# classical jujitsu



## tshadowchaser (Mar 25, 2005)

I would like to know a little about how classical jujitsu has changed over the years. 

I know there are now new jujitsu groups (bjj, gjj, etc,) but I don't want to hear about them unless it is in comparison to the old style(s?).

Has the emphases on holds, locks, etc. changed ?


----------



## mcjon77 (Mar 29, 2005)

Since no one else has responded, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

 One of the things that has to be kept in mind (at least in the US) is that most supposedly "classical" jujitsu schools are in fact modern jujitsu arts that have roots in other martial arts (most notably judo).  Danzan ryu, Hakko ryu, Budoshin, etc are all arts that have been created this century.  While "classical" jujitsu arts were the basis for some of the curriculum of these arts.  In many cases, kodokan judo was a strong influence as well.  I would define true "classical" Jujitsu as an art founded in Japan before the turn of the century (preferably before the meji era).  These were ther arts used by the samurai.  Of those, my bet would be that Aikijujutsu is the most popular in the U.S..  I live in Chicago, which has tons of martial arts schools, but I know of only 2 or 3 schools that teach what could be called "classical" Jujitsu.

 From what little I have seen of classical jujitsu the syllabi of many of the systems seems smaller and more specialized than modern jujitsu systems.  It seems to me that hand to hand combat was afforded only a little more emphasis for the ancient Japanese samurai than it is afforded for the modern U.S. infantryman.  This makes sense when you consider that the Bow, spear and finally sword were the real killers on the field of battle in Japan.

 I haven't spent much time studying ancient japan so I am sure there are people more knowledgable about the subject than me on this board who can help answer  your question.

 Hope this helps,

 Jon


----------



## Kizaru (Apr 1, 2005)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> I would like to know a little about how classical jujitsu has changed over the years.




Well, in the modern era, now that literacy is more prevelant, teachers give out written descriptions of techniques and tell the students the names of the techniques as they learn them. During the Sengoku jidai (Warring States Period) names and descriptions were only given out _after_ the technique was learned and the principles understood. During the Edo Jidai (Edo Period, when Tokyo was the capitol, the Warring States period had ended and there was a continuous peace.) Jujutsu was taught to people who were not of the Samurai class, as out of work Samurai needed a source of income.

The teaching style has also been modified throughout each period. During the Sengoku jidai, students would often meet with the teacher everyday to learn. The technique would be demonstrated on the student once or twice with no explanation, then the student would go off to practice it. This would be repeated day in and day out. As time went on, "time" became more of a commodity in Japan. Now, a technique will be demonstrated a number of times with explanation as to how the student needs to improve their performance. 



			
				tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> Has the emphases on holds, locks, etc. changed



Koryu jujutsu includes strikes with the hands, feet, elbows, head and knees as well as locks and holds, although during the Sengoku jidai, the emphasis was on holding and immobilzing the enemy so you could get to your own weapons (or his) and then kill him. In the Edo jidai, the emphasis was on immobilizing your opponent so that an arrest could be made. During modern times, the emphasis seems to be on the needs of the student. Friends of mine who are Japanese police officers study koryu jujutsu and their emphasis is different from other friends of mine who are in the Japanese Self Defense Froces. I know Buddhist priests here who study koryu as a form ascetic practice as well as a system of defense for when they travel overseas. Other people train to form a connection with their culture...

Obviously there's alot more to this as in the same vein we could ask, "How have American Rangers changed since the American Colonial Period?? ('_Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch. Then let him have it and jump out and finish him with your hatchet.' -MAJ Robert's Standing Orders #19; 1759)". _An entire book could be written on the subject...


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Apr 1, 2005)

The true origin of "classical jujitsu" is actually unknown. I've read several versions of how, when and where it was developed, but I dont think I've read the same thing twice. There are some common threads in all the various stories though. It began in China and was brought to Japan by way of Okinawa. Okinawan Te seems to be a kind of dumping ground for many Chinese arts. As it passed to feudal Japan it became readily obvious that a linear striking art has a hindered effect on an armoured person. Although breaking the wooden armour of the samurai seems to be the origin of board breaking. Anywho, the art became more circular so as to not go through armour but to render it ineffective.As it spread through the warrior class of Japan it developed into its various Ryu in various provinces. It then broke off into Kodokan Judo under Professor Kano, and Aikido under O'Sensei Ueshiba. Both were masters of several styles of Jujitsu. 

