# Will Brazilian Jiujitsu eventually replace Japanese Jujitsu?



## Hanzou (Oct 13, 2020)

Or has it already happened?

I've noticed a lack of traditional JJ schools over the last 10 years. Most of the ones around these days seem to be a combination of Karate, Judo, Aikido and even Bjj instead of a traditional samurai fighting style. I've also heard that in Japan, if you mention that you're looking for "Jiujitsu", the Japanese will point you to a Bjj gym. Bjj taking over the moniker of "Jiujitsu" in Japan itself..... I find that to be the irony of ironies. Here's an article about a foreigner moving to Japan, seeking to study either Bjj or JJJ, and went with Bjj because he simply couldn't find a JJJ dojo;

The Evolution of grappling in Japan: Why did I choose Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in Japan? — Social Gelo with Angelo

Anyway, how healthy are true traditional Japanese Jujitsu systems?  Is the term "Jiujitsu" destined to be taken over by Bjj?


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 16, 2020)

Yeah... so lots wrong with that article... and with a lot of the assumptions in your post.

In short, classical jujutsu systems are exactly as they have been for a long time... relatively small schools with fairly small numbers of students. There are many reasons for this, of course, but I'm not going to get too far into that here. The main point is that the schools are fine (as far as we're concerned), and no, BJJ isn't "taking over" in Japan...


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... so lots wrong with that article... and with a lot of the assumptions in your post.
> 
> In short, classical jujutsu systems are exactly as they have been for a long time... relatively small schools with fairly small numbers of students. There are many reasons for this, of course, but I'm not going to get too far into that here. The main point is that the schools are fine (as far as we're concerned), and no, BJJ isn't "taking over" in Japan...



That’s a rather bizarre argument to make. If Bjj is far more popular than any other form of Jiu-Jitsu (or however you wish to spell it) wouldn’t that mean that people would begin to associate the term with the most popular variation around?

For example, if I’m in a city and there’s 20 Bjj schools with thousands of students  and 1 JJJ school with 25 students, wouldn’t the Bjj schools have far more influence and clout by default? Thus when you have a visitor to the city who wishes to take up jitsu and they ask around, which direction do you think they’ll be pointed in?

That’s exactly what happened to that guy in Japan.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 16, 2020)

As Chris said, both the article and your post are based on inaccurate assumptions. I'm intrigued by this, though:



> For example, if I’m in a city and there’s 20 Bjj schools with thousands of students and 1 JJJ school with 25 students, wouldn’t the Bjj schools have far more influence and clout by default? Thus when you have a visitor to the city who wishes to take up jitsu and they ask around, which direction do you think they’ll be pointed in?
> 
> That’s exactly what happened to that guy in Japan.



Could you please point out the passage of the article that makes you say this? I might have been distracted but I've found nothing, and that's the base of the point you're trying to make.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> That’s a rather bizarre argument to make. If Bjj is far more popular than any other form of Jiu-Jitsu (or however you wish to spell it) wouldn’t that mean that people would begin to associate the term with the most popular variation around?
> 
> For example, if I’m in a city and there’s 20 Bjj schools with thousands of students  and 1 JJJ school with 25 students, wouldn’t the Bjj schools have far more influence and clout by default? Thus when you have a visitor to the city who wishes to take up jitsu and they ask around, which direction do you think they’ll be pointed in?
> 
> That’s exactly what happened to that guy in Japan.


well maybe, that then depends on if the number of trad schools are increasing or reducing rather than the ratio between the two.

bjj is it seems more popular, to be said to have replacmve the trad it need to be respobsible for a,drop in numbers

other wise jjj is just as healthy or unhealthy as it always was


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> As Chris said, both the article and your post are based on inaccurate assumptions. I'm intrigued by this, though:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please point out the passage of the article that makes you say this? I might have been distracted but I've found nothing, and that's the base of the point you're trying to make.



This one;



> When I looked into to it, I really couldn’t find any traditional Japanese Jujutsu schools that did actual sparring. It was all based on forms and practice. Nothing against this style of training. But in the fast paced action of MMA, Japanese Jujutsu does not have the intensity that I feel I need to get better in an aggressive environment.



Which admittedly I misinterpreted as a selection/quantity issue instead of a quality issue.

Also where’s the inaccurate assumption? There are a lot of Bjj schools in Japan. There are a lot of Bjj schools globally. Parker himself stated that the traditional JJ community likes to stay small, so it stands to reason that based on numbers alone, eventually the term “Jiu-Jitsu” would be associated with the more popular variant.

It doesn’t help that the quality of traditional JJ schools can be questionable, while Bjj schools tend to have a good reputation, and a standard.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> well maybe, that then depends on if the number of trad schools are increasing or reducing rather than the ratio between the two.
> 
> bjj is it seems more popular, to be said to have replacmve the trad it need to be respobsible for a,drop in numbers
> 
> other wise jjj is just as healthy or unhealthy as it always was



Well you also need to take into account the fact that some dojos that claim to be traditional JJJ are really a “soke” who combined Judo, Karate, and other stuff and claimed a phony lineage. That sort of silliness is rather rampant in the US.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Well you also need to take into account the fact that some dojos that claim to be traditional JJJ are really a “soke” who combined Judo, Karate, and other stuff and claimed a phony lineage. That sort of silliness is rather rampant in the US.


well jjj is a combination of grappling and,striking,  to that end its a more complete art than bjj,  if people are taking the best parts of another art to improve it, thats good isnt it, or maybe it always had karrate in it.? how would you know,   and judo derived from jjj, so it all ways had judo in it

the bjj comunity is also obsessed with linage, which ive always considered silly, the art either works as its tought or it doesnt the linnage is totally irelivant to that


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Or has it already happened?
> 
> I've noticed a lack of traditional JJ schools over the last 10 years. Most of the ones around these days seem to be a combination of Karate, Judo, Aikido and even Bjj instead of a traditional samurai fighting style. I've also heard that in Japan, if you mention that you're looking for "Jiujitsu", the Japanese will point you to a Bjj gym. Bjj taking over the moniker of "Jiujitsu" in Japan itself..... I find that to be the irony of ironies. Here's an article about a foreigner moving to Japan, seeking to study either Bjj or JJJ, and went with Bjj because he simply couldn't find a JJJ dojo;
> 
> ...


Has boxing taken over Karate?  Has Karate taken over Boxing?  Has Tae Kwon Do taken over Kick-Boxing?  Has Judo taken over Collegiate Wrestling?  Has Muay Thai taken over Boxing/Karate/TKD?  Has "Combatives" taken over fencing?  Has RBSD taken over Escrima?

What's popular will ebb and flow and often for weird reasons.  Whatever is less popular isn't likely dead and probably won't be for a hundred years.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> well jjj is a combination of grappling and,striking,  to that end its a more complete art than bjj,  if people are taking the best parts of another art to improve it, thats good isnt it, or maybe it always had karrate in it.? how would you know,   and judo derived from jjj, so it all ways had judo in it



That’s actually a fallacy. Typically what happens is that you get a mishmash with no clear focus on any one thing because there’s simply not enough time to be proficient in anything. That leads the exponent to become mediocre in everything. It works in MMA because they’re just blending competitive sports, JJJ schools attempt to blend entire martial arts systems; Kata, weapons, ceremonies, etc.



> the bjj comunity is also obsessed with linage, which ive always considered silly, the art either works as its tought or it doesnt the linnage is totally irelivant to that



They’re obsessed with effectiveness. Lineage doesn’t matter as long as what you’re doing works.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Has boxing taken over Karate?  Has Karate taken over Boxing? Has Tae Kwon Do taken over Kick-Boxing?



Those martial arts operate in different spheres, and don’t share names. 



> Has Judo taken over Collegiate Wrestling?



Actually in the case of the US, yes. Mainly because wrestlers tooled Judoka back in the day, greatly limiting Judo’s appeal in the US.



> Has Muay Thai taken over Boxing/Karate/TKD?  Has "Combatives" taken over fencing?  Has RBSD taken over Escrima?



See above.



> What's popular will ebb and flow and often for weird reasons.  Whatever is less popular isn't likely dead and probably won't be for a hundred years.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Again, in the case of Bjj vs JJJ, they’re sharing names, and in some cases the same sphere. That is an entirely different situation than what you’re describing above. Nowadays when someone (Especially the younger crowd) brings up Jiu-Jitsu in a fighting context, they’re almost always talking about Bjj.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> That’s actually a fallacy. Typically what happens is that you get a mishmash with no clear focus on any one thing because there’s simply not enough time to be proficient in anything. That leads the exponent to become mediocre in everything. It works in MMA because they’re just blending competitive sports, JJJ schools attempt to blend entire martial arts systems; Kata, weapons, ceremonies, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> They’re obsessed with effectiveness. Lineage doesn’t matter as long as what you’re doing works.


your sayibg typically,  when you clearly have no knowledge  of whats typical

jjj was a stand alone art, that had stiking and grappling in it, mostly throws, that got taken off to be judo

its not a mish mash,  thats how it was designed. its focus, at least when i did it was to out your oppinent on the floor and then to punch them repeatly so they didnt get up

if and its a big if, as youve provided no evidence, they have improved the mechanics by borowing from other arts that good.

what bad is when they call somethibg trad and then refuse to improve it


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> If Bjj is far more popular than any other form of Jiu-Jitsu (or however you wish to spell it) wouldn’t that mean that people would begin to associate the term with the most popular variation around?


You seem to be getting at a different question here than your original post seemed to indicate.

Q1: Will the martial art of BJJ replace the martial art of JJJ?

A1: No. Japanese Jujutsu isn’t one art, it’s a large family of arts, many/most of which are practiced for different reasons than BJJ. (The one legitimately Japanese member of that family which is commonly practiced for similar reasons as BJJ is Judo, and that is in no danger of being replaced be BJJ anytime soon.)

Q2: Will the general public start to associate the term “jiu-jitsu/jujutsu” with BJJ rather with other members of the extended jujutsu family? 

A2: I think that’s already happening in some circles. However I think there are enough members of the jujutsu family of arts out there (including many which took their current form outside of Japan, whether they use the “Japanese” appellation or not) that I doubt the association will become universal.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> your sayibg typically,  when you clearly have no knowledge  of whats typical
> 
> jjj was a stand alone art, that had stiking and grappling in it, mostly throws, that got taken off to be judo
> 
> its not a mish mash,  thats how it was designed. its focus, at least when i did it was to out your oppinent on the floor and then to punch them repeatly so they didnt get up



You're mixing up what I said earlier. You're talking about an actual JJJ dojo, I'm talking about the typical JJJ you see, which isn't actual JJJ. It's some guy who literally makes up a lineage, claims themselves to be a "Soke" and literally teach a mishmash of stuff instead of an actual JJJ style.

Now if you do find a legitimate JJJ school, you could be doing something very good, if their training is up to standard.

Which is in itself another part of the issue; If you're looking for legitimate JJJ schools, that in itself can be very difficult since there are so many charlatans out there calling what they do "Jiujitsu". Meanwhile, BJJ schools tend to have a reputation of effectiveness and legitimacy, which only makes them even more popular.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You're mixing up what I said earlier. You're talking about an actual JJJ dojo, I'm talking about the typical JJJ you see, which isn't actual JJJ. It's some guy who literally makes up a lineage, claims themselves to be a "Soke" and literally teach a mishmash of stuff instead of an actual JJJ style.
> 
> Now if you do find a legitimate JJJ school, you could be doing something very good, if their training is up to standard.
> 
> Which is in itself another part of the issue; If you're looking for legitimate JJJ schools, that in itself can be very difficult since there are so many charlatans out there calling what they do "Jiujitsu". Meanwhile, BJJ schools tend to have a reputation of effectiveness and legitimacy, which only makes them even more popular.


of course im talking about jjj dojo, that the subject of the discusion

im wondering how you know what is typical? that sugest a greatnumber are poor

i dont know if thats true or not, but then neither do you


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You seem to be getting at a different question here than your original post seemed to indicate.
> 
> Q1: Will the martial art of BJJ replace the martial art of JJJ?
> 
> ...



I think you're looking at this from a perspective of someone who practiced a JJJ (though Hatsumi's claims are disputed by certain folks), and is (no offense) an older person. I think you should look at this as someone under the age of 25. If you're under 25 and you're looking to study Jiujitsu, you're simply WAY more likely to wind up in a Bjj school than a JJJ school. That chance has exponentially increased over the last 30 years. If I type in Jujutsu in a google search, the first thing that pops up is Bjj. If I do a google maps search for a Jujutsu martial arts school, the majority is going to be Bjj. I think that's the case even in Japanese cities. If I'm around my friends or listening to Joe Rogan and they're talking about Jujitsu, they're talking about Bjj.

What's worse is that if you do happen to run across a JJJ school, the quality of that school is suspect because there's a lot of charlatans out there who say that they're doing Japanese Jiujitsu. I've already heard some folks call JJJ "fake" and BJJ  "real jiujitsu". Something I find incredibly ironic and hilarious, but I can see the basis for that belief.



jobo said:


> of course im talking about jjj dojo, that the subject of the discusion
> 
> im wondering how you know what is typical? that sugest a greatnumber are poor
> 
> i dont know if thats true or not, but then neither do you



I'm sorry, I can't decipher what you're talking about here.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think you're looking at this from a perspective of someone who practiced a JJJ (though Hatsumi's claims are disputed by certain folks), and is (no offense) an older person. I think you should look at this as someone under the age of 25. If you're under 25 and you're looking to study Jiujitsu, you're simply WAY more likely to wind up in a Bjj school than a JJJ school. That chance has exponentially increased over the last 30 years. If I type in Jujutsu in a google search, the first thing that pops up is Bjj. If I do a google maps search for a Jujutsu martial arts school, the majority is going to be Bjj. I think that's the case even in Japanese cities. If I'm around my friends or listening to Joe Rogan and they're talking about Jujitsu, they're talking about Bjj.
> 
> What's worse is that if you do happen to run across a JJJ school, the quality of that school is suspect because there's a lot of charlatans out there who say that they're doing Japanese Jiujitsu.
> 
> ...


il try again

your claiming a great number of charlatan  teaching jjj

i want to know how you know that its so many that poor quality  is typical?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> il try again
> 
> your claiming a great number of charlatan  teaching jjj
> 
> i want to know how you know that its so many that poor quality  is typical?



Several ways. Sometimes its the name, sometimes its their technique videos, sometimes its simply how they look (a bunch of fat people), sometimes it's their number of black belts, etc. The JJJ school that was in my hometown that I visited before I got into Shotokan was complete BS, and I knew that as a teenager.

Look up Japanese Jujutsu and check out some of their websites. You'll see what I mean. I'd post a few myself, but I don't want to get in trouble.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Several ways. Sometimes its the name, sometimes its their technique videos, sometimes its simply how they look (a bunch of fat people), sometimes it's their number of black belts, etc.
> 
> Look up Japanese Jujutsu and check out some of their websites. You'll see what I mean. I'd post a few myself, but I don't want to get in trouble.



i fear your missing the point, that there are poor schools is possibly true

i want to know how you reached the conclusion that poor schools are "typical"

jjj is particularly suited to fat people ,mostly small fat people, so thats not a fairway to judge

my problem with jjj is i wasnt small or fat enough


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Actually in the case of the US, yes. Mainly because wrestlers tooled Judoka back in the day, greatly limiting Judo’s appeal in the US.


None of that is true.  Wrestling is still a major sport in the U.S., in both Primary School and College.  Judo is still a major martial art and clubs can be found all over the place.  There are 3 or 5 clubs within driving distance of me, and that's after two of them merged some years ago.  Both Judo and Wrestling are considered strong grappling bases for MMA players to start from as one of their base arts.

