the same set of applications, principles, and concepts) to generate the same type of success&#8230; the specific technique itself becomes irrelevant.



Towel Snapper said:


> They are important, he is either ignorant or trolling



Now&#8230; to this.

Look, son, you're already on a very slippery slope here&#8230; so I'm going to try to give you a way out. You've been a part of this forum for, what, a few weeks if that? And, in that time, you've started some 34 threads, including some 26 or so that are asking about how to do specific techniques in disparate arts (scratch that&#8230; 27&#8230; you've just added a new one)&#8230; Now, by itself, starting lots of threads is fine&#8230; encouraged, even&#8230; but you haven't listened to anyone, and have been labelling people who are giving you genuine, accurate answers (including myself here) as "trolls, losers, ignorant", and so on. To be completely blunt, that in and of itself is troll behaviour. 

Your only information given is that your background is "MMA, sparring level, 2 years tuition, no real fights yet"&#8230; nothing about how old you are, or anything similar. A few here are under the impression that you're most likely a young kid&#8230; so any clarification (to help us know who we're actually dealing with) would be a positive step. You didn't do an introduction thread in the Meet and Greet area, so there's little for us to go on other than your posts themselves&#8230; and the impression they give is of someone of no real experience or knowledge, who nonetheless seems to feel that everything should conform to their largely inaccurate beliefs, and is only interested in hearing what they think is a helpful answer. Thing is, what is genuinely helpful is often not what you would expect to hear&#8230; and that's just the reality. So my recommendation is to sit back a bit, recognise that this forum is populated by people who have most likely been involved in various arts far longer than you've been on the planet, and that they have a perspective far beyond yours, which they are willing to allow you to benefit from&#8230; provided you are willing to hear it. If you're not, then bluntly, I don't know what you're doing here.

As far as myself being "ignorant", son, I have quite possibly one of the broadest experience backgrounds, with the one of the deepest knowledge bases here&#8230; and there are any number who will then have deeper knowledge of specific areas than myself. Calling each of them "trolls, losers, ignorant"&#8230; it's a quick way to get on the bad side of everyone here who could actually answer your questions.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 18, 2014)

elder999 said:


> In defense of the Mr. Whippersnapper (see what I did there? :lfao: ) he did ask:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The other chief difference is that Gracie Jiu-jitsu contains eclectic striking and ground-based wrist locks.

Between JJJ and Bjj they're pretty different from each other. Here in the states, you'd be hard pressed to find a decent/legit JJJ school. A lot of them are Karate and Judo hybrids that call themselves Japanese Jujutsu. Some are even incorporating Bjj for obvious reasons.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 18, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The other chief difference is that Gracie Jiu-jitsu contains eclectic striking and ground-based wrist locks.



Ermph....judo contains striking, and ground-based wrist locks. In fact, I'd say that most of BJJs "ground-based wrist locks" came from the _judo_ Carlos Gracie learned all those years ago....


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 18, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Ermph....judo contains striking,



In Kata, and they look nothing like the striking in Gjj. 



> and ground-based wrist locks. In fact, I'd say that most of BJJs "ground-based wrist locks" came from the _judo_ Carlos Gracie learned all those years ago....



The wrist locks in Judo are again only present in kata, and are of the standing variety found in classical Jujutsu. If you can provide some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

There's also no-gi training in most Gjj academies whereas no-gi is extremely rare in Judo dojos. That's another pretty key difference.

Why? Because Bjj was developed for NHB fights against other martial arts and for self defense. In those fights, striking, wrist locking, and other fun stuff was perfectly legal. Striking and wrist locking is illegal in Judo competition. No-gi was developed because you needed to learn locks and holds without the gi. That type of training isn't necessary in Judo.


----------