Jujitsu as the mother art, was not taught to non-Japanese until Professor Okazaki opened up his Kodenkan School in Hawaii. Other styles of Jujitsu have since migrated to the west. 

Thats what I know (abbreviated). If I am wrong, in anything I've said, I welcome a correction.:asian:


----------



## shinbushi (Apr 2, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> The true origin of "classical jujitsu" is actually unknown. I've read several versions of how, when and where it was developed, but I dont think I've read the same thing twice. There are some common threads in all the various stories though. It began in China and was brought to Japan by way of Okinawa.


 An no Japanese jujutsu has NO connections to Ryu Kyu(Okinawa). 
 From Koryu.com:Jujutsu and Taijutsu:


> apanese unarmed grappling arts have been around for a very long time. The first references to such unarmed combat arts or systems can be found in the earliest so-called historical records of Japan, the _Kojiki_ (Record of Ancient Matters) and the_ Nihon Shoki_ (Chronicles of Japan), which relate the mythological creation of the country and the establishment of the Imperial family. Other glimpses can be found in the older records and pictures depicting _sumai_ (or _sumo_)_ no sechie_, a rite of the Imperial Court in Nara and Kyoto performed for purposes of divination and to help ensure a bountiful harvest. These systems of unarmed combat began to be known as _jujutsu,_ among other related terms, during the Muromachi period (1333-1568), according to _densho_ (transmission scrolls) of the various _ryu-ha_ (martial traditions, "schools") and historical records. Some define jujutsu and similar arts rather narrowly as "unarmed" close combat systems used to defeat or control an enemy who is similarly unarmed. Basic methods of attack include hitting or striking, thrusting or punching, kicking, throwing, pinning or immobilizing, strangling, and joint-locking. Great pains were also taken by the _bushi_ (classic warriors) to develop effective methods of defense, including parrying or blocking strikes, thrusts and kicks, receiving throws or joint-locking techniques (i.e., falling safely and knowing how to "blend" to neutralize a technique's effect), releasing oneself from an enemy's grasp, and changing or shifting one's position to evade or neutralize an attack.
> 
> From a broader point of view, based on the curricula of many of the classical Japanese arts themselves, however, these arts may perhaps be more accurately defined as unarmed methods of dealing with an enemy who was armed, together with methods of using minor weapons such as the _jutte_ (truncheon), _tanto_ (knife), or _kakushi buki_ (hidden weapons), such as the _ryofundo kusari_ (weighted chain) or the _bankokuchoki_ (a type of knuckle-duster), to defeat both armed or unarmed opponents. Furthermore, the term jujutsu was also sometimes used to refer to tactics for infighting used with the warrior's major weapons: _ken _or _tachi_ (sword), _yari_ (spear), _naginata_ (glaive), and _bo _(staff).





> Compared with the empty-handed fighting arts of neighboring China and Korea, Japanese jujutsu systems place more emphasis on throwing, immobilizing and/or pinning, joint-locking, and strangling techniques. _Atemiwaza_ (striking techniques) are of secondary importance in most Japanese systems, whereas the Chinese _ch'uan-fa_ (J.: _kempo_) emphasize punching, striking, and kicking. It is generally felt that the Japanese systems of hakuda, kempo, and shubaku display some degree of Chinese influence in their particular emphasis on _atemiwaza,_ while systems that are derived from a more purely Japanese source do not show any special preference for such techniques, but will use them as and when appropriate.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 2, 2005)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> Japanese jujutsu has NO connections to Ryu Kyu


 I certainly believe this. (Maybe there's an exception for a style created in the 20th century, but we're talking about classical styles here.) I also believe there's some Chinese influence, but that it's certainly been made wholly Japanese by this time.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 2, 2005)

I would like to thank you all for your informative answers and I welcome any more thoughts that you might have on the subject.


----------



## kroh (Apr 6, 2005)

What I find really interesting about a subject like this is the evolution of the arts we are talking about.  One theory about classical bujutsu ha ( classical militant fighting systems / organizations ) I find very interesting is that people who practice in the "old ways" (koryu) will often imply ( if not outright state) that because there is only so much that a person can do hand to hand ( let's face it... whether Japanese, Chinese, or Shangri-La-di-DA...a straight punch has not really seen anything new since UHG of Clan Stone Poop invented it) their systems are "timeless" and can be applied to the modern age.  You fight a person hand to hand the same way whether he is a fifteenth century Japanese indegent or twenty first century thug.  