As for "tooling" Judoka, well...  I guess it depends on what "back in the day" means.  When Tani and Uyenishi were brought to the West by Barton-Wright, they both "tooled" much larger and stronger wrestlers with boring regularity.  Perhaps you're referring to the more recent changes of a few years ago when the Single-Leg was essentially banned from Judo shiai?

In any case, none of the arts referenced have "replaced" any of the other arts.  Each still have their niche and their devoted followers.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> i fear your missing the point, that there are poor schools is possibly true



It's not possibly true, it is true. In fact it's to the point now where if I was looking for a JJJ school to practice at, I would have a hard time finding a good one.



> i want to know how you reached the conclusion that poor schools are "typical"



I didn't say poor, I said that they're charlatans. That doesn't necessarily mean that what they're teaching is "poor", it just means they aren't teaching actual Japanese JJ, yet they're claiming that they are.



> jjj is particularly suited to fat people ,mostly small fat people, so thats not a fairway to judge



Yeah, typically if a grossly overweight people is teaching you a physical exercise, that  means that the physical exercise they're doing isn't working very well.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It's not possibly true, it is true. In fact it's to the point now where if I was looking for a JJJ school to practice at, I would have a hard time finding a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so if they teach an updated and improve version this makes them charlatans

really? you dam tma for not modernising,  then call those that do charlatans,  that double jeopardy 

both jjj and judo favour the fuller figure, if your fat and want to learn a ma, id recommend both or either,


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> None of that is true.  Wrestling is still a major sport in the U.S., in both Primary School and College.  Judo is still a major martial art and clubs can be found all over the place.  There are 3 or 5 clubs within driving distance of me, and that's after two of them merged some years ago.  Both Judo and Wrestling are considered strong grappling bases for MMA players to start from as one of their base arts.



As a base for MMA, Wrestling yes, Judo, no.



> As for "tooling" Judoka, well...  I guess it depends on what "back in the day" means.  When Tani and Uyenishi were brought to the West by Barton-Wright, they both "tooled" much larger and stronger wrestlers with boring regularity.  Perhaps you're referring to the more recent changes of a few years ago when the Single-Leg was essentially banned from Judo shiai?



The single leg and the double leg. 



> In any case, none of the arts referenced have "replaced" any of the other arts.  Each still have their niche and their devoted followers.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Again, the situation is different because Brazilian Jiujitsu shares the name with the older Japanese systems. That's going to cause the more popular variant to blanket the others.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> so if they teach an updated and improve version this makes them charlatans



If you claim that you're teaching old school JJJ, then yes, you're a charlatan if you're not teaching what you're claiming.



> really? you dam tma for not modernising,  then call those that do charlatans,  that double jeopardy



Yeah, those are two completely different arguments.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> As a base for MMA, Wrestling yes, Judo, no.


Wait, what?  You think that MMA players don't consider Judo a decent base grappling art to grow into MMA from?  WTF?  Have you never heard of Ronda Rousey? Or Khabib Nurmagomedov?  Or any of the, literally, dozens and dozens of others?

Sheesh.  I don't think I can take you seriously in this thread.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Wait, what?  You think that MMA players don't consider Judo a decent base grappling art to grow into MMA from?  WTF?  Have you never heard of Ronda Rousey? Or Khabib Nurmagomedov?  Or any of the, literally, dozens and dozens of others?
> 
> Sheesh.  I don't think I can take you seriously in this thread.



You think Judo is Khabib's base? That's funny.

Rousey's base was definitely Judo, but that's really the only one who made any major impact in MMA. The issue with Judo is that the grips have to be adjusted to deal with an opponent not wearing a jacket. Bjj has No-Gi, so many Bjj players can slide right into MMA without much adjustment needed. Judokas don't have that basis to work off of.

Now, this isn't to say that Judo is USELESS for MMA. There's some great Judo throws that can work for the MMA format (if you adjust the grips). However, as a base, you're better off with wrestling or BJJ.

Btw, that’s also part of the reason Bjj practitioners looking to improve their standing grappling tend to prefer wrestling over Judo.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think you're looking at this from a perspective of someone who practiced a JJJ (though Hatsumi's claims are disputed by certain folks)


I assume you’re talking about my time in the Bujinkan, but I also spent a few years training a Danzan-Ryu offshoot. Danzan-Ryu is a hybrid art created by a Japanese expatriate living in Hawaii. Is it a Japanese Jujutsu, an American Jujutsu, a Japanese-American Jujutsu? I don’t know that the label is that important.



Hanzou said:


> If you're under 25 and you're looking to study Jiujitsu, you're simply WAY more likely to wind up in a Bjj school than a JJJ school. That chance has exponentially increased over the last 30 years. If I type in Jujutsu in a google search, the first thing that pops up is Bjj. If I do a google maps search for a Jujutsu martial arts school, the majority is going to be Bjj. I think that's the case even in Japanese cities. If I'm around my friends or listening to Joe Rogan and they're talking about Jujitsu, they're talking about Bjj.


Yeah, right now BJJ is pretty popular, especially compared to other jujutsu forms. But these things go in waves. We’ll see how it is 10-20 years down the road. My biggest concern is the increasing number of BJJ schools which train only for groundfighting competition and never have students learning how to defend a punch. If that becomes the norm, then I think the art will lose popularity among those who want to learn how to fight and defend themselves.



Hanzou said:


> What's worse is that if you do happen to run across a JJJ school, the quality of that school is suspect because there's a lot of charlatans out there who say that they're doing Japanese Jiujitsu. I've already heard some folks call JJJ "fake" and BJJ "real jiujitsu". Something I find incredibly ironic and hilarious, but I can see the basis for that belief.


Eh, I don’t know that I would put it that way (except as much as martial arts in general have a lot of under qualified instructors with inflated ranks and resumés). Yeah, if you consider JJJ to be a term which should o le be applied to arts which were created , in their current form, in Japan, then your options are limited. You’ve got the koryu arts, which deliberately limit their memberships. You’ve got Judo, Aikido, and portions of the Takamatsuden arts, which don’t usually brand themselves as jujutsu. You’ve got maybe a small handful of gendai arts which never achieved mass popularity but managed to maintain some existence (like the Nihon Goshin Aikido that gpseymour practices). You have Wado Ryu Karate which was originally intended to be an even blend of karate and jujutsu, although the jujutsu portion of the name was eventually dropped.

But for those who are not history pedants, claiming “Japanese” as a descriptor for their jujutsu is really just a matter of branding or perceived heritage, not an indicator of fraud. Heck, Helio Gracie for many years publicly insisted that he was teaching the true historical Samurai art of Japanese Jujutsu, unlike his competitors. Most arts practiced worldwide under the jujutsu moniker have, like BJJ, evolved from Japanese origins according to local needs and with influences added from whatever other arts and experiences that instructors had along the way. The differences in quality, I think, come down to the quantity and quality of fighting and competition experience that practitioners and instructors gathered along the way. BJJ started out with an unranked student who had no more than two years of Judo training presenting himself as a master of JJJ. Through generations of many, many practitioners getting in lots of fights and competitions, the art became something remarkable. Who’s to say that today’s “Billy-Bob Jujutsu”, founded by someone with a couple of years of Judo and Karate might not reach the same pinnacle.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> If you claim that you're teaching old school JJJ, then yes, you're a charlatan if you're not teaching what you're claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those are two completely different arguments.


are they all claiming that specifically or is this just your habbit of keep making up

the term old school, trad, original etc are meaningless,  they imply rather than state,

i went in to a pub that termed its self a tradition inn, i didnt call them charalatans coz they had electricity a microwave and running water
clearly the tradtion they had in mind was after the turn of the 20 century


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> i went in to a pub that termed its self a tradition inn, i didnt call them charalatans coz they had electricity a microwave and running water
> clearly the tradtion they had in mind was after the turn of the 20 century


Did they serve Flip?  I'd enjoy finding a pub that serves Flip.  But if they're post-20th, probably not.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I assume you’re talking about my time in the Bujinkan, but I also spent a few years training a Danzan-Ryu offshoot. Danzan-Ryu is a hybrid art created by a Japanese expatriate living in Hawaii. Is it a Japanese Jujutsu, an American Jujutsu, a Japanese-American Jujutsu? I don’t know that the label is that important.



It would be American, since the founder founded the style in America, and used a large amount of Western influences like boxing and western wrestling. It is a Gendai Jujutsu just like Bjj. However unlike Bjj, it never took hold in Japan the way Bjj currently is.



> Yeah, right now BJJ is pretty popular, especially compared to other jujutsu forms. But these things go in waves. We’ll see how it is 10-20 years down the road. My biggest concern is the increasing number of BJJ schools which train only for groundfighting competition and never have students learning how to defend a punch. If that becomes the norm, then I think the art will lose popularity among those who want to learn how to fight and defend themselves.



We'll there's a difference between the driving force of Bjj's popularity, and the popularity waves of previous martial arts. Before the first UFC, the martial art "fad" was typically driven by films and television. The Kung Fu craze largely came from Bruce Lee. The Karate craze largely came from the Karate Kid and/or Chuck Norris. The Ninja craze came from various Ninja movies in the 80s. The kickboxing craze came from Jean Claude Van Damme films. The Aikido craze came from Steven Segal movies in the early 90s.

This Bjj wave isn't driven by that, it's driven by perceived effectiveness of the system itself. That perception hasn't really changed in almost three decades, and thanks to Bjj's rather fluid system of reinventing itself, I don't see that really changing in the foreseeable future. I, like you were concerned about the direction that sport Bjj was taking the art, but I think Danaher really dispelled those fears due to merging the ridiculous stuff like butt scooting and berimbolos with leg locks and open guard sweeps. 

The top guy in sport Bjj currently is Gordon Ryan, and he has ambitions to go MMA within the next year or so. If not for that closeness of Sport Bjj and MMA I would be concerned, but as I've said many times, MMA keeps Sport Bjj honest, and never allows it to go too far off the pasture.



> Eh, I don’t know that I would put it that way (except as much as martial arts in general have a lot of under qualified instructors with inflated ranks and resumés). Yeah, if you consider JJJ to be a term which should o le be applied to arts which were created , in their current form, in Japan, then your options are limited. You’ve got the koryu arts, which deliberately limit their memberships. You’ve got Judo, Aikido, and portions of the Takamatsuden arts, which don’t usually brand themselves as jujutsu. You’ve got maybe a small handful of gendai arts which never achieved mass popularity but managed to maintain some existence (like the Nihon Goshin Aikido that gpseymour practices). You have Wado Ryu Karate which was originally intended to be an even blend of karate and jujutsu, although the jujutsu portion of the name was eventually dropped.
> 
> But for those who are not history pedants, claiming “Japanese” as a descriptor for their jujutsu is really just a matter of branding or perceived heritage, not an indicator of fraud. Heck, Helio Gracie for many years publicly insisted that he was teaching the true historical Samurai art of Japanese Jujutsu, unlike his competitors. Most arts practiced worldwide under the jujutsu moniker have, like BJJ, evolved from Japanese origins according to local needs and with influences added from whatever other arts and experiences that instructors had along the way. The differences in quality, I think, come down to the quantity and quality of fighting and competition experience that practitioners and instructors gathered along the way. BJJ started out with an unranked student who had no more than two years of Judo training presenting himself as a master of JJJ. Through generations of many, many practitioners getting in lots of fights and competitions, the art became something remarkable. Who’s to say that today’s “Billy-Bob Jujutsu”, founded by someone with a couple of years of Judo and Karate might not reach the same pinnacle.



Well keep in mind, I'm limiting this to just "Jujutsu", not Aikido, Judo, or Karate. Again, if you're constantly hearing that "Jujitsu" is effective, you're going to seek out something with "Jujitsu" in the title, and you're going to bypass anything that doesn't have jujutsu/jiujitsu in its title. So once again, what happens when you go through the jujutsu options in your area and they simply don't measure up to Bjj?

During the course of this conversation, I took the liberty of going through some "traditional" Japanese Jujitsu schools in some major US cities. The results (to be kind) weren't very encouraging.

We also have to consider WHY the other Gendai jujitsus never gained the level of popularity that Bjj has achieved, even in Japan. It comes down to the effectiveness of the system, and while there is a chance that in the future another system will come along and replace it, Bjj is going to continue to grow until that happens.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It would be American, since the founder founded the style in America, and used a large amount of Western influences like boxing and western wrestling. It is a Gendai Jujutsu just like Bjj. However unlike Bjj, it never took hold in Japan the way Bjj currently is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


in this country the awarness in the general population of bjj is practically nil, may be a few brain dead mma fans, have heard of it, but mma as a sport is fringe at best, so not many and towards the younger end .

the general awarness of other ma is far higher, everyone has heard of karate, judo boxing kung fu,

so your whole premise is flawed, at least this side of the pond, i doubt its much different over there


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> in this country the awarness in the general population of bjj is practically nil, may be a few brain dead mma fans, have heard of it, but mma as a sport is fringe at best, so not many and towards the younger end .
> 
> the general awarness of other ma is far higher, everyone has heard of karate, judo boxing kung fu,
> 
> so your whole premise is flawed, at least this side of the pond, i doubt its much different over there


It depends on which population you're looking at.  My experience is that the general population, with little experience in any Oriental Martial Art at all, doesn't have any specific awareness of BJJ as opposed to JJJ and seldom knows the difference between BJJ, Karate, and Tae Kwon Do.

The more narrow the sub-set of the populations become, the more likely they are to be aware of, or even very aware of BJJ specifically, and how it differs from others.  These subsets are often:

Police
Military
Oriental style Martial Artists
Firearms For Self Defense "martial artists"

MMA fans (who may or may not actually train in anything)
Joe Rogan fans (particularly his podcast fans)
There are a few others, but generally speaking, Joe Sixpack off the street neither knows, nor cares, about something called "Brazilian Ju Jitusu" or how it may be any different at all from Tai Chi.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> It depends on which population you're looking at.  My experience is that the general population, with little experience in any Oriental Martial Art at all, doesn't have any specific awareness of BJJ as opposed to JJJ and seldom knows the difference between BJJ, Karate, and Tae Kwon Do.
> 
> The more narrow the sub-set of the populations become, the more likely they are to be aware of, or even very aware of BJJ specifically, and how it differs from others.  These subsets are often:
> 
> ...


cant disagree 

but as i said mma as a spec tator sports is fringe over here and joe rogan even more so, cant speak for the rest,possibly, but thats a very small % of the population


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> in this country the awarness in the general population of bjj is practically nil, may be a few brain dead mma fans, have heard of it, but mma as a sport is fringe at best, so not many and towards the younger end .



Really? I looked up Bjj in Manchester and there's over 20 of gyms and schools that teach Bjj in that area alone.



> the general awarness of other ma is far higher, everyone has heard of karate, judo boxing kung fu,



I didn't count the others, but there was less Kung fu in that same area.



> so your whole premise is flawed, at least this side of the pond, i doubt its much different over there



Okay.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Really? I looked up Bjj in Manchester and there's over 20 of gyms and schools that teach Bjj in that area alone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im sure there are but thats serving a popululation of of half a  million , if its confined to manchester city , 2.5 million if the catchment area is greater manchester

so how does that show the general population of Manchester  has an awareness of bjj?

nb im not really from manchester, i live in a bigish city next door that no one in america has heard of, unless their fans of the smiths


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> cant disagree
> 
> but as i said mma as a spec tator sports is fringe over here and joe rogan even more so, cant speak for the rest,possibly, but thats a very small % of the population


MMA as a spectator sport seems to have more mind-share/market penetration than Collegiate Wrestling but less than Boxing.  It's televised on sports channels, of course.  I have friends who never trained a day of martial arts who are, nonetheless, MMA "fans."  But they're pretty rare.

