# jujitsu/judo



## Manny (Apr 19, 2010)

What is the diference beetwen judo and jujitsu? I am talking about japenese jujitsu not the gracie stuff.

Manny


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 19, 2010)

Jujutsu

Judo
http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-martial-arts#Judo


----------



## Manny (Apr 19, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Jujutsu
> 
> Judo


 
So Jujutsu is a ancient martial art that do emphasis in trows,locks, pins,submisions and some kicking and striking while judo is sport version of jujutsu invented by Jigoro Kano who was a jujutsu man. Judo is gentler than jujutsu. Judo evolved from jujutsu.

Manny


----------



## Steve (Apr 19, 2010)

Jujutsu is a term that is as varied as saying "Martial Arts."  Ask two people what it means and you'll get two different answers.  Your question is much more complicated than you might think.  

Judo is a specific subset of Jujutsu.  Kano attempted to roll in the most effective techniques of all of the various ryu into one style.  Check out this article by a friend of mine.  While it emphasizes the history of BJJ, the early origins are the same.  http://www.slideyfoot.com/1982/06/history-of-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-bjj.html

Take fusen-ryu jujutsu for example.  Kano's judoka were challenged, as the story goes, by a small man who foiled their attacks by ceding the takedown.  At the onset of each match, he would simply sit down and wait for his attacker.  As a result of these encounters, fusen-ryu was absorbed by Kano and became a facet of Judo.

Everything is intertwined.  I wish I were an expert or a scholar on these matters, because they are very interesting to me.  My impression is that in modern times, Judo is like a cousin to the current styles of jujutsu, as well as to other grappling arts like sambo and BJJ.  All share similar roots.

As an aside, bartitsu was largely influenced by a japanese gentleman who was an expert in fusen-ryu jujutsu.  This is why so many of the bartitsu techniques are similar to modern BJJ or judo newaza.


----------



## J Ellis (Apr 19, 2010)

Manny said:


> Judo is gentler than jujutsu.


 
That depends entirely on who is teaching.

Joel


----------



## Aikicomp (Apr 19, 2010)

J Ellis said:


> That depends entirely on who is teaching.
> 
> Joel


 
+1 on that. I teach Judo as part of our Ju-Jitsu style. We guided our uke's and tried to take care of them so we would have partners to practice with. 

OTOH, I practiced with a man who trained Kodokan for 30 yrs, let me just say that your ukemi HAD to be good.

Michael


----------



## lklawson (Apr 20, 2010)

Depends on who you ask and when.

Judo was early on known as Kano-ha or Kano ryu Jiu-Jitsu.

Most, but not all, folks generally consider Judo to be another school/system of Jiu-Jitsu.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## frank raud (Apr 20, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Jujutsu is a term that is as varied as saying "Martial Arts." Ask two people what it means and you'll get two different answers. Your question is much more complicated than you might think.
> 
> Judo is a specific subset of Jujutsu. Kano attempted to roll in the most effective techniques of all of the various ryu into one style. Check out this article by a friend of mine. While it emphasizes the history of BJJ, the early origins are the same. http://www.slideyfoot.com/1982/06/history-of-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-bjj.html
> 
> ...


 
What techniques in bartitsu are similar to BJJ or judo?


----------



## lklawson (Apr 20, 2010)

frank raud said:


> What techniques in bartitsu are similar to BJJ or judo?


Records are sparse but reporters who watched exhibition matches, challenge matches, and training reference the ground wrestling and various strangles and joint manipulations.  One example which has been recorded was juji gateme.  We also see hiza hishigi and kata ashi hishigi.

That sorta stuff.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## frank raud (Apr 20, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Records are sparse but reporters who watched exhibition matches, challenge matches, and training reference the ground wrestling and various strangles and joint manipulations. One example which has been recorded was juji gateme. We also see hiza hishigi and kata ashi hishigi.
> 
> That sorta stuff.
> 
> ...


 
Kirk, I am aware the records are sparse. I have copies of the original Pearson articles. The exhibition matches, etc. you refer to, are they Yukio Tani doing jiu jitsu, Cherpillod doing svingen, or are these actual bartitsu challenge matches? That some of the instructors had these skills does not necessarily make them part of bartitsu.


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Records are sparse but reporters who watched exhibition matches, challenge matches, and training reference the ground wrestling and various strangles and joint manipulations. One example which has been recorded was juji gateme. We also see hiza hishigi and kata ashi hishigi.
> 
> That sorta stuff.
> 
> ...


 I'm referring really to the ties between Yukio Tani, a fusen ryu jujutsu practitioner and Edward William Barton-Wright, their time training together, working together drumming up challenge matches, and teaching in Barton-Wright's schools.  

"Largely influenced" is overstated.  My bad.   Yukio reportedly taught alongside other martial artists including a fellow Japanese man who was trained in sumo, among other things.  

What I was commenting on is how interlinked all of the martial arts really are.  I mean, Judo, the various schools of jujutsu, BJJ, Sambo, CaCC wrestling and all of the others all share surprising roots.  The main differences between BJJ, Judo, Sambo and CaCC wrestling isn't so much technique (although there are some differences).  It's emphasis in training and attitude.   At least, that's my impression.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 20, 2010)

frank raud said:


> Kirk, I am aware the records are sparse. I have copies of the original Pearson articles. The exhibition matches, etc. you refer to, are they Yukio Tani doing jiu jitsu, Cherpillod doing svingen, or are these actual bartitsu challenge matches?


Both.