Aside from the hand to hand stuff... what about the militant or "armed" methods that need to be updated?  Do these systems teach the proper deployment of tactical battons and their proper application?  Do they teach tanto-jutsu with a focus on how to accurately use folding knives?  What about weapons derived from battlefield tools such as the entrenching tools and machete's. And let's not forget everyone's fav...*firearms*

The average samurai was most likely a cavalry man or commando of his age and would not worry about shovels or knives... But let's face the fact folks... *The samurai are gone!*  We don't use swords and bows in combat any more ( and if you are talking classical martial arts you are refereing to combat martial arts...).  We use guns and missles and camoflauge in today's modern combative enviornment.  

I practiced a classical Japanese combat method for a number of years.  I enjoyed it a lot and some of those methods still creep in to what I do today.  But given the chance I would not go back as I feel they are content to repeat the inovations of yesterday, which in reality, are the museum peices of today.  Do I feel they are applicable still... yes...absolutely.   I feel they need to add a bit of modern mojo to make things a bit more timely.  I have heard it quoted that the classical systems still breath...but what good is it if they are breathing stale air?

My question to the bushi out there is this:  What are the Classical systems doing to remain viable?  And if they are no longer viable in today's enviornment, are they just being practiced for their ascetic value?

Great discussion...
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Apr 6, 2005)

Thank you for your corrections. I went back and reread my various books on Jujitsu. Okinawan Karate was not added to "Classical" Jujitsu until Henry Okazaki formed the Kodenkan.

I appreciate the knowledge base I find here.

:asian:


----------



## Kizaru (Apr 7, 2005)

kroh said:
			
		

> My question to the bushi out there is this: What are the Classical systems doing to remain viable?


Some koryu here in Japan are staying current by incorporating mock folders, firearms and "non traditional" attacks into their training. At one of the dojo I train at here in Japan, most of the Japanese students are policemen or soldiers in the Japanese Self Defense Forces. The training we do there is generally geared towards that. As far as tactical batons and E tools are concerned, people that use those kinds of tools at work often apply kodachi and jutte techniques to those tools.



			
				kroh said:
			
		

> And if they are no longer viable in today's enviornment, are they just being practiced for their ascetic value?


Here in Japan, some koryu are practiced as a connection to the past...maybe in the same way some people in America do Civil War re-enactments...I don't know much about these groups as I don't invest much time there.


----------



## kroh (Apr 7, 2005)

Arigato Gosaimasu Kizaru san...

very cool.  Which systems are making these changes?  I used to train Yoshin ryu and when I did they ( the particular club I was a part of ) had the "re-enactment" mentality more so than the modern mentality you just illustrated.  

If it's not to much trouble...what fighting method do you train in (other than hand to gland combat...)?

Thank you again...
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## paradoxbox (Apr 7, 2005)

Takagi Yoshin ryu in the Bujinkan (Hontai Yoshin Takagi in Genbukan) are both considered koryu. When taught by themselves they are of course pure. And I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. True Takagi Yoshin ryu has muto dori (unarmed defence against sword/blade) and this is what makes all the difference in the world. When muto dori techniques against tanto come into play it's easy to see how you can apply the same thing against a pistol.

Both Genbukan and Bujinkan have 'goshinjutsu' or self defense systems which draw upon techniques from classical jujutsu (and non jujutsu) but are designed specifically for modern self defense. In fact, the entire training regimen of goshinjutsu is usually very realistic and gritty.


----------



## Shinobi_learner_73 (Apr 21, 2005)

ive been thinking about taking jujitsu for some time is a good art for a beginer?


----------



## kroh (Apr 21, 2005)

Any martial art is good for beginners.  You have to start some where and most systems and instructors take this into account.  The most important thing to do is to start training.  



> Takagi Yoshin ryu in the Bujinkan



The method of jujutsu I practiced was not a part of the Bujinkan and was a derivative of one of the koryu systems that had been reformulated sometime during the 1920's.  The most famous Branches (to my understanding) of these systems is Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, Takamura Ha Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu (holy mouthfull), Hontai Yoshin Ryu jujutsu, and let's not forget our Karate-do brothers over in the Wado Ryu ( Wose founder trained extensively with Takamura before incorporating a lot of the techniques he learned into his Karate-do).