I agree with you that the average person has no clue what BJJ is.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> im sure there are but thats serving a popululation of of half a  million , if its manchester city , 2.5 million if its greater manchester youve googled
> 
> so how does that show the general population of Manchester  has an awareness of bjj?



I simply googled Bjj in Manchester UK, and I got a map covered with big and small red dots and several locations that teach it. Not bad for a place where (according to you) Bjj is practically unknown.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I simply googled Bjj in Manchester UK, and I got a map covered with big and small red dots and several locations that teach it. Not bad for a place where (according to you) Bjj is practically unknown.


youve clearly not done the maths, 20 schools for a catchment area running into the millions is not a popular past time, there are more chess clubs than that.

non of which answers my question of how this means the general poulation is aware of bjj


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> youve clearly not done the maths, 20 schools for a catchment area running into the millions is not a popular past time, there are more chess clubs than that.
> 
> non of which answers my question of how this means the general poulation is aware of bjj



I wasn't aware that there was an equation that measured general awareness with the number of schools available in a general area. Please share.

In the meantime, it's safe to say that if there's several schools in a single city, then there is awareness in that area. How much? I don't know, but it's definitely higher than "nil".


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I wasn't aware that there was an equation that measured general awareness with the number of schools available in a general area. Please share.
> 
> In the meantime, it's safe to say that if there's several schools in a single city, then there is awareness in that area. How much? I don't know, but it's definitely higher than "nil".


there not, thats what i cant belive youve posted the number of schools to show that there is awareness

lets be generous and say the numbers temrained by those schools in a week equals a thousand  ,

thats 0.04 of the population, , i said close to nil and thats pretty close to nil


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> there not, thats what i cant belive youve posted the number of schools to show that there is awareness



So much for "the maths" then right?



> ets be generous and say the numbers temrained by those schools in a week equals a thousand  ,
> 
> thats 0.04 of the population, , i said close to nil and thats pretty close to nil



That would be just the people taking classes. You'd also have to include the people who are aware of Bjj and not taking classes themselves. That should increase that number quite a bit since that 1,000 people taking classes would have friends, family workers, and coworkers.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So much for "the maths" then right?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be just the people taking classes. You'd also have to include the people who are aware of Bjj and not taking classes themselves. That should increase that number quite a bit since that 1,000 people taking classes would have friends, family workers, and coworkers.


ok lets make it 0.05% then, its still close to nil


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> ok lets make it 0.05% then, its still close to nil



Really? According to the media, you’re a nation of MMA fans;

How the UFC phenomenon turned the UK into a nation of MMA fans

MMA fans are definitely aware of Bjj.


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Really? According to the media, you’re a nation of MMA fans;
> 
> How the UFC phenomenon turned the UK into a nation of MMA fans
> 
> MMA fans are definitely aware of Bjj.


cant read that, it wants me to subscribe have you got a working link


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> cant read that, it wants me to subscribe have you got a working link



Works fine for me. Oh well. Here’s another one that states that MMA has surpassed Boxing in the UK;

Has MMA’s popularity surpassed Boxing in the UK and Ireland?


----------



## jobo (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Works fine for me. Oh well. Here’s another one that states that MMA has surpassed Boxing in the UK;
> 
> Has MMA’s popularity surpassed Boxing in the UK and Ireland?


iove speed read it

the title asks a question which it doesnt answer in the text that i can see

so has it surpassed boxing ?, and how does that relate to the main question about public awareness off bjj, yes there are clubs about, thats not in dispute are you saying ibjj is as recognisable to the general public as boxing, coz i think not


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> iove speed read it
> 
> the title asks a question which it doesnt answer in the text that i can see
> 
> so has it surpassed boxing ?, and how does that relate to the main question about public awareness off bjj, yes there are clubs about, thats not in dispute are you saying ibjj is as recognisable to the general public as boxing, coz i think not



Bjj is a pretty integral part of MMA, since it is the standard grappling component of the sport. The article even points out that the growth of MMA in the UK has led to the growth of MMA related martial arts, like Bjj.

Also according to the article, MMA has matched Boxing in terms of popularity in the UK.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> It depends on which population you're looking at.  My experience is that the general population, with little experience in any Oriental Martial Art at all, doesn't have any specific awareness of BJJ as opposed to JJJ and seldom knows the difference between BJJ, Karate, and Tae Kwon Do.



Well that's sort of the point.

If Bjj is the most popular form of Jiujitsu in the world (which by all accounts it is) then pretty much every reference to Jujitsu is going to be filtered through Bjj in some form or another ESPECIALLY by those who don't know much about the history of martial arts. As the years go on, and Bjj continues to grow in popularity while other forms of Jujitsu continue to phase out, that filtration will only increase.

I mean we already have people asking what's the difference between Brazilian and Japanese Jiujitsu. So already there's a linking of the terminology based around "Jiujitsu" with the differing factor being the Brazilian and Japanese portion. There's also people who just call Bjj "Jiujitsu", which means that the entire term is being owned by one style of MA. If Bjj continues its rise in popularity, that association is only going to increase. 

Frankly, the only way you stop Bjj's rise in popularity is having another JJ style come along and challenge its effectiveness. I really don't see that on the horizon, since Bjj has the tendency to absorb similar grappling systems as soon as they get a foothold.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 16, 2020)

I think as Chris said, JJJ has always just done it's own thing quietly off to the side.  In terms of 'popularity' genuine JJJ has never enjoyed top billing in the west - the vast majority of 'JJJ' taught outside Japan consisting of modern reinterpretations that are a mishmash of Karate, Judo and Aikido.
As someone else pointed out, there have continued to be niche markets for all of these arts.  I think it's great that an interest in BJJ, MMA or whatever can sometimes lead to an interest in genuine koryu bugei, and that the traditional arts have students outside of Japan.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> I think as Chris said, JJJ has always just done it's own thing quietly off to the side.  In terms of 'popularity' genuine JJJ has never enjoyed top billing in the west - the vast majority of 'JJJ' taught outside Japan consisting of modern reinterpretations that are a mishmash of Karate, Judo and Aikido.
> As someone else pointed out, there have continued to be niche markets for all of these arts.  I think it's great that an interest in BJJ, MMA or whatever can sometimes lead to an interest in genuine koryu bugei, and that the traditional arts have students outside of Japan.



What's your opinion of Bjj's immense popularity in Japan, and it's future implications on martial arts there?


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 16, 2020)

About the same.  It's very popular at the moment.  The traditional arts are often noted as decreasing in numbers, with some saying that their futures lie outside their country of origin.  I have no crystal ball in that regard, but it seems like they will continue, with a small number of people who are keen to preserve them.
I don't know what sort of impact the popularity of bjj is likely to have.  Most koryu don't really deal with unarmed ground work; they almost always include the use of weapons.  That's why bjj developed from Judo.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 16, 2020)

If you consider that modern, non-Japanese JJ is and has been (by far) the most dominant form of 'JJJ' outside Japan, you can see that legitimate koryu Jujutsu has been 'replaced' for generations.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 16, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> If you consider that modern, non-Japanese JJ is and has been (by far) the most dominant form of 'JJJ' outside Japan, you can see that legitimate koryu Jujutsu has been 'replaced' for generations.



Actually I would say the most dominant form of JJ outside of Japan has been Judo. Bjj is the first real JJ variant to rival it in popularity.

I would agree that the Koryu has been replaced for some time. My point is that nowadays, Bjj is becoming synonymous with Ju-Jitsu to the point where if lay people are talking about Jujitsu, they’re talking about Bjj.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Actually I would say the most dominant form of JJ outside of Japan has been Judo. Bjj is the first real JJ variant to rival it in popularity.
> 
> I would agree that the Koryu has been replaced for some time. My point is that nowadays, Bjj is becoming synonymous with Ju-Jitsu to the point where if lay people are talking about Jujitsu, they’re talking about Bjj.


Absolutely, I would agree.  On both points actually.  I've found it fun to see some of the bjj crowd researching and examining the roots of their art.  I guess my point was as a koryu jj student I have no problem with it.. bjj is awesome, and it's popularity is well deserved, imo.  I really like some of the cultural traits it has developed through the years.  They seem to align with those Judo, which my koryu does alongside the jujutsu.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 17, 2020)

Oh boy.... and people wonder why I'm not around so much anymore...



Hanzou said:


> That’s a rather bizarre argument to make.



No, it's really not. For one thing, you'd need to clarify a whole bunch of things in your original post, such as what "traditional Japanese Jujutsu is" (as you seem incredibly confused on that throughout this thread), what "taking over" would mean, what role Japanese jujutsu fills, and whether or not you're even comparing apples and oranges... as I said, there are a hell of a lot wrong with both the article you link, and your post in the first place.



Hanzou said:


> If Bjj is far more popular than any other form of Jiu-Jitsu (or however you wish to spell it) wouldn’t that mean that people would begin to associate the term with the most popular variation around?



Well, I wish to spell it in a way that actually means what it means... but the more important thing is for you to recognise what "popular" means... in this context, it means more people have heard of it, and it can occupy a more prevalent place in the minds of people hearing the words... but that doesn't mean it's "taking over" from something that didn't occupy that place in the first place... primarily due to it's lack of any genuine understanding and knowledge in the broader community. Most of what people think they know about the topic is based in fantasy and rumour, honestly... it's far more niche than people think. 



Hanzou said:


> For example, if I’m in a city and there’s 20 Bjj schools with thousands of students  and 1 JJJ school with 25 students, wouldn’t the Bjj schools have far more influence and clout by default?



No.

The same argument would suggest that McDonalds has more "clout" and "influence" on the cuisine and culinary culture of a city than the Michelin Star restaurants... even though there's on one or two of them, and three dozen McD's in the city...

Oh, and for the record, 25 students would be huge for a classical jujutsu school... you're really applying a very inaccurate and, honestly, meaningless metric here.



Hanzou said:


> Thus when you have a visitor to the city who wishes to take up jitsu and they ask around, which direction do you think they’ll be pointed in?



Who cares? The classical arts don't.

And anyone asking for "jitsu" in Japan will be looked at like they're a bit... special. "I'm sorry, you're looking for what? Truth? Real? 実? Maybe the sun? Or the day? Japan? 日? Surely you don't mean technique? Jutsu? 術? As that doesn't make sense...."

Look, in Japan, if you ask for jujutsu, they'll assume you mean BJJ just because if you're after the Japanese form, they'll think you mean Judo... in fact, if you say "No, not BJJ", the next thing they'll do is send you to a Judojo... if you ask for a restaurant, you'll be sent to a fast food place for convenience, it's going to take a bit of clarification to get past that idea... and BJJ is the same in this sense.



Hanzou said:


> That’s exactly what happened to that guy in Japan.



Your guy in Japan didn't know what he was looking for. And even when he saw it, it wasn't what he wanted, and wasn't something he understood... so again, who cares? He is happy with what he found, it's just kinda funny that he went to Japan to find it... as his romantic imagery was based on fantasy and a lack of real understanding, and surprisingly, reality didn't match his fantasy... nor yours, I would suggest.



Hanzou said:


> This one;
> 
> Which admittedly I misinterpreted as a selection/quantity issue instead of a quality issue.



It's a value issue. The same one you keep coming up against every time you try to discuss this... you just can't get past your own values.



Hanzou said:


> Also where’s the inaccurate assumption? There are a lot of Bjj schools in Japan. There are a lot of Bjj schools globally. Parker himself stated that the traditional JJ community likes to stay small, so it stands to reason that based on numbers alone, eventually the term “Jiu-Jitsu” would be associated with the more popular variant.



Individual schools stay small.. it's a major way to ensure consistency and quality of transmission. Once again, you're applying inaccurate and meaningless metrics. And again, without googling, I would challenge you to name any Michelin Star restaurants in your city... then list the restaurants that you know people will be familiar with. 



Hanzou said:


> It doesn’t help that the quality of traditional JJ schools can be questionable, while Bjj schools tend to have a good reputation, and a standard.



Frankly, you have exactly nothing to base that kind of comment on.



Hanzou said:


> Well you also need to take into account the fact that some dojos that claim to be traditional JJJ are really a “soke” who combined Judo, Karate, and other stuff and claimed a phony lineage. That sort of silliness is rather rampant in the US.



Er.... what on earth does that have to do with the topic? Non-Japanese non-traditional "in name only" "Jujitsu" schools have no bearing on the idea of actual Japanese jujutsu systems... so why are you bringing them up?

No, we have no need to take them into account at all. They aren't even a part of the topic.



jobo said:


> well jjj is a combination of grappling and,striking,  to that end its a more complete art than bjj,  if people are taking the best parts of another art to improve it, thats good isnt it, or maybe it always had karrate in it.? how would you know,   and judo derived from jjj, so it all ways had judo in it



Er.... no. To all of that. Classical jujutsu systems may contain methods of striking and grappling (bear in mind, not commonly ne waza/ground fighting at all), but are not "a combination of (them)". They are systems based on intrinsic and integral (and integrated) combative and other principles, expressed in a combative context focused around being either unarmed or lightly armed, and steeped deeply in the culture that created the art itself.

Judo was developed primarily from two classical systems of jujutsu, the Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (a relatively young classical system) and the Kito Ryu (an older art that includes armoured combative methods), not "from jjj" in and of itself... as there is no such thing. There are many systems that can be classified as Japanese jujutsu, or classical jujutsu, but there is no single art of that name... and these systems can vary wildly.

Tell you what... here's some examples:

Shosho Ryu





Takenouchi Ryu





Asayama Ichiden Ryu





Shibukawa Ichi Ryu





Yagyu Shingan Ryu





Notice anything? While they all involved unarmed methods, there was also a large amount of weaponry involved... classical systems are rarely as cut and dried as to their classification as modern (overly specialist and restricted) systems are.



jobo said:


> the bjj comunity is also obsessed with linage, which ive always considered silly, the art either works as its tought or it doesnt the linnage is totally irelivant to that



Lineage is a way of ensuring that you're learning from someone who has credibility. Is it the be-all, end-all? Not necessarily. I would say it's far more important in classical arts, with lessening amounts of importance the more it goes towards sports, although even there it can mean a fair bit... getting a black belt from one of the Gracie clan themselves, rather than Fred down the road, means something... and even there, some Gracies have more "cred" than others.



Hanzou said:


> That’s actually a fallacy. Typically what happens is that you get a mishmash with no clear focus on any one thing because there’s simply not enough time to be proficient in anything. That leads the exponent to become mediocre in everything. It works in MMA because they’re just blending competitive sports, JJJ schools attempt to blend entire martial arts systems; Kata, weapons, ceremonies, etc.



Not any actual Japanese Jujutsu system I know of...



Hanzou said:


> They’re obsessed with effectiveness. Lineage doesn’t matter as long as what you’re doing works.



See above.



Hanzou said:


> Those martial arts operate in different spheres, and don’t share names.



So it's just about names, is it? Okay... 

Boxing? Fisticuffs? Pugilism? Queensbury Rules?

Wrestling? Catch-as-catch-can? Grappling?

Jujutsu? Wajutsu? Yawara? Te? Gi? Hade? Taijutsu? 

Can you differentiate the above?

And what makes you think Classical Japanese jujutsu systems operate "in the same sphere" as BJJ?



Hanzou said:


> Again, in the case of Bjj vs JJJ, they’re sharing names, and in some cases the same sphere. That is an entirely different situation than what you’re describing above. Nowadays when someone (Especially the younger crowd) brings up Jiu-Jitsu in a fighting context, they’re almost always talking about Bjj.