> That some of the instructors had these skills does not necessarily make them part of bartitsu.


Not to be contentious, but, actually, it does.  These instructors were specifically brought into the Bartitsu fold in order to integrate their skills.  That was their specific purpose as detailed by BW.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 20, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> What I was commenting on is how interlinked all of the martial arts really are.  I mean, Judo, the various schools of jujutsu, BJJ, Sambo, CaCC wrestling and all of the others all share surprising roots.  The main differences between BJJ, Judo, Sambo and CaCC wrestling isn't so much technique (although there are some differences).  It's emphasis in training and attitude.   At least, that's my impression.


Good point.

It should be pointed out that CaCC was any number of variable sets of rules, some of which allowed chokes and joint manipulations, some of which didn't.  There's ample evidence of some joint locks and chokes in (some early rule sets of )CaCC prior to the introduction of JJ to the West by Barton-Wright (BW).  However, after BW introduced JJ, it took on a whole new emphasis.  CaCC practitioners were quick to remember old and often forgotten roots and to, further, blend in more sophisticated methods (or, in some cases, to use JJ methods as inspiration to develop their own as did Gotch and his famous "Toe Hold").

Nothing lives in a vacuum unless it is truly isolated.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## frank raud (Apr 21, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Both.
> 
> Not to be contentious, but, actually, it does. These instructors were specifically brought into the Bartitsu fold in order to integrate their skills. That was their specific purpose as detailed by BW.
> 
> ...


 
Kirk, if the techniques are not in the canon of bartitsu, we are surmising that they were a part of the system. I know when trying to recreate the system, techniques are being utilised from edwardian era jiu jitsu, wrestling etc.

I have trouble with claiming Tani(or Uyenishi's) victories in challenge matches or exhibitions are due to Bartitsu, as they are not combining systems, just fighting with the jiu jitsu knwledge they brought with them from Japan.We know that B-W said he tried to teach boxing to Tani, without success. I know of no inference that Tani did any cane fighting.

Although Tani, Vigny and Cherpillod were brought in as instructors of their respective arts does not mean that all techniques from each of these arts is now "Bartitsu".


----------



## lklawson (Apr 21, 2010)

frank raud said:


> Kirk, if the techniques are not in the canon of bartitsu, we are surmising that they were a part of the system. I know when trying to recreate the system, techniques are being utilised from edwardian era jiu jitsu, wrestling etc.


The problem with that is that the "verifiable canon" is such a small subset of what BW himself says are the inclusive "number of techniques" that it must, by simple necessity, not be even close to the whole story.



> I have trouble with claiming Tani(or Uyenishi's) victories in challenge matches or exhibitions are due to Bartitsu, as they are not combining systems, just fighting with the jiu jitsu knwledge they brought with them from Japan.


It is certainly reasonable to state that the the techniques they used while representing Bartitsu were "canon."  This specifically includes those which I've mentioned above.  Heck the two leg locks are illustrated in the canon photographs from the Pearson's articles.



> We know that B-W said he tried to teach boxing to Tani, without success. I know of no inference that Tani did any cane fighting.


This is true.  BW says that he tried to teach Tani but he was resistant.

From what we can surmise, Boxing was considered a "transitional" range in Bartitsu and was most likely taught only as a vehicle to closing to grappling, or potentially, as something that the primarily-grappling student should know how to face.



> Although Tani, Vigny and Cherpillod were brought in as instructors of their respective arts does not mean that all techniques from each of these arts is now "Bartitsu".


I don't necessarily dissagree.  Nevertheless, particularly as applies to JJ, the records of the time shows that they were teaching and using their base art and we surmise that the students were expected to combine them, perhaps under BW's guidance.

I can accept that you have difficulty giving credence to the possibility that Tani (for instance), though brought in to teach JJ, did not teach "all the techniques."  It's a well established fact that contemporaries of both Tani and Uyenishi believed that they held back "the best stuff/best 'tricks'" for themselves.  Nevertheless, the core/basic techniques would have logically been included in instruction.  If we know for a fact that two of the 5(ish) basic leg-locks were taught, it only makes sense that the other three were as well.  If we know for a fact that juji was taught from the ground (and many of its brethren from "standing") then in only makes sense that those brethren would also have been taught on the ground and would have been, most likely, inclusive of the other well documented ground arm-bars of the period.

If you can find a technique in books written by Tani, Uyenishi, or their students, then you can say with at least 90% confidence that said technique was probably taught by them during their stint as instructors for BW.

Is this an absolute certainty?  Of course not.  But definitely "high confidence."  

This differentiation is explicitly stated.  It's why we have "Canonical Bartitsu" and "Neo Bartitsu."  To quote Tony, Canon Bartitsu is Bartitsu as we know for a fact that it was.  Neo Bartitsu is Bartitsu that may have been or Bartitsu as it may have grew into had it survived.  There is honestly no logically difficulty with saying "technique X is not in the documented canon but inference suggests that it probably was taught."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Devon (May 2, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Both.
> 
> Not to be contentious, but, actually, it does.  These instructors were specifically brought into the Bartitsu fold in order to integrate their skills.  That was their specific purpose as detailed by BW.
> 
> ...



QFT.  F. Raud, The point is that Bartitsu was actually a form of cross-training between jujitsu, boxing, kicking and stick fighting.  From Barton-Wright's perspective, all of these styles were aspects of Bartitsu, in the same way that, say, Wing Chun can be considered an aspect of Jeet Kune Do.


----------