Good luck on the training Shinobi_learner...
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Shogun (Apr 22, 2005)

> The technique would be demonstrated on the student once or twice with no explanation, then the student would go off to practice it.


 This is a very often used form of teaching in the older styles. Visit Tsubaki Kannagara Jinja in granite falls, WA, and you will see this type of teaching. Reverend Koichi Barrish (apart from Shin ryu Aikido) teaches Ideta ryu Aikijutsu. He was given the title of Soke through the Iemoto system, by Ideta Koichi, 7th soke. Often times, he will simply show a technique 2-4 times, then clap his hands or say, "OK"?


----------



## Shinyokai (Apr 22, 2005)

Walt,

Correction here.  

Wado ryu founder Hironori Ohtsuka trained in Shindo Yoshin ryu with Tatsusaburo Nakayama, not Yukiyoshi Takamura.  Ohtsuka included a small portion of the technical waza of Shindo Yoshin ryu into Wado ryu and that portion of the curriculum is commonly referred to as Wado ryu jujutsu kempo.  The most significant jujutsu influence in Wado ryu is actually in theory, not technique.

Today the Shindo Yoshin ryu mainline is under the direction of Dr Ryozo Fujiwara, The Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu under moi.

Wado ryu has split into 3 org's.  JKF Wado kai, Wado ryu Renmei, and WIKF.

Toby Threadgill / Kaicho, TSYR


----------



## Swan (Apr 29, 2005)

Hello all,

 I'm new here but would like to add my two cents as well if you don't mind. I study Daitoryu AikiJuJutsu and Hakkoryu JuJutsu. The Daitoryu tends to hold very closely to the original art as used by the Samurai with some minor things added in the teaching style itself (as apposed to the art) to adapt to todays climate a little more. Alot of the techniques that are taught are taught very traditionally but then there are examples given of how you could adjust the technique slightly to adapt to todays real world situations. Many of the techniques are designed for unarmed defense against armed attacks that can be used today in the event someone were to come at you with a baseball bat or a tire iron (or any kind of weapon like that). The techniques taught in this system are more than just relics that are used for tradition, we train many police officers in our school in immobilization techniques and come alongs regularly. And these officers use these techniques every day to save their lives. Granted, JuJutsu would not be as effective on todays battlefield as they were in the time of the Samurai, but lets face it there aren't too many martial arts that are all that effective against a machine gun at 25 yards. But for close hand to hand combat JuJutsu is still a very viable (and effective) form of self defense. But it never hurts to train in other martial arts as well so you can always adapt to the fight you are in, I also study Wing Chun Kung Fu because you never know when you might need a little more destructive influence in your fight.

 I have to return to work, but later I will write a little about Hakkoryu which comes directly from Daitoryu. It is not a classical JuJutsu, but it answers the question of why some classical JuJutsu's have made changes.


----------



## AikidoCal (May 6, 2005)

I too am new here. This thread has many interesting posts which I would like to take a stab at with my obervations. I don't mean to be long winded. It is just that I want to give the subject its proper dues. 

In theory, I don't think classical jujitsu has changed in the way most of us would think. What I hear allot in many koryu arts are to preserve tradition and technique. A dictum is the polishing a technique that old adage of swordmens' to swing a sword 10,000 times. A very subtle developmental type of change alotted in classical ryu. That core thinking is the same in classical jujitsus; change typically in classical jujitsus is no different, usually, within the foundation of improving upon a technique. There is a lot of room for experience and interpretation. Per interpretation, it is similar to shooting a basketball, or pitch a baseball, no one throws the exactly the same way, but they do in general. 

The fundamental design and structure remains the same. Change comes upon improving that fundamental structure and design, i.e. doing their own R&D within their own system. Tweeking the technique to get a more powerful lock with less energy, but not changing all the techniques for new ones. I don't think a classical jujitsu abandons it's structure for the lastest martial arts trend. Some classical arts may absorb principles and apply them within the confines of their system. I don't think there are sweeping changes, restructuring or complete overhauls within classical jujitsus to fit modern day self-defensive situations and application. This is where new arts come in. 