So marketing works? Cool. But you have no clue what you're talking about if you think they're in the same sphere...



jobo said:


> jjj was a stand alone art, that had stiking and grappling in it, mostly throws, that got taken off to be judo



Er..... no.

Later (mid-to-late Edo Jidai) there would be more jujutsu-centric schools, but they were rarely "stand alone" systems... weapons were almost always included in some form. And, no, "throws" didn't get "taken off to be judo"... that's such a misrepresentation of the situation I hardly know where to start....



jobo said:


> its not a mish mash,  thats how it was designed. its focus, at least when i did it was to out your oppinent on the floor and then to punch them repeatly so they didnt get up



Yeah... that doesn't sound like any Japanese jujutsu system I'm familiar with...



jobo said:


> if and its a big if, as youve provided no evidence, they have improved the mechanics by borowing from other arts that good.



Not if it's a classical system and it moves the art away from it's essential principles.



jobo said:


> what bad is when they call somethibg trad and then refuse to improve it



You'd need to define "traditional" and "improve"... but until then... I'm going to disagree with you. Context and pedagogy is very important here.



Hanzou said:


> You're mixing up what I said earlier. You're talking about an actual JJJ dojo, I'm talking about the typical JJJ you see, which isn't actual JJJ. It's some guy who literally makes up a lineage, claims themselves to be a "Soke" and literally teach a mishmash of stuff instead of an actual JJJ style.



So your discussion about the popularity or lack thereof for Japanese Jujutsu isn't even about Japanese Jujutsu, it's about Western imitations? What?



Hanzou said:


> Now if you do find a legitimate JJJ school, you could be doing something very good, if their training is up to standard.



I'll be blunt here.

Your idea of "up to standard" means exactly nothing. You don't know what the standards or metrics are.



Hanzou said:


> Which is in itself another part of the issue; If you're looking for legitimate JJJ schools, that in itself can be very difficult since there are so many charlatans out there calling what they do "Jiujitsu". Meanwhile, BJJ schools tend to have a reputation of effectiveness and legitimacy, which only makes them even more popular.



Again, meaningless metrics. These are your values... please don't apply them to things outside your ken.



Hanzou said:


> I think you're looking at this from a perspective of someone who practiced a JJJ (though Hatsumi's claims are disputed by certain folks), and is (no offense) an older person.



You mean... Tony is applying the term "traditional Japanese jujutsu" to mean traditional arts of jujutsu that are based in Japan in culture, origin, and location, supported by the article in your OP discussing classical jujutsu systems.... and that's not what you meant, as you're applying your own definition to terms already defined in your own work? Yeah.... not gonna think it's Tony's background that's the problem... 



Hanzou said:


> I think you should look at this as someone under the age of 25. If you're under 25 and you're looking to study Jiujitsu, you're simply WAY more likely to wind up in a Bjj school than a JJJ school.



Why? Why should he? And what does it matter if generic 20 year olds in random worldwide locations (where there is not likely to be anything like actual traditional Japanese jujutsu around anyway) would end up in BJJ? If someone is after BJJ, they're not often going to be happy in a classical school... and people who appreciate classical schools tend to not be overly interested in BJJ... those that are, however, tend to come from a far more educated standpoint than the other way round, as they understand the structure of martial arts, the lessons, and more, to a much greater degree... and tend to use BJJ only as a way to understand their own art more. It's why I trained in it, after all.



Hanzou said:


> That chance has exponentially increased over the last 30 years.



HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!

Seriously?!?!?! You don't say!!!!!!

Hmm... let's go back 30 years, shall we? 1990... well, let's say early 90's... I wonder what happened then? Oh, that's right! The Gracie's decided to branch their schools into the US, and put on one of the most impressive marketing ads (and most ambitious) I've seen... they called it the "Ultimate Fighting Championship".... before that, how many people (outside of Brazil) had even heard of BJJ?

That said, I don't think "exponentially" is correct... it was for a little while, sure... but now BJJ is often seen as part of an MMA training, rather than a distinct approach for it's own sake... so "exponentially" is not really accurate anymore... 



Hanzou said:


> If I type in Jujutsu in a google search, the first thing that pops up is Bjj. If I do a google maps search for a Jujutsu martial arts school, the majority is going to be Bjj.



So talk to Google's search algorithms...?

Look, BJJ has been very successful in spreading around the world. By contrast, classical (traditional) Japanese jujutsu systems have very deliberately not spread. Again, these are not, in any way, comparable approaches.



Hanzou said:


> I think that's the case even in Japanese cities.



Based on.....?



Hanzou said:


> If I'm around my friends or listening to Joe Rogan and they're talking about Jujitsu, they're talking about Bjj.



And, to quote one of my favourite comedians, the late, great Bill Hicks: "No-one asked the one question I wanted asked... 'Yeah? And? So? What?'"

Seriously? A group of BJJ guys, BJJ practitioners, talking with a BJJ practitioner, or listening to an MMA/BJJ fan, in the context of discussing "jujitsu" automatically relate it all to BJJ?

Honestly, I'm shocked....



Hanzou said:


> What's worse is that if you do happen to run across a JJJ school, the quality of that school is suspect because there's a lot of charlatans out there who say that they're doing Japanese Jiujitsu. I've already heard some folks call JJJ "fake" and BJJ  "real jiujitsu". Something I find incredibly ironic and hilarious, but I can see the basis for that belief.



Western creations are not anything to this discussion. Your comment on quality is baseless. And people who consider legitimate classical jujutsu "fake", and BJJ "real" is frankly just funny to me. And does nothing but demonstrate their lack of understanding and awareness.



Hanzou said:


> Several ways. Sometimes its the name, sometimes its their technique videos, sometimes its simply how they look (a bunch of fat people), sometimes it's their number of black belts, etc. The JJJ school that was in my hometown that I visited before I got into Shotokan was complete BS, and I knew that as a teenager.



Which ryu-ha was taught at the school? Without that, I am not seeing anything of relevance, other than that you had exposure to something that didn't match your values, and have latched onto the idea that that is representative of everything.



Hanzou said:


> Look up Japanese Jujutsu and check out some of their websites. You'll see what I mean. I'd post a few myself, but I don't want to get in trouble.



Yeah... that won't cut it. I mean... you're telling us to look up Japanese jujutsu... if I do that, I know what is and isn't Japanese jujutsu, so... I know what I'll find. If someone with no clue does, and finds a bunch of cobbled together Western creations? Well... yeah? And? It's not Japanese jujutsu then, by definition, despite what they label themselves as, so what does it matter?



Hanzou said:


> It's not possibly true, it is true. In fact it's to the point now where if I was looking for a JJJ school to practice at, I would have a hard time finding a good one.



You'd have a hard time finding a genuine one... bit of a difference there.

As I've said, these schools tend to be small, private, with minimal numbers... your article (and my videos) mention Takenouchi Ryu. So let's say you wanted to train in that. There are two "mainline" forms, the Soke line and the Sodenke line. Let's say you want to train in the Soke (Honke) line. Great. You have a total list of placed in the world to go to... Okayama, Japan. The keikoba (main dojo) and all branch dojo are there. How about the Sodenke line, then? Same. One dojo in Okayama.

Let's say you wanted to train in Iga Ryu-ha Katsushin Ryu, then? Well, then you're off to Ibaraki... oh, and as the school is taught together with Muhi Muteki Ryu Jojutsu, then I guess you'll be learning that as well. 

Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu? You can find that in Tokyo... of course, the current Shihan, Kubota Nobuhiro, is not accepting foreign students due to the issues found in the past... but you can find that outside of Japan! You need to go to Sydney, Australia, or to the UK... if you're after Yagyu Shingan Ryu Chikuosha, outside of Japan you have Gunnedah in New South Wales (Aus.), or you have France... nowhere else. And so it goes.

You are simply not going to find a genuine school of Classical Japanese anything on the doorstep... let alone getting into something as specific as Jujutsu. That said, if you are genuinely interested, there are ways to find a real school... but it's a bit more than a google search can give you. This is by design.



Hanzou said:


> I didn't say poor, I said that they're charlatans. That doesn't necessarily mean that what they're teaching is "poor", it just means they aren't teaching actual Japanese JJ, yet they're claiming that they are.



Then why discuss them in the context of Japanese Jujutsu being "replaced"? They aren't even Japanese jujutsu in the first place!



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, typically if a grossly overweight people is teaching you a physical exercise, that  means that the physical exercise they're doing isn't working very well.



That depends on if what's being done is a form of exercise, neh? Then what form of exercise it's meant to be?



Hanzou said:


> It would be American, since the founder founded the style in America, and used a large amount of Western influences like boxing and western wrestling. It is a Gendai Jujutsu just like Bjj. However unlike Bjj, it never took hold in Japan the way Bjj currently is.



No. Neither these Western creations, nor BJJ, are Gendai jujutsu. Mainly as something being "Gendai" is a Japanese classification relating to Japanese history and cultural shifts... if it's not Japanese, it's not Gendai, Koryu, or anything else.



Hanzou said:


> We'll there's a difference between the driving force of Bjj's popularity, and the popularity waves of previous martial arts. Before the first UFC, the martial art "fad" was typically driven by films and television. The Kung Fu craze largely came from Bruce Lee. The Karate craze largely came from the Karate Kid and/or Chuck Norris. The Ninja craze came from various Ninja movies in the 80s. The kickboxing craze came from Jean Claude Van Damme films. The Aikido craze came from Steven Segal movies in the early 90s.
> 
> This Bjj wave isn't driven by that, it's driven by perceived effectiveness of the system itself. That perception hasn't really changed in almost three decades, and thanks to Bjj's rather fluid system of reinventing itself, I don't see that really changing in the foreseeable future. I, like you were concerned about the direction that sport Bjj was taking the art, but I think Danaher really dispelled those fears due to merging the ridiculous stuff like butt scooting and berimbolos with leg locks and open guard sweeps.
> 
> The top guy in sport Bjj currently is Gordon Ryan, and he has ambitions to go MMA within the next year or so. If not for that closeness of Sport Bjj and MMA I would be concerned, but as I've said many times, MMA keeps Sport Bjj honest, and never allows it to go too far off the pasture.



So your argument is that these earlier "trends" were based in popular culture, imagery, marketing, and capturing the attention, imagination, and fantasy of the public, but that BJJ's isn't?

Right....

UFC
MMA
TapOut

Do tell me when we're not looking at popular culture, imagery, marketing, and capturing the attention, imagination, and fantasy of the public...



Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, I'm limiting this to just "Jujutsu", not Aikido, Judo, or Karate.



Are you sure? You seem to be limiting it to Western inventions while discussing traditional Japanese jujutsu... but, for the record, Aikido and Judo would easily qualify as "modern Japanese jujutsu"... with Aikido being a bit more traditional, and Judo being a bit less (albeit less now than what Kano had in mind...). And, as far as karate is concerned, we might look at the case study of Wado Ryu... or, to give it its' full name, Wado-ryu Jujutsu Kenpo Karatejutsu... which is ostensibly a modern iteration of Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu combined with Shotokan Karate...



Hanzou said:


> Again, if you're constantly hearing that "Jujitsu" is effective, you're going to seek out something with "Jujitsu" in the title, and you're going to bypass anything that doesn't have jujutsu/jiujitsu in its title. So once again, what happens when you go through the jujutsu options in your area and they simply don't measure up to Bjj?



Again, your values. When it comes to Classical Japanese arts, your values have no real bearing at all. To me, for instance, as my values are wildly different to yours, BJJ simply doesn't measure up in any fashion whatsoever. And you know what? That's okay. I appreciate it for what it is, and don't expect it to have what I'm looking for. I suggest you try a similar tact.



Hanzou said:


> During the course of this conversation, I took the liberty of going through some "traditional" Japanese Jujitsu schools in some major US cities. The results (to be kind) weren't very encouraging.



Without knowing what you looked at, this is quite meaningless... especially as you have been unable to differentiate between actual Japanese systems and others...



Hanzou said:


> We also have to consider WHY the other Gendai jujitsus never gained the level of popularity that Bjj has achieved, even in Japan. It comes down to the effectiveness of the system, and while there is a chance that in the future another system will come along and replace it, Bjj is going to continue to grow until that happens.



Firstly, it's not a Gendai system. Covered that.

Second, no, we don't have to consider why... but if we are, it's dominantly marketing. Effectiveness is just one of the ways it markets itself. And that appeals to a certain core value. But it's also limiting... and that's going to be the problem down the track. But until then, it's fine.



Hanzou said:


> Actually I would say the most dominant form of JJ outside of Japan has been Judo. Bjj is the first real JJ variant to rival it in popularity.



That's more like it. Yes, and here we are talking more about two arts that exist in the same wheelhouse, more or less... of course, the marketing (yeah, it's more important than you seem to realise) is a bit different... Judo markets itself dominantly as a sport, with additional benefits more in keeping with Japanese cultural aspects... BJJ markets itself as a "self defence answer", and uses competition to bolster it's own self-image that way. In other words, BJJ uses competition to promote it's marketing image as "effective" (although the elephant in the room of contextual effectiveness seems to confuse most BJJ guys I talk to...), while Judo promotes Japanese cultural values and growth through competition.



Hanzou said:


> I would agree that the Koryu has been replaced for some time.



Replaced? No, I wouldn't say so... again, it's not like McDonalds has replaced Michelin Star restaurants...



Hanzou said:


> My point is that nowadays, Bjj is becoming synonymous with Ju-Jitsu to the point where if lay people are talking about Jujitsu, they’re talking about Bjj.



In certain circles, yeah. In traditional (classical) Japanese art circles? Not at all. And that's the point. We're talking about two different communities who discuss two different contexts... thinking they're even closely related is to mistake the reality entirely.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh boy.... and people wonder why I'm not around so much anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


getting a belt of the graces, is probably good, getting a belt from someone 20 times removed from the graces, is no better than bill down the road.

you use the term credability rather than using a performance base. yes it will have more credability in bjj circles , no it wont by any means make you better at the art

the same thing applies, to tma, yes you can claim authenticity , but the art may be authentically very poor( or at least has evolved that way), you need to view ma as a sport,  unless your on some cultural exchange mission, then fine, authenticity is where its at

for people who are at least partly intrested in an ability to perform in a fight then its meaningless,  performance is the only objective measure

if you belive that authenticity and performance equate, then your misguided


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 17, 2020)

Oh dear lord...



jobo said:


> getting a belt of the graces, is probably good, getting a belt from someone 20 times removed from the graces, is no better than bill down the road.



Yes, that's the gist of it...



jobo said:


> you use the term credability rather than using a performance base. yes it will have more credability in bjj circles , no it wont by any means make you better at the art



True.



jobo said:


> the same thing applies, to tma, yes you can claim authenticity , but the art may be authentically very poor, you need to view ma as a sport,  unless your on some cultural exchange mission, then fine, authenticity is where its at



No.

Same thing... you're applying values that have no real meaning here. No, we absolutely do NOT need to "view martial arts as a sport"... to do so is to get them fundamentally wrong, at least in this context. And authenticity is the seal of quality in regards to classical systems. I get it, this is outside your experience... that's fine. But it's also the reality, so I heartily suggest you don't try to dictate your limited understanding on what is actually done by others.



jobo said:


> for people who are at least partly intrested in an ability to perform in a fight then its meaningless,  performance is the only objective measure



No, it's not. And performance is always contextually dependent. What does "performance" mean in a classical system of dealing with an armoured and armed opponent using archaic weaponry? What does it mean when dealing with social conventions and constructs found in the 16th Century in Japan? Do you get what classical systems are about now?



jobo said:


> if yi belive that authenticity and performance equate, then your misguided



And I would counter that you're simply unaware and uneducated in this arena. But here's a blog that puts it best, to my mind:

The Importance of Paper in Japanese Martial Traditions – 古現武道

Read that a few times, and you may start to see where we come from in this regard.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you rather make my point,  being authentical trained to deal with cavilary( or any other 16th century phenomena) attacks, is  cultural rather than any actual use.

so performance has two facets,  1) its something that may foreseeably arise in the 21st century

2) if it does arise then you have the skills to deal with

im using skills on the wider context of physical development as well as discrete moves.

to that end it performanced based
im not tell you how you should use yoyr time and money, rather pointing out that beyond intelectual intrest, it not really any great use,

hell a friend of nine collect old beer bottles, so i see where your comming from,


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 17, 2020)

Jobo, honestly, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and are continuing to apply your values to a system and approach that, frankly, doesn't care about your values.

Yes, there are values relating to today. Yes, there are values relating to cultural preservation. No, they don't have to be sports. No, we don't care too much about performance excepting in the context of the arts themselves. No, you don't get that. Yes, that's okay. But recognise it, yeah?

Look at the videos I linked. Tell me any of those "need to be considered as sports." Then, if you do, know that you're wrong.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Jobo, honestly, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and are continuing to apply your values to a system and approach that, frankly, doesn't care about your values.
> 
> Yes, there are values relating to today. Yes, there are values relating to cultural preservation. No, they don't have to be sports. No, we don't care too much about performance excepting in the context of the arts themselves. No, you don't get that. Yes, that's okay. But recognise it, yeah?
> 
> Look at the videos I linked. Tell me any of those "need to be considered as sports." Then, if you do, know that you're wrong.


well its the opposite,  your tellibg me im wrong, for not seeing the world through your eyes, .
i and probably the majority of peole who sign up for tma have no desire to turn our lives into a moving musium exibit.

you do thats fine, your like my friend with his 1800s beer bottles, i like my beer bottles to contain beer and my ma skills to be relivant and vaguely useful

i think thats a reasonable view point


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 17, 2020)

And that's all fine... what I'm saying is to not apply your values to an approach that doesn't match them or need them... after all, we don't apply our approaches and values to BJJ, or karate, or TKD, or anything else. You can value what you want, and really, more power to you on that... but it's just stopping you from actually getting any clue in this context. Which is the point... koryu and BJJ aren't competing with each other, as they are very far apart, and don't compete in the same arena... so there's no "replacing" of anything... which is the real thrust of this thread. Insisting they do is where the disconnect comes in.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> And that's all fine... what I'm saying is to not apply your values to an approach that doesn't match them or need them... after all, we don't apply our approaches and values to BJJ, or karate, or TKD, or anything else. You can value what you want, and really, more power to you on that... but it's just stopping you from actually getting any clue in this context. Which is the point... koryu and BJJ aren't competing with each other, as they are very far apart, and don't compete in the same arena... so there's no "replacing" of anything... which is the real thrust of this thread. Insisting they do is where the disconnect comes in.


but its my life and my values, and probebly the values of most other people that they want the skills to wotk, ie performance rather than authenticity 

schools which are selling authenticity as relating to performance are indulging in sharp practise, to fool a gullable public into partibg with their cash, which was the point i made that you took issue with, as it affected your sense of self justification


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 17, 2020)

Sigh.........

Which is fine... and that's a part of why BJJ is popular... but applying those same values to classical arts is to thoroughly miss the point. I think I've said this some two dozen times now?

Dude. This is a thread about the relative popularity of both approaches. My point is that they are different, with different value sets and criteria/metrics... so to apply a single set to both is to fundamentally not have a clue what you're talking about or how to actually relate to them.

Can
You 
Get
That
Yet?


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Sigh.........
> 
> Which is fine... and that's a part of why BJJ is popular... but applying those same values to classical arts is to thoroughly miss the point. I think I've said this some two dozen times now?
> 
> ...


well no, they arnt, or rather not for the majority, a quick survey of people doing a tma class of why they do a tma class is likeky to give a number of reasons, self defence, fitness, wellness, de-stressing 

all of which are objective measures of performance, 

i doubt that many responces will be " i wish to keep an obsolete culture alive

now there are people like that i give you, they weave their own baskets brew beer in the bath tube, go snd live in the,woods and live of berries, but they are out lyers, they really are.

you possibly fooled into thinking its moore common, as like attracts like, you suround your self with other out lyers and then convince your self its " normal" and every obe else is doibg it wrong

though lambasting people who wish to live in the 21 century is particulat to ma, you just dont get basket weavers doing it


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 17, 2020)

Okay, you're really not getting it.

No-one ever said that classical arts were for everybody... or even for the majority. We're very clear on that. And yes, maintaining/preserving the culture is a big part of why many of us study classical systems... your ridiculous characterisation not-withstanding (frankly, we expect people to be far more serious and down to earth than the more "performance" based systems).

And I'm not "lambasting" anyone for having their own values... just for trying to force them onto concepts where they have no place.

Seriously, do I need to say it another dozen times?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 17, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> The same argument would suggest that McDonalds has more "clout" and "influence" on the cuisine and culinary culture of a city than the Michelin Star restaurants... even though there's on one or two of them, and three dozen McD's in the city...



This assumes that Classical JJ systems are fine cuisine while modern systems are fast food. In actuality, a better analogy would be that it's *all* fast food, with classical systems being that fast food shack you find in a random small town with questionable quality versus McDonalds which is found all over the world that you can sue if you get sick from an undercook fish sandwich. In that proper comparison, fast food is immediately associated with McDonald's due to its dominance on the fast food landscape. I'm arguing that Bjj is doing the exact same thing with Jiujitsu. Sure, Sal's Burger and Fries will always be on its tiny corner on the south side of Memphis, but if I'm driving through Tennessee and want a fast food burger, I'm more than likely stopping at McDonald's.



> Oh, and for the record, 25 students would be huge for a classical jujutsu school... you're really applying a very inaccurate and, honestly, meaningless metric here.



Yes, there are classical jujutsu schools that constantly teeter on the edge of extinction. Interesting that you consider this a good thing.



> And what makes you think Classical Japanese jujutsu systems operate "in the same sphere" as BJJ?



Because the people seeking out those systems are more than likely seeking them out for self defense and fighting purposes. Obviously some aren't, but many are, like that guy in the article I posted.



> Er.... what on earth does that have to do with the topic? Non-Japanese non-traditional "in name only" "Jujitsu" schools have no bearing on the idea of actual Japanese jujutsu systems... so why are you bringing them up?
> 
> No, we have no need to take them into account at all. They aren't even a part of the topic.



Because people seeking out classical Jujitsu study tend to run across schools like that before ever running across a legitimate JJJ dojo, which leads to the perception that JJJ is ineffective for self defense/fighting purposes. That in turn, pushes even more people into Bjj because it's viewed as a safe bet.



> I'll be blunt here.
> 
> Your idea of "up to standard" means exactly nothing. You don't know what the standards or metrics are.



I'll be blunt as well; There's a difference between a martial art designed for self defense and fighting, and a martial art designed to play dress up on the weekends. Part of the reason classical martial arts as a whole are on the decline is because they want to be the latter instead of the former.




> Why? Why should he? And what does it matter if generic 20 year olds in random worldwide locations (where there is not likely to be anything like actual traditional Japanese jujutsu around anyway) would end up in BJJ? If someone is after BJJ, they're not often going to be happy in a classical school... and people who appreciate classical schools tend to not be overly interested in BJJ... those that are, however, tend to come from a far more educated standpoint than the other way round, as they understand the structure of martial arts, the lessons, and more, to a much greater degree... and tend to use BJJ only as a way to understand their own art more. It's why I trained in it, after all.



The idea that people choose JJJ over BJJ because they're more "educated" is laughable. People choose classical martial arts over BJJ for a host of reasons. I'll be blunt again; One of the reasons someone would go to a classical JJJ school over a BJJ school is because they're afraid of rolling with people larger than themselves, or getting embarrassed by being choked out by someone smaller than themselves. When they do grow the stones to pop into a Bjj gym and put their "black belt" to the test, they get completely outclassed by a junior white belt and they walk (or run) out of the gym never to be seen again. Again, some people want to learn how to defend themselves, other want to pretend like they're living in 17th century Japan. Your mileage may vary.




> Same thing... you're applying values that have no real meaning here. No, we absolutely do NOT need to "view martial arts as a sport"... to do so is to get them fundamentally wrong, at least in this context. And authenticity is the seal of quality in regards to classical systems. I get it, this is outside your experience... that's fine. But it's also the reality, so I heartily suggest you don't try to dictate your limited understanding on what is actually done by others.



Except the majority of people taking Bjj are doing it for self defense, not the competitive side of it. Which I'm willing to bet (Self defense) is the main reason the majority of people take up martial arts period, including classical jujutsu.

I'm also well aware of authenticity being a major concern among traditional jujutsu folks. It's a major concern among Bjj practitioners as well. Heck, I'm willing to bet (again) that the majority of people taking up MA are quite concerned about whether or not they're learning from a qualified/authentic instructor.

See? Our values aren't much different than yours.



> No, it's not. And performance is always contextually dependent. What does "performance" mean in a classical system of dealing with an armoured and armed opponent using archaic weaponry? What does it mean when dealing with social conventions and constructs found in the 16th Century in Japan? Do you get what classical systems are about now?



Again though, the vast majority of people take up martial arts for self defense and fitness. A tiny (and ever shrinking) minority take it up to pretend to be Samurai and revel in cultural preservation of a culture they don't belong to. So yes, "performance" is going to align similarly for the vast majority of MA practitioners out there, which again explains why Bjj is as popular as it is, and becoming even more popular as time goes on.



> Who cares? The classical arts don't.



You speak for all classical arts? Interesting.



> Yeah... that won't cut it. I mean... you're telling us to look up Japanese jujutsu... if I do that, I know what is and isn't Japanese jujutsu, so... I know what I'll find. If someone with no clue does, and finds a bunch of cobbled together Western creations? Well... yeah? And? It's not Japanese jujutsu then, by definition, despite what they label themselves as, so what does it matter?



I've already explained this.



> So your argument is that these earlier "trends" were based in popular culture, imagery, marketing, and capturing the attention, imagination, and fantasy of the public, but that BJJ's isn't?



Those earlier trends lasted 3-5 years. The Bjj "trend" has lasted almost 30 years. So no it isn't just popular culture, imagery, marketing, etc. that drives its popularity (though those are part of it). The difference is that those earlier crazes were largely based on fantasy with nothing backing them up. The Ninja trend for example was largely based on action movies where you had actors doing Ninja stuff. That in turn led to a flood of ninjutsu schools with not a whole lot of quality behind them.

Bjj on the other hand got popular through a NHB bout where a smaller fighter bested a string of fighters who were larger than he was. There was a reality behind it, and 30 years later, that reality is still in place. Like I said to Tony, the Bjj "trend" doesn't end until someone dojo storms a Bjj gym and wrecks the entire class the way Bjj did back in the day.

That fact is why you’re seeing Bjj, an American martial art, penetrate other countries on the level it has, including Japan.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 17, 2020)

Hanzou, on what knowledge/experience of classical jujutsu do you base your reasoning?

Because so far, most of what you said just misses the point, you just seem to make up stuff about classical arts to make BJJ look good for whatever reason.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 17, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Hanzou, on what knowledge/experience of classical jujutsu do you base your reasoning?
> 
> Because so far, most of what you said just misses the point, you just seem to make up stuff about classical arts to make BJJ look good for whatever reason.



What items would you say I’m “making up”?


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> What items would you say I’m “making up”?



Well, let's cover that as we go... 



Hanzou said:


> This assumes that Classical JJ systems are fine cuisine while modern systems are fast food. In actuality, a better analogy would be that it's *all* fast food, with classical systems being that fast food shack you find in a random small town with questionable quality versus McDonalds which is found all over the world that you can sue if you get sick from an undercook fish sandwich.



No, my analogy is correct... yours is, to be frank, deeply ignorant of the situation.

Look, I thought about the idea of fast food versus a more local, specialised burger place... I thought the idea of equating something like BJJ to McDonalds (or similar) was potentially doing it a dis-service... but, the more I thought about it, the more it became obvious that this was really the only way to look at the difference with any real sense of the real separation between them.

To be clear, I'm not using the McDonalds analogy to imply the "McDojo" label (one that, honestly, is more apt here than is realised, and is often used to imply things that aren't necessarily present in the real idea of a McDojo as was initially conceived... such as the idea that a McDojo is automatically lower quality in instruction... it may be, but is not definitively accurate). Instead, I'm using the analogy as a way to indicate the spread of the art, and it's ubiquitousness in the current martial arts landscape. As you've noted, BJJ schools are everywhere... and, like McDonalds, you can go to one pretty much anywhere and get slight variations, but still be fairly confident of what you're going to get.

By contrast, classical jujutsu systems are most commonly one-off's... possibly with a few locations... they are a far more specialised offering, but with the highest of quality control (again, you really need to get what that means in this context, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what you think of as "quality"), and a unique mixture of "flavours" that set that particular school apart from everything else everywhere. There is no better food analogy to that than a Michelin Star restaurant... most commonly single, or only a few locations for each... not "franchised out", certainly not found in multiple locations in each city around the world... and what you get in one is unique to the chef behind the restaurant itself. It is a unique menu, a unique set of flavours, drawn from a particular culture and approach that you simply won't find elsewhere.

The idea that it is the same, or even close, to a "fast food shack" is laughable... and your insistence of "questionable quality" is just sad. This is what O'Malley was meaning when he said you insist on making things up without any real basis... among other things... so you know... Michelin Star restaurants maintain their quality by having few locations, and maintaining the control over their menu, atmosphere, decor, setting, location, and so on... to a great degree, they also control their clientele... which again puts this in the same realm as Classical Japanese arts. Not everyone can get in... reservations/entry are limited and rare... it's up to the restaurant if you get a seat in many cases... and, honestly, not everyone even wants to eat at a Michelin Star restaurant. Some will think their overly stuffy... pretentious... gauche... too expensive... or simply not to their taste. And that's the same with classical systems. BJJ, on the other hand, is good for appealing to a wider clientele. Classical arts don't need, or want that.



Hanzou said:


> In that proper comparison, fast food is immediately associated with McDonald's due to its dominance on the fast food landscape. I'm arguing that Bjj is doing the exact same thing with Jiujitsu.



Leaving off that, as I just demonstrated, it's simply not a "proper" comparison, you've kinda restated my point there. Yes, BJJ has done a great job of spreading itself out through the world... hats off to them... that's what makes them the "McDonalds" of the current martial art scene. Classical systems don't want to do that. Really, BJJ is not competing against classical jujutsu... we're not even in the same arena. It'd be like saying that Keeping Up With The Kardashians is taking an audience away from art galleries.



Hanzou said:


> Sure, Sal's Burger and Fries will always be on its tiny corner on the south side of Memphis, but if I'm driving through Tennessee and want a fast food burger, I'm more than likely stopping at McDonald's.



Yes, you are. Mainly as it suits your needs, you know what you're getting, and you know you're likely to find it. What's your point?



Hanzou said:


> Yes, there are classical jujutsu schools that constantly teeter on the edge of extinction. Interesting that you consider this a good thing.



I wouldn't put it like that, but yeah, I do. Of course, and I know this has been said, as I've said it a few dozen times in this thread, but that's due to a completely different set of values to what you are used to. You don't have to understand it, but you do need to recognise that other values exist, and are applied in areas you simply don't have the experience or knowledge to comment on.



Hanzou said:


> Because the people seeking out those systems are more than likely seeking them out for self defense and fighting purposes. Obviously some aren't, but many are, like that guy in the article I posted.