That is to say, change for classical jujitsu doesn't make global changes to adapt to society. A classical jujitsu practitioner might adapt a traditional age old technique to fit a certain modern day situation where it is applicable. Or change its focus from a battlefield instrument to a personal self-defense one. But, a ryu may not be current to fit all modern day situations- I will explain that later. Because of this, is what I think spawns new modern arts like BJJ etc. The Japanese are cultureally fiercely adherent to tradition and preservation with their martial arts, as they are their sports. That is no different then the rest of us with our beloved sports and traditions. If you change the greater dynamics of the sport you have a new sport. If fotbol/soccer players are allowed to catch the ball with their hands, throw it, and tackle ( evolved tripping ) you get a different sport, say ruby. Or you change the way Cricket players play you might have Baseball. Neither of which is the original sport upon such dynamic changes. Thus, like classical jujitus there is an element of preservation of the game. If classical jujitsus make such dynamic changes then they are different arts. Classical jujitsu to maintain themselves and what they are need to hold on to tradition and not make global changes that would make them adaptable to modern self-defense situations. 

One last thing. Classical jujitsus where designed for a world much different then today. During the times of many classical jujitsus a person employing their skill didn't do it while being car jacked at gun point. Or having a blanket thrown over them by a group of assailants and beat with baseball bats. I am not saying classical jujitsus are out dated and have lost their purpose. Classical jujitsus where not designed for modern times, and have limitation greater then the did hundreds or even sixty years ago. I think this is one of the reasons why the great popularity for bjj and other arts is because they adapt to modern times. Even in time, many new arts will be come out dated as new future arts step up to the challenges of the future modern world.


----------



## kroh (May 6, 2005)

I would beg to differ on the last part of the post AikidoCal, I don't think that the system in and of itself is outdated, only it's mindset and method of application.  

Many of the situations that we face today can be found within the syllabus of some of the koryu, it is just a matter of extracting them and applying them to the situation.  A punch is still a punch and a block is still a block.  we haven't changed the fundamental design of human anatomy recently thus the scope and bredth of the martial science has remained essentially unchanged.  If you are using your body to fight...there is only so many things that one can do.  It is a matter of applying it to meet the given situation that makes one thing different to another. 

For example...look at the two systems compared above, classical and Brazilian soft science.  If you take the classical, and remove any weaponry techniques, do not allow for the death of the opponent, and take out any ability for the practitioner to use the most vile methods of violating the human body, you get the Brazilian method.  The rules change the application of the technique, transforming it from a fighting science into a sport. 

The only thing that distinguishes modern fighting (fighting as in hand to hand )systems from the older ones is the abillity to train for situations that arrise now ( such as bar rooms, banks, and airplanes...which technically can be adapted to techniques designed to fight in inns, large halls, and small houses ), as well as the fact that we dress better (c'mon, admit it...the whole white pajama thing...are you really going to wear that outside of the training hall?  But you might wear a pair of sweats and a t-shirt).  

Great post sir
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## arnisador (May 6, 2005)

I find myself between *AikidoCal* and *kroh*, both of whom make good points. Much of classical jujutsu was designed for a different time and place with different threats. Fighting from seiza is rather less important these days. Yet, the principles remain the same and are easily adapted, if one is not preserving the art as an art form but rather applying the ideas in the techniques to current concerns.


----------



## kroh (May 8, 2005)

Shinyokai said:
			
		

> Walt,
> 
> Correction here.
> 
> ...



I stand corrected...Totally missed this post in my email.  Nice to meet you Toby...

Regards,
Walt


----------



## Swan (May 9, 2005)

HI guys,

I think that one major difference between classical Jujutsu and the modern practice of JuJutsu is the time that we have to put into it. The original Samurai devoted almost every minute of their day to the practice and perfection of their arts. We on the other hand only have a couple hours a day a few days a week to put towards it. I don't think that Jujutsu in and of itself is outdated and that it can definately translate to todays society. I understand what AikidoCal is saying but I have to be honest, I really have my doubts that anybody is going to be throwing a sheet over a samurai from fuedal Japan and beating them with anything. I agree with the point but the fact still remains that it is not the system that would be the problem in a situation described by AikidoCal but the practitioner. Being a martial artist is more than just "I do this art or that", it is a lifestyle of constant awareness, focus, discipline, and hard work. I think a practitioner of any art could find himself being covered with a sheet and beaten if they are not aware of their surroundings. I think the point in my inscecent rambling is that JuJutsu is still a very viable art and if practiced well and often can still translate to todays situations just as easily as they did in feudal Japan.


----------