No, they're seeking an image they have in their head. If they actually find a classical system, they'll often find that it doesn't match it, so they won't stick around... and if they do, it's for many other reasons beyond fighting ability. And really, if you're after modern self defence, what good is a system that teaches you how to assassinate a friend/colleague by offering them tea....?

Araki Ryu (other versions of the first few techniques have you stab the other guy to death after throwing the tea in his face... real "self defence" stuff here...)





When it comes to the guy in the article, he had an idea of what he thought he was after... but when he saw how these systems were structured, he didn't like it... it didn't match his image... which is the reality. So no, people coming to a classical system aren't doing so due to desires of self defence and fighting as a foremost reason in the majority of cases.



Hanzou said:


> Because people seeking out classical Jujitsu study tend to run across schools like that before ever running across a legitimate JJJ dojo, which leads to the perception that JJJ is ineffective for self defense/fighting purposes. That in turn, pushes even more people into Bjj because it's viewed as a safe bet.



It's lead to that perception in you, as you have been unable to discern the difference. Here's the thing, though... they aren't actual Japanese jujutsu... traditional or classical... or anything really close to it. So we don't really care what impression they give, as it's not an impression of us. You might as well say that people get the wrong idea about spy craft from watching James Bond... it's true, but doesn't affect the actual intelligence operatives... 

And you really need to drop the idea of "effectiveness"... it's part of your marketing, not ours... so doesn't really bear relevance in terms of going one way or the other. To put it back in culinary terms, complaining that the vegetarian restaurant doesn't know how to prepare your steak isn't really a valid complaint... it's a matter of having the wrong expectations and values going in. If you want steak... don't go to a vegetarian restaurant.



Hanzou said:


> I'll be blunt as well; There's a difference between a martial art designed for self defense and fighting, and a martial art designed to play dress up on the weekends. Part of the reason classical martial arts as a whole are on the decline is because they want to be the latter instead of the former.



Ooh, bluntness... fun.

Blunt time.

You have absolutely no clue. This is borderline insulting, and would be if I thought you even knew the first thing about what you are saying.

Classical arts are not on the decline.

"Playing dress ups" is not even a part of it.

You have literally no way of appreciating other people's values, do you?



Hanzou said:


> The idea that people choose JJJ over BJJ because they're more "educated" is laughable.



Actually, no. It's an observable reality. Teachers of classical systems are far more interested in your level of education, your job stability and so on than what other arts you may have done... in fact, we'll reject students who don't measure up. In addition, due to the manner and method of such traditions, the deeper cultural implications and context, and far more, coupled with the need to be able to adopt a number of aspects of a foreign culture (language, manners, etiquette, thinking frameworks), then yeah... classical arts tend to attract more educated people. By design and by virtue of what they are.



Hanzou said:


> People choose classical martial arts over BJJ for a host of reasons. I'll be blunt again; One of the reasons someone would go to a classical JJJ school over a BJJ school is because they're afraid of rolling with people larger than themselves, or getting embarrassed by being choked out by someone smaller than themselves.


 
Please. Get over yourself, yeah? The vast majority have backgrounds in arts like judo... in fact, it's considered a requisite in some schools... Ellis Amdur (who teaches a line of Araki Ryu, shown above) requires at least 6 months of serious grappling training (Judo, BJJ, wrestling) for any potential student, in addition to the other requirements... Sosuishi Ryu has had a strong relationship with Kodokan Judo since the Kodokan's inception, which continues to today... meaning a number of Sosuishi Ryu schools also teach judo alongside the classical arts... and frankly, some of the scariest training is found in classical arts... you really need to get over this bizarre idea that people who engage in systems without a competitive side are "afraid" of either competition or rolling/sparring. It's not the case, it's not supported at all by the reality of the practitioners (or the schools), and just makes you sound like an egotistical jerk. I'm sure you don't want that impression to come across, yeah?



Hanzou said:


> When they do grow the stones to pop into a Bjj gym and put their "black belt" to the test, they get completely outclassed by a junior white belt and they walk (or run) out of the gym never to be seen again. Again, some people want to learn how to defend themselves, other want to pretend like they're living in 17th century Japan. Your mileage may vary.



HA!!!!!!!!!!

"Put their black belt to the test".....

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude... what "black belt"? Does it come with a sho-mokuroku? Or do you have to wait until menkyo? Do you have any idea why this is funny?

Again, you're putting your values into a context where they simply don't fit or have any bearing. Do some classical art practitioners want to also address that side of training, and cross train in things like BJJ or judo? Yes. But more than not, it's to act as a supplement to their training, and is done with the idea of furthering their understanding of their primary art... so have no problem whatsoever in "letting go" of any ego to learn. It's what we do, really. But, it cannot be understated, most practitioners are already coming from such backgrounds... and are searching for more than the simple idea of "effectiveness" in a limited context.



Hanzou said:


> Except the majority of people taking Bjj are doing it for self defense, not the competitive side of it. Which I'm willing to bet (Self defense) is the main reason the majority of people take up martial arts period, including classical jujutsu.



It's an oft-cited reason... however BJJ's "effectiveness in self defence" is demonstrated/marketed through it's competitive side... that's really where the reputation and image comes from. Claiming one context when really demonstrating another. Now, that's not an issue... the conflation of the two contexts into one image is not uncommon, nor is it poorly done. Is it incorrect, or misleading? Yeah, it is... but not in a way that is overly meaningful to most.

As far as Classical Japanese arts, while it's a sometimes (not: not oft)-cited reason, it's quickly apparent that it's a poor fit to most. So if that's really the primary motivator, most people don't stick around a classical tradition... yes, it can be utilised in self defence (in a way), depending on the system (I've heard accounts of people using Shindo Muso Ryu methods employing an evasion and jam using a broom handle against someone with a knife... but that's an outlier as an example), but that's not the primary applicable approach. Combat, yes, but combat within a context... and the real lesson is to do with the mentality than the physicality. After all, if you grew up listening to Led Zeppelin and Jimmy Hendrix, and wanted to play their music, specifically on guitar, but the only music teacher around taught tuba... well, you're going to get some transferable skills like understanding scales, motifs, reading music etc... but you certainly ain't gonna learn guitar that way. Or, a bit more accurately, the music teacher only taught harpsichord...



Hanzou said:


> I'm also well aware of authenticity being a major concern among traditional jujutsu folks. It's a major concern among Bjj practitioners as well. Heck, I'm willing to bet (again) that the majority of people taking up MA are quite concerned about whether or not they're learning from a qualified/authentic instructor.



Sure. I said as much myself. Of course, the form that authenticity takes, how it manifests itself, and so on is rather different.



Hanzou said:


> See? Our values aren't much different than yours.



When you show the first indication of understanding, or at least trying to understand the values of others, rather than just continually applying your own, I might believe that. Until then, as I actually do have experience in modern and classical systems, I think I'll go with my understanding of the differing value sets.



Hanzou said:


> Again though, the vast majority of people take up martial arts for self defense and fitness.



That, I would dispute. As is often said, there are as many reasons for someone wanting to take up martial arts as there are people doing martial arts... whether they can express it as anything more than the simple reasons suggested is another thing, of course... and, it must be said, those two values are going to have a much higher rate of likelihood for people doing competitive systems... in other words... dude... your values are not applicable to classical traditions. They may factor for some people, but they are not, in the main, primary reasons.



Hanzou said:


> A tiny (and ever shrinking) minority take it up to pretend to be Samurai and revel in cultural preservation of a culture they don't belong to. So yes, "performance" is going to align similarly for the vast majority of MA practitioners out there, which again explains why Bjj is as popular as it is, and becoming even more popular as time goes on.



Wow... okay, yeah, insulted now. "Pretend to be samurai"?!?! One of the reasons we tend to insist on more mature, educated, stable personalities to train with us to avoid such personalities who may want to do such things.

And you're still not understanding the differing contexts of "performance" here. I'm not denying that a popular system that is relatively prominent in it's presentation is going to match (mainly through shaping) the expectations of prospective students, and therefore be popular... that's kinda human nature 101 there... but here's a thing... do you remember before BJJ? Before the first UFC? Ground fighting was not overly thought of... why? Was it that it didn't work? That it was "ineffective"? That it didn't take skill? That it couldn't be demonstrated? No. It was more that the popular image of "fighting" was based in things like boxing, then (to a lesser degree) judo... where ground fighting was minimalised... so when the first UFC happened, and Royce was caught on the ground for 20 minutes with Ken Shamrock in the 5th UFC event, the audience booed... they were bored... as it wasn't what they had learnt to expect as "fighting". It took a while to get people to change their mind, and the Gracies' were phenomenal at that. Of course, that changed... but we'll cover that in a bit.



Hanzou said:


> You speak for all classical arts? Interesting.



No, I am giving you some insight into the mentality of the classical arts, in as general a fashion as possible. 



Hanzou said:


> I've already explained this.



No, you haven't. The question is, if we are looking at the idea of classical/traditional Japanese jujutsu being "replaced", what do non-classical, non-traditional, non-Japanese pseudo-jujutsu systems have to do with the discussion? And saying that it's that what most people find means nothing... it doesn't suddenly actually make them relevant. Just... a distraction.



Hanzou said:


> Those earlier trends lasted 3-5 years. The Bjj "trend" has lasted almost 30 years.



Well, that's wrong on a few counts.

Firstly, these trends tend to be more 10-15 years. In the 50's it was primarily Judo and Japanese/Okinawan karate, due to the US GI's learning as part of the occupying force. The 60's were dominated by karate, mostly sport and Korean variants (TKD), as it was the rise of the tournament scene. That gave rise to personalities, such as Chuck Norris, which naturally lead through to movies... and the rise of kung fu from the late 60's through the 70's. The movie scene then shifted again, birthing what was called the "ninja boom" of the late 70's through the 80's. This took us to the early 90's, which saw two main forms rise up to capture the imaginations of potential students. One was BJJ, through the Gracie's promotion and use of the UFC (really a brilliant marketing tool for them initially); the other was the rise of RBSD... however that was far more confronting, so BJJ, being safer and far less scary, won out. By the end of the 90's, though, and heading into the early 2000's, the Gracie's strategies kinda backfired with the UFC taking on it's own form, and promoting "real violence"... which had systems like Krav Maga and RBSD approaches come to the fore again. Through a shrewd business approach, by the mid-2000's, Dana White had salvaged the reputation and image of the UFC (with similar formats coming up and benefiting from this), which has lead to the major trend for the last decade or so... which is not BJJ. It's MMA. In fact, BJJ's "run" as a trend was basically from about 1993 to around 1998... what has kept it going has been the promotion of it as a staple of MMA training... not BJJ for it's own sake.

As you can see, the trends often run from one to the next... arts that are hugely popular at one point slow to a more steady simmer... for systems like BJJ, it's place as part of MMA training has kept it in good stead... but thinking it's been the top trend for 30 years is just denialism or delusion. Is it popular? Yes. As was TKD. And Judo. Do you see those going anywhere, even though no-one's making movies about TKD anymore? Nope. Did MMA kill off TKD? Nope. Did BJJ kill off Judo? Not at all. Are these arts still flavour of the month? Do you see where we're going with this?



Hanzou said:


> So no it isn't just popular culture, imagery, marketing, etc. that drives its popularity (though those are part of it).



It really is. And if you don't see that, then you have no idea of how popularity and promotion works. Your'e just not recognising how that marketing was done, and how it worked... 



Hanzou said:


> The difference is that those earlier crazes were largely based on fantasy with nothing backing them up.



No, the difference is that they appealed to the values and mentality of the people at the time. Early "crazes" for Judo and karate were based on the exotic nature, as well as the effectiveness as applied by (dominantly) military servicemen who had also been trained in some of these methods. Coming out of a World War (and heading into the Korean conflict) had people wanting to feel safe... so it appealed to them then. After a while, escapism became more valued, so movies had more of an influence... and so on and so forth. As Tony said, it's all ebbs and flows... it'll swing back the other way at some point. Hell, it might be through this current global craziness we're going through now... coming out of it, people might not want to roll around on the ground with someone (pandemics can change behaviours that way, you know), so they'll look for other approaches... the next major trend might be weapon work, as it allows you to work from a distance... it might be Kendo and Iaido... the first is distanced, competitive, and you wear a mask.. the second is a solo exercise form (in the main), so you don't have to get close to anyone, but is less physically confronting (although I would say more mentally stressing and demanding). Or we could see Tai-Bo making a return, as people look for something martial-themed with more of a fitness element (again, health being a major concern coming out of a pandemic), that doesn't require someone two inches from your face. Time will tell.



Hanzou said:


> The Ninja trend for example was largely based on action movies where you had actors doing Ninja stuff. That in turn led to a flood of ninjutsu schools with not a whole lot of quality behind them.



That's where it came from, yeah... of course, the "flood of ninja schools with not a whole lot of quality" I don't blame on the movies... I have other persons I lay that blame squarely at the feet of... but that's not something I'm going into detail on here.



Hanzou said:


> Bjj on the other hand got popular through a NHB bout where a smaller fighter bested a string of fighters who were larger than he was.



That was an announcement... but it was not what changed people's minds. It was just the start of it. And, let's be very, very clear here... that whole thing was a marketing play by the Gracies. Pure and simple. It was set up to showcase their art, and worked well. Of course, people didn't get it at the time (as mentioned, complaining and booing at the length of "inaction" seen, not understanding why people were tapping out, and so on), but the Gracie's persisted, and eventually started to build their arts reputation. I will say that a number of their methods were... less than straight up. Taking out full page ads in entertainment magazines to challenge people who had absolutely nothing to gain, like Benny "The Jet" Urquidez... issuing a challenge to Mike Tyson (when he was in jail), and so on... dude... it was ALL publicity, image-making, propaganda, and marketing. The reason they took out ads in entertainment magazines? The same reason they held that first UFC... they were opening schools in the US, notably in LA and Hollywood, and wanted the publicity... so they took out ads and put on shows where people would see them. Not martial artists. The people.



Hanzou said:


> There was a reality behind it, and 30 years later, that reality is still in place.



Please. There is no "reality" behind it. It's just a somewhat less-limited form of competition. There's just as much reality in a Judo competition... or a kendo match... or a point-karate tournament. It's just differing contexts, rulesets, and limitations. Anyone who thinks that equals "reality" has no clue.



Hanzou said:


> Like I said to Tony, the Bjj "trend" doesn't end until someone dojo storms a Bjj gym and wrecks the entire class the way Bjj did back in the day.



No, it doesn't require that. Or, more accurately, it didn't require that. As I said, the BJJ "trend" is over. It has been for nearly 20 years. Is it still popular? Yep. So are a lot of former trends. But it's not the current trend. That's more MMA than anything else right now. All that's required for a trend to be superseded by another is for the second one to capture the people's imagination more. Which MMA did, taking over for BJJ, quite a while back... but, honestly, BJJ's push to be seen as "real", and "more realistic than other arts" was what really doomed it's trend... as that gave rise to even more "realistic" approaches... Krav Maga and RBSD. They were then taken over by MMA... which is just as much a spectator thing as a participant thing (you can't really be a spectator for Krav Maga and RBSD... they don't make good movies), allowing it to capture imagination back again.

Really, I don't think you get what a trend is.



Hanzou said:


> That fact is why you’re seeing Bjj, an American martial art, penetrate other countries on the level it has, including Japan.



And no-one has disputed that. Hell, I've said multiple times that BJJ has been incredibly successful in spreading out to the world... but that's not the case you put forth. You put forth that BJJ was "replacing" traditional/Classical Japanese jujutsu... and it's not. They don't share the same sphere, they don't even breathe the same air. Both are just fine being what they are.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, let's cover that as we go...
> 
> No, my analogy is correct... yours is, to be frank, deeply ignorant of the situation.
> 
> ...



Yes, it sounds very much like Sal's Burger and Fries of Memphis Tennessee, or any string of those tiny burger joints off the interstates in the U.S. It's small, you only hear about them if someone tells you. They only allow a certain number of people inside because it's a literal shack and can't fit a large amount of people inside. They're broke so they can't afford a credit card machine (and they're trying to avoid the IRS) so it's cash only, so if you tend to only carry cards you're not getting served, etc. In the end though, you're still getting burger, fries, and a soda. Probably a delicious burger and fries, but still a burger and fries regardless. However, on the other hand, that delicious burger might get you sick as well, because while it was delicious going down, the quality of the cook in the kitchen is always suspect.

There's some folks who only seek out those types of places, since it gives them a taste of Americana. Others prefer the assurance that they're not going to die of intestinal poisoning, and choose the larger burger chains. When I was younger, I was more apt to try those smaller burger places. Sometimes I got sick, sometimes I got a delicious burger. Now that I'm older, I tend to avoid those types of places because I have no desire to spend my traveling time in a gas station bathroom.




> No, they're seeking an image they have in their head. If they actually find a classical system, they'll often find that it doesn't match it, so they won't stick around... and if they do, it's for many other reasons beyond fighting ability. And really, if you're after modern self defence, what good is a system that teaches you how to assassinate a friend/colleague by offering them tea....?



You mean they're seeking a martial art to protect themselves and they find a martial art where they learn to have a tea party in traditional Japanese garb. Yes, I can see how that could be off-putting for someone.



> Araki Ryu (other versions of the first few techniques have you stab the other guy to death after throwing the tea in his face... real "self defence" stuff here...)



Yes, I would qualify that under performance art instead of martial art. 



> When it comes to the guy in the article, he had an idea of what he thought he was after... but when he saw how these systems were structured, he didn't like it... it didn't match his image... which is the reality. So no, people coming to a classical system aren't doing so due to desires of self defence and fighting as a foremost reason in the majority of cases.



And how do you think that image appeared in his head? He heard that Jujitsu was an effective martial art, sought out  the Japanese version of it, and got that video you posted above. Again, it should come as a shock to no one that he didn't like it. That said, on the other side of the coin, there are dojos claiming to teach JJJ  and they're not legitimate schools, as was also mentioned in the article. So on one hand you have performance art, on the other you have potentially effective JJJ but the people running those dojos are of questionable quality, and then you have Bjj that has reliable quality, and by all accounts is an effective MA. Is it any wonder why Jujitsu is being attributed mainly to Bjj than the other arts who carry the name?




> It's lead to that perception in you, as you have been unable to discern the difference. Here's the thing, though... they aren't actual Japanese jujutsu... traditional or classical... or anything really close to it. So we don't really care what impression they give, as it's not an impression of us. You might as well say that people get the wrong idea about spy craft from watching James Bond... it's true, but doesn't affect the actual intelligence operatives...



I realize YOU don't care, but what you care about really isn't the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is people associating Jujitsu entirely with Bjj and nothing else. You may think it's not a big deal that people are slowly getting the idea that Japanese JJ is ineffective, but over time that viewpoint begins to stick, and people will avoid those types of schools entirely. Sure, I have no doubt that there will be some tiny places in Japan and elsewhere where you can continue to dress up as a samurai and pretend to live in the 16th century, just like people like to participate in Renaissance festivals and have jousting tournaments. However when it comes to the martial arts, and fighting arts in general, the consensus is rapidly becoming Jujitsu=Brazilian Jiu-jitsu.



> Ooh, bluntness... fun.
> 
> Blunt time.
> 
> ...



Why is it insulting? That's exactly what you're doing, unless you're silly enough to believe that any of that stuff is practical from a self defense stand point. It's no different than those HEMA folks who swing around broadswords and spiked maces. Yeah, I dressed up as a Samurai for Halloween once because I thought it was cool, I suppose people like yourself never really grew out of that stage. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that, just please place what you're doing in the proper context.



> Actually, no. It's an observable reality. Teachers of classical systems are far more interested in your level of education, your job stability and so on than what other arts you may have done... in fact, we'll reject students who don't measure up. In addition, due to the manner and method of such traditions, the deeper cultural implications and context, and far more, coupled with the need to be able to adopt a number of aspects of a foreign culture (language, manners, etiquette, thinking frameworks), then yeah... classical arts tend to attract more educated people. By design and by virtue of what they are.



And there's plenty of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. who practice Bjj. I wouldn't say one group is more "educated" than the other.



> Please. Get over yourself, yeah? The vast majority have backgrounds in arts like judo... in fact, it's considered a requisite in some schools... Ellis Amdur (who teaches a line of Araki Ryu, shown above) requires at least 6 months of serious grappling training (Judo, BJJ, wrestling) for any potential student, in addition to the other requirements... Sosuishi Ryu has had a strong relationship with Kodokan Judo since the Kodokan's inception, which continues to today... meaning a number of Sosuishi Ryu schools also teach judo alongside the classical arts... and frankly, some of the scariest training is found in classical arts... you really need to get over this bizarre idea that people who engage in systems without a competitive side are "afraid" of either competition or rolling/sparring. It's not the case, it's not supported at all by the reality of the practitioners (or the schools), and just makes you sound like an egotistical jerk. I'm sure you don't want that impression to come across, yeah?



Six months training really isn't much of anything. However, beyond that, I'm clearly not talking about the Samurai dress-up schools you're talking about. I will admit that they are operating in a different sphere than your typical martial art school. I'm talking about the JJJ schools that are teaching for self defense purposes, and frankly the same type of people who prefer Aikido or some forms of Kung Fu. 



> It's an oft-cited reason... however BJJ's "effectiveness in self defence" is demonstrated/marketed through it's competitive side... that's really where the reputation and image comes from. Claiming one context when really demonstrating another. Now, that's not an issue... the conflation of the two contexts into one image is not uncommon, nor is it poorly done. Is it incorrect, or misleading? Yeah, it is... but not in a way that is overly meaningful to most.



Is that why many self-defense oriented systems like Krav Maga integrate Bjj into their curriculums?



> That, I would dispute. As is often said, there are as many reasons for someone wanting to take up martial arts as there are people doing martial arts... whether they can express it as anything more than the simple reasons suggested is another thing, of course... and, it must be said, those two values are going to have a much higher rate of likelihood for people doing competitive systems... in other words... dude... your values are not applicable to classical traditions. They may factor for some people, but they are not, in the main, primary reasons.



I'm sure. Some take up a martial art because they want to physically fit. Some take up a martial art because they work a dangerous job and want some additional training. Some take up a martial art because they want to study another culture. Some take up martial arts to become professional fighters. Some take up a "martial art" because they want to wear medieval costumes and swing around medieval weapons and culturally appropriate someone else's culture. Despite all of that, I would still argue that the majority of people enter a martial art school for the purpose of defending themselves.

Since a school teaching the Japanese equivalent of a Renaissance festival wouldn't offer that, I can see your point of view.




> Wow... okay, yeah, insulted now. "Pretend to be samurai"?!?! One of the reasons we tend to insist on more mature, educated, stable personalities to train with us to avoid such personalities who may want to do such things.



Again, why would anyone be insulted by that characterization. That's exactly what people are doing in those types of schools. I mean seriously, there is no practical application for learning a routine where you're seated and throwing a cup of tea in someone's face when they rush you with a samurai sword. I take that back, there is an application; It's playing dress up and pretending to be a samurai master in medieval Japan.



> No, you haven't. The question is, if we are looking at the idea of classical/traditional Japanese jujutsu being "replaced", what do non-classical, non-traditional, non-Japanese pseudo-jujutsu systems have to do with the discussion? And saying that it's that what most people find means nothing... it doesn't suddenly actually make them relevant. Just... a distraction.



What you're not seeming to grasp here is that tiny little JJJ schools can still exist, but for the vast majority of people "Jujtisu" will inextricably be tied to Brazilian Jiujitsu. Certainly for some tiny minority that will still want to seek out the classical stuff, but if 95% of the martial arts community thinks that "Jujitsu" is just BJJ that means that the classical forms have been replaced by the more popular variation. 





> Well, that's wrong on a few counts.
> 
> Firstly, these trends tend to be more 10-15 years. In the 50's it was primarily Judo and Japanese/Okinawan karate, due to the US GI's learning as part of the occupying force. The 60's were dominated by karate, mostly sport and Korean variants (TKD), as it was the rise of the tournament scene. That gave rise to personalities, such as Chuck Norris, which naturally lead through to movies... and the rise of kung fu from the late 60's through the 70's. The movie scene then shifted again, birthing what was called the "ninja boom" of the late 70's through the 80's. This took us to the early 90's, which saw two main forms rise up to capture the imaginations of potential students. One was BJJ, through the Gracie's promotion and use of the UFC (really a brilliant marketing tool for them initially); the other was the rise of RBSD... however that was far more confronting, so BJJ, being safer and far less scary, won out. By the end of the 90's, though, and heading into the early 2000's, the Gracie's strategies kinda backfired with the UFC taking on it's own form, and promoting "real violence"... which had systems like Krav Maga and RBSD approaches come to the fore again. Through a shrewd business approach, by the mid-2000's, Dana White had salvaged the reputation and image of the UFC (with similar formats coming up and benefiting from this), which has lead to the major trend for the last decade or so... which is not BJJ. It's MMA. In fact, BJJ's "run" as a trend was basically from about 1993 to around 1998... what has kept it going has been the promotion of it as a staple of MMA training... not BJJ for it's own sake.
> 
> As you can see, the trends often run from one to the next... arts that are hugely popular at one point slow to a more steady simmer... for systems like BJJ, it's place as part of MMA training has kept it in good stead... but thinking it's been the top trend for 30 years is just denialism or delusion. Is it popular? Yes. As was TKD. And Judo. Do you see those going anywhere, even though no-one's making movies about TKD anymore? Nope. Did MMA kill off TKD? Nope. Did BJJ kill off Judo? Not at all. Are these arts still flavour of the month? Do you see where we're going with this?



I'll grant you about 10 years for each trend, with one easily blending into another. However, the Bjj trend that started in the 1990s is still going on today. The rise of RSBD never supplanted the Bjj craze. What happened is that RSBD types attempted to say that Bjj doesn't work in a "the streets" but it never really caught on because it was ripe with charlatans and sociopaths. Krav Maga was perhaps the most successful out of that grouping, and now you'd be hard pressed to find a Krav Maga school that doesn't teach Bjj. As for MMA, the notion that MMA and Bjj are somehow separate is a bit of a strange angle to take. Bjj started the MMA craze, and in turn you'd be hard pressed to find a MMA gym where BJJ isn't being taught. Part of the reason Bjj continues to grow is because of MMA and the fact that Bjj is considered the grappling art of MMA. NO ONE enters a MMA ring without some Bjj training. The two are like celestial bodies in consistent orbit with each other. One doesn't move without the other.

 As for Bjj killing Judo; Judo is/was one of the most prolific martial arts in the world, and frankly it is institutionalized in many countries, including Brazil. What has happened with Bjj is that you have Judoka cross training in Bjj and vice versa which creates a nice little symbiotic relationship that helps grow Bjj and sustains Judo. As for TKD and Karate, those arts have lost a little bit of popularity, but (at least in America) it has a market as a martial art for kids, and for people looking for physical fitness. 



> It really is. And if you don't see that, then you have no idea of how popularity and promotion works. Your'e just not recognising how that marketing was done, and how it worked...



Again, none of that marketing or promotion works if Royce Gracie didn't win the first few UFCs, and it doesn't work if Bjj isn't objectively viewed as an effective martial art. In other words, Bjj's popularity rests entirely with its fighting ability. If a wrestler enters a Bjj school and beats down the entire class, then goes on to beat down elite Bjj practitioners, Bjj's popularity is damaged. What keeps Bjj popular is the wrestler/karateka entering the Bjj school and getting effortlessly submitted. 



> No, the difference is that they appealed to the values and mentality of the people at the time. Early "crazes" for Judo and karate were based on the exotic nature, as well as the effectiveness as applied by (dominantly) military servicemen who had also been trained in some of these methods. Coming out of a World War (and heading into the Korean conflict) had people wanting to feel safe... so it appealed to them then. After a while, escapism became more valued, so movies had more of an influence... and so on and so forth. As Tony said, it's all ebbs and flows... it'll swing back the other way at some point. Hell, it might be through this current global craziness we're going through now... coming out of it, people might not want to roll around on the ground with someone (pandemics can change behaviours that way, you know), so they'll look for other approaches... the next major trend might be weapon work, as it allows you to work from a distance... it might be Kendo and Iaido... the first is distanced, competitive, and you wear a mask.. the second is a solo exercise form (in the main), so you don't have to get close to anyone, but is less physically confronting (although I would say more mentally stressing and demanding). Or we could see Tai-Bo making a return, as people look for something martial-themed with more of a fitness element (again, health being a major concern coming out of a pandemic), that doesn't require someone two inches from your face. Time will tell.



Yes, and Judoka were beaten by wrestlers, and Karateka were beaten by boxers. However, Karate made a brief come back because people saw Bruce Lee movies, wanted to learn martial arts, and the only thing around were karate dojos. However, with that said Karate exponents were still getting beaten up by boxers. I'm old enough to remember people saying that "Karate doesn't work" because we had black belts in Karate getting beaten up by the random schoolyard bully or the neighborhood street fighter. Thus when Aikido came along, people easily flocked to that because they saw Steven Segal toss bad guys around and thought that was super effective. Again, it is the perception of effectiveness that drives the ebb and flow, it isn't random by any stretch.




> That was an announcement... but it was not what changed people's minds. It was just the start of it. And, let's be very, very clear here... that whole thing was a marketing play by the Gracies. Pure and simple. It was set up to showcase their art, and worked well. Of course, people didn't get it at the time (as mentioned, complaining and booing at the length of "inaction" seen, not understanding why people were tapping out, and so on), but the Gracie's persisted, and eventually started to build their arts reputation. I will say that a number of their methods were... less than straight up. Taking out full page ads in entertainment magazines to challenge people who had absolutely nothing to gain, like Benny "The Jet" Urquidez... issuing a challenge to Mike Tyson (when he was in jail), and so on... dude... it was ALL publicity, image-making, propaganda, and marketing. The reason they took out ads in entertainment magazines? The same reason they held that first UFC... they were opening schools in the US, notably in LA and Hollywood, and wanted the publicity... so they took out ads and put on shows where people would see them. Not martial artists. The people.



Again, none of that works if Royce Gracie loses. I certainly hope you're not one of those types who believes he fought nothing but weak fighters, or that the fights were somehow fixed.





> Please. There is no "reality" behind it. It's just a somewhat less-limited form of competition. There's just as much reality in a Judo competition... or a kendo match... or a point-karate tournament. It's just differing contexts, rulesets, and limitations. Anyone who thinks that equals "reality" has no clue.



Considering Bjj's performance in modern MMA, and the ruleset of modern Judo competition compared to even sport Bjj, I would say its far more reality based than Judo competition or a Kendo match.



> No, it doesn't require that. Or, more accurately, it didn't require that. As I said, the BJJ "trend" is over. It has been for nearly 20 years. Is it still popular? Yep. So are a lot of former trends. But it's not the current trend. That's more MMA than anything else right now. All that's required for a trend to be superseded by another is for the second one to capture the people's imagination more. Which MMA did, taking over for BJJ, quite a while back... but, honestly, BJJ's push to be seen as "real", and "more realistic than other arts" was what really doomed it's trend... as that gave rise to even more "realistic" approaches... Krav Maga and RBSD. They were then taken over by MMA... which is just as much a spectator thing as a participant thing (you can't really be a spectator for Krav Maga and RBSD... they don't make good movies), allowing it to capture imagination back again.



Uh, Karate, TKD, Aikido, Judo, and Ninjutsu schools are decreasing, while Bjj schools are increasing. I wouldn't say the trend is over by any stretch. And again, you'd be hard pressed to find a Krav Maga school that isn't teaching Bjj.



> And no-one has disputed that. Hell, I've said multiple times that BJJ has been incredibly successful in spreading out to the world... but that's not the case you put forth. You put forth that BJJ was "replacing" traditional/Classical Japanese jujutsu... and it's not. They don't share the same sphere, they don't even breathe the same air. Both are just fine being what they are.



Like I said, when we get to the point where the martial arts community at large immediately thinks Brazilian Jiujitsu when Jujitsu is mentioned, that's the replacing I'm talking about. Again, 30 years ago that wasn't the case, but it is rapidly becoming the case now. You will always have those tiny little JJJ schools teaching whatever, but the standard is moving towards the most popular variant with consistent quality and brand recognition. As you said, it's simply human nature.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> As for MMA, the notion that MMA and Bjj are somehow separate is a bit of a strange angle to take. Bjj started the MMA craze, and in turn you'd be hard pressed to find a MMA gym where BJJ isn't being taught. Part of the reason Bjj continues to grow is because of MMA and the fact that Bjj is considered the grappling art of MMA. NO ONE enters a MMA ring without some Bjj training. The two are like celestial bodies in consistent orbit with each other. One doesn't move without the other.


A couple of quibbles with this:

1) Almost any good MMA gym will include BJJ instruction, but many BJJ schools don't include MMA instruction. Of those that don't, a significant number don't train the fundamentals of actual fighting, focusing almost exclusively on preparation for competition ground-grappling tournament formats. Even in gyms which have both BJJ and MMA, a large number of BJJ students don't cross over into the MMA classes, so if the BJJ class doesn't spend significant time dealing with punches and other aspects of real fighting, those students aren't learning a complete fighting art. These are the factors which make me worry that BJJ  could lose its realistic status and reputation as a fighting art.

2) BJJ is still the most widespread (though not the only) _submission _grappling art in MMA. However there is a good case to be made that wrestling (as modified for the MMA context) is currently the most important _grappling _art in MMA. There are more top fighters coming from a primary wrestling background than from a primary BJJ background. I think there's also a reasonable argument that more fights are currently won or lost based on the fighters wrestling ability than on their BJJ ability.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 18, 2020)

Let's make a thread "will wrestling eventually replace Brazilian jujitsu?".

Also, Hanzou, your last answer confirmed that you were only looking to spit on classical jujutsu. That's a pitiful attitude to have.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> A couple of quibbles with this:
> 
> 1) Almost any good MMA gym will include BJJ instruction, but many BJJ schools don't include MMA instruction. Of those that don't, a significant number don't train the fundamentals of actual fighting, focusing almost exclusively on preparation for competition ground-grappling tournament formats. Even in gyms which have both BJJ and MMA, a large number of BJJ students don't cross over into the MMA classes, so if the BJJ class doesn't spend significant time dealing with punches and other aspects of real fighting, those students aren't learning a complete fighting art. These are the factors which make me worry that BJJ  could lose its realistic status and reputation as a fighting art.



My purple belt in Bjj came from Relson Gracie JJ, so trust me I know what you're talking about, and it worries me as well. I would just say that as long as Bjj is tied to MMA, and as long as the Gracie family pushes self defense (and schools like Renzo's that are closely MMA based), that component of utilizing Jiujitsu in a realistic format will always be in place.



> 2) BJJ is still the most widespread (though not the only) _submission _grappling art in MMA. However there is a good case to be made that wrestling (as modified for the MMA context) is currently the most important _grappling _art in MMA. There are more top fighters coming from a primary wrestling background than from a primary BJJ background. I think there's also a reasonable argument that more fights are currently won or lost based on the fighters wrestling ability than on their BJJ ability.



I can't speak for outside of the US, but in the US wrestling is more prevalent in MMA simply because wrestling is taught in the high schools and colleges there. That creates a huge base of wrestlers that have the potential to eventually move into MMA. The main thing to remember though is that those wrestlers still have to filter through Bjj to be competitive in MMA, which again bolsters Bjj in multiple ways; Bjj gets more students, Bjj gets exposed to wrestling and wrestlers which benefits the martial art as a whole (improves takedowns and prevents Bjj from becoming a butt scooting contest), and Bjj continues to be the grappling art of choice for MMA. I personally know quite a few former NCAA wrestlers who went into Bjj with the intent of going into MMA, fought a few matches, and returned to Bjj to get their black belts and become instructors. They in turn put out monsters of students who have amazing takedowns and top pressure.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Let's make a thread "will wrestling eventually replace Brazilian jujitsu?".
> 
> Also, Hanzou, your last answer confirmed that you were only looking to spit on classical jujutsu. That's a pitiful attitude to have.



Check out my response to Tony to see why that won't happen.

This is the second time you've accused me of doing something in this thread and refusing to point out where I did it. Now you're accusing me of "spitting" on classical Jujutsu. I'd like to know where I did that. Was it because I said that it consisted of people playing dress up and doing cultural appropriation? Okay, where's the insult? That's exactly what they're doing in those types of schools.

Putting on a Japanese costume, swinging around a samurai sword, and learning Japanese mannerisms is all fine and good if that's what you want to do with your time. However, it's not self defense or fighting. To put it another way, it would be like my very German wife taking a class on how to be a Geisha and learning a tea ceremony in order to be a bartender in a dive bar. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> This is the second time you've accused me of doing something in this thread and refusing to point out where I did it.



The first time I said you were making stuff up. You were, and you still are. When I asked you to point out the passage of the article where the author goes to Japan, asks for "jujitsu" and gets shown the way to a BJJ gym. You could not, because that was stuff you made up.



> I'll be blunt as well; There's a difference between a martial art designed for self defense and fighting, and a martial art designed to play dress up on the weekends. Part of the reason classical martial arts as a whole are on the decline is because they want to be the latter instead of the former.



Here, you assert that classical martial arts were made to "play dress up on the weekends" while you obviously don't have a single clue about how and why those systems were designed. You are making stuff up.



> One of the reasons someone would go to a classical JJJ school over a BJJ school is because they're afraid of rolling with people larger than themselves, or getting embarrassed by being choked out by someone smaller than themselves. When they do grow the stones to pop into a Bjj gym and put their "black belt" to the test, they get completely outclassed by a junior white belt and they walk (or run) out of the gym never to be seen again.



Here again, you make assertions while having no clue about the motivations of people who go to classical JJJ schools. You make stuff up. And Chris made it very clear that what you are saying is just plain wrong.



> Is it any wonder why Jujitsu is being attributed mainly to Bjj than the other arts who carry the name?



Source?



> Now you're accusing me of "spitting" on classical Jujutsu. I'd like to know where I did that. Was it because I said that it consisted of people playing dress up and doing cultural appropriation? Okay, where's the insult? That's exactly what they're doing in those types of schools.



Style bashing is against MT rules. You created a thread just to do that.



> Putting on a Japanese costume, swinging around a samurai sword, and learning Japanese mannerisms is all fine and good if that's what you want to do with your time. However, it's not self defense or fighting. To put it another way, it would be like my very German wife taking a class on how to be a Geisha and learning a tea ceremony in order to be a bartender in a dive bar. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.



I'm not even offended, as I've got no horse in this race. But it's puzzling that you think you can speak the "truth" about stuff that you don't understand. You had the opportunity to actually learn about these systems, as Chris has been practicing them for years. Instead, you chose to stick to ludicrous, made up assumptions about those arts just so you can say "ha! my BJJ is beating your JJJ!".

One reason someone would choose a classical JJJ school over a BJJ school would be if they generalize based on your posts in this thread. Nobody would want to be around obnoxious, cultish-sounding guys who feel the need to parade their superiority complex on the internet. "Yes, I can see how that could be off-putting for someone."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> This assumes that Classical JJ systems are fine cuisine while modern systems are fast food. In actuality, a better analogy would be that it's *all* fast food, with classical systems being that fast food shack you find in a random small town with questionable quality versus McDonalds which is found all over the world that you can sue if you get sick from an undercook fish sandwich. In that proper comparison, fast food is immediately associated with McDonald's due to its dominance on the fast food landscape. I'm arguing that Bjj is doing the exact same thing with Jiujitsu. Sure, Sal's Burger and Fries will always be on its tiny corner on the south side of Memphis, but if I'm driving through Tennessee and want a fast food burger, I'm more than likely stopping at McDonald's.



the comparison would be if you said cancer treatment will replace crystal healing.

And it doesn't.

They are done for different purposes.

The idea of a generic term like self defence or martial arts that in reality doesn't mean anything is a common part of society these days.

I have a shampoo that is "mother approved" or something. That doesn't mean I will ever find the actual mother who approved it. It is just something people say.

Japanese jujitsu will never compete with arts that are focused on increasing fighting abilities or improving human qualities.

Just like healing crystals will not cure cancer.  But people do not seek these outlets for these reasons.

They engage in these because it is fun. And that is a priority enough for enough people to endure.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Let's make a thread "will wrestling eventually replace Brazilian jujitsu?".
> 
> Also, Hanzou, your last answer confirmed that you were only looking to spit on classical jujutsu. That's a pitiful attitude to have.



Mabye because they are both kind of trying to do the same thing with about the same measure of effectiveness.

So a wrestler could go in to a BJJ school and murder the whole room creating a shift of focus that if BJJ did more wrestling then they would win more at BJJ.

Direct head to head competition for kind of the same resources.

If that same wrestler goes in to a JJJ school. Nobody would care. Because winning fights or being good at this physical expression of martial arts isn't the point of what they are doing.

They are trying to be good at Japanese Jujitsu. Which has its own measure of standard.






I mean we all know these are not workable techniques in this form. But they are not ment to be. They are not judged on their workability. 

There is a reason the uke just falls over during these demonstrations.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> The first time I said you were making stuff up. You were, and you still are. When I asked you to point out the passage of the article where the author goes to Japan, asks for "jujitsu" and gets shown the way to a BJJ gym. You could not, because that was stuff you made up.



And I already said that I misread a portion of the article. The gist of the original point remains the same; A guy goes to Japan in search of Jujitsu, winds up in a BJJ school for a variety of reasons.



> Here, you assert that classical martial arts were made to "play dress up on the weekends" while you obviously don't have a single clue about how and why those systems were designed. You are making stuff up.



I didn't say that's why they were created, I'm saying that's what their purpose is NOW.



> Here again, you make assertions while having no clue about the motivations of people who go to classical JJJ schools. You make stuff up. And Chris made it very clear that what you are saying is just plain wrong.



I have experience with such people, and that's exactly why they chose JJJ. BTW, I'm not talking about the Renaissance fair type of JJJ, I'm talking about the JJJ where they combine modern arts and call it Japanese Jujutsu.



> Source?



The article in the OP for example.



> Style bashing is against MT rules. You created a thread just to do that.



Where's the style bashing? What's the difference between those vids Chris posted and Civil War re-enactors, or people dressing up as medieval knights and learning medieval European weapons and etiquette?  You're simply being over sensitive.



> I'm not even offended, as I've got no horse in this race. But it's puzzling that you think you can speak the "truth" about stuff that you don't understand. You had the opportunity to actually learn about these systems, as Chris has been practicing them for years. Instead, you chose to stick to ludicrous, made up assumptions about those arts just so you can say "ha! my BJJ is beating your JJJ!".
> 
> One reason someone would choose a classical JJJ school over a BJJ school would be if they generalize based on your posts in this thread. Nobody would want to be around obnoxious, cultish-sounding guys who feel the need to parade their superiority complex on the internet. "Yes, I can see how that could be off-putting for someone."



Yes, that's right, I don't "understand". LoL! I know why those classical arts were created. I know why they're rare and hard to find now. I also know the difference between what Chris is talking about and the type of JJJ that your average person is likely to run into. If someone chooses to learn a 17th century Japanese performance art over BJJ, that's their business. People enjoy different things. Some people like to actually fight and others like to dress up and pretend to fight with antique weapons and customs. Hey, we all have our personal points of enjoyment, and folks have every right to engage in it. There's space in the martial arts for both.

Like I said, you're being overly sensitive.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> This assumes that Classical JJ systems are fine cuisine while modern systems are fast food. In actuality, a better analogy would be that it's *all* fast food, with classical systems being that fast food shack you find in a random small town with questionable quality versus McDonalds which is found all over the world that you can sue if you get sick from an undercook fish sandwich. In that proper comparison, fast food is immediately associated with McDonald's due to its dominance on the fast food landscape. I'm arguing that Bjj is doing the exact same thing with Jiujitsu. Sure, Sal's Burger and Fries will always be on its tiny corner on the south side of Memphis, but if I'm driving through Tennessee and want a fast food burger, I'm more than likely stopping at McDonald's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how can a corner be tiny all corners are exactly the same size ?

i smile when you say bjj is the ma equivalent of MDs, in the uk MDs is considered the  the very epitome of expensive homogenised ****, only for those lacking in good sense and health awareness, so yes you may very well be correct in you comparison


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> how can a corner be tiny all corners are exactly the same size ?



Perhaps corners are larger in the UK?



> i smile when you say bjj is the ma equivalent of MDs, in the uk MDs is considered the  the very epitome of expensive homogenised ****, only for those lacking in good sense and health awareness, so yes you may very well be correct in you comparison



As if anyone cares about the UK's opinion on anything.....


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Perhaps corners are larger in the UK?
> 
> 
> 
> As if anyone cares about the UK's opinion on anything.....


all corners are zero point size

you spent several posts telling me what the uk opinion of MMA was, so clearly you do


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

I have to ask, what is the self defense/fighting benefit of learning a martial art like this;






I can understand the cultural and educational benefits. However, what are the self defense/fighting benefits?


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I have to ask, what is the self defense/fighting benefit of learning a martial art like this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how have you decided its a martial art ?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> how have you decided its a martial art ?



It is a style of Japanese Jujutsu;

Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū - Wikipedia


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It is a style of Japanese Jujutsu;
> 
> Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū - Wikipedia


that not what i asked, i asked how have you come to the conclusion thats what is shown is a martial art ?
its fairly simple question


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> that not what i asked, i asked how have you come to the conclusion thats what is shown is a martial art ?
> its fairly simple question



Not really. Are you asking what we’re seeing in the video is the martial art, or just some sort of presentation?

The video is showing demonstrations and kata. Both fairly common in Japanese MA.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Not really. Are you asking what we’re seeing in the video is the martial art, or just some sort of presentation?
> 
> The video is a two person kata. It’s fairly common in Japanese martial arts. Even Judo has some.


you said it was a ma shown, im asking how you know that

i really shouldnt have to ask the same simple question three times


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> you said it was a ma shown, im asking how you know that
> 
> i really shouldnt have to ask the same simple question three times



Uh Tenshin Shinyo Ryu is a martial art and it is being shown in that video. You having trouble reading the title of the video?


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Uh Tenshin Shinyo Ryu is a martial art and it is being shown in that video.


the wiki page you linked doesnt say its a ma, so how do you know it is?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> the wiki page you linked doesnt say its a ma, so how do you know it is?



You obviously didn’t read the page very well. It says it is an ancestor art to both Judo and Aikido. Also you can follow the “jujutsu” link in the wiki article to *read* what exactly what Jujutsu is.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You obviously didn’t read the page very well. It says it is an ancestor art to both Judo and Aikido. Also you can follow the “jujutsu” link in the wiki article to *read* what exactly what Jujutsu is.


ive read what you posted as an authoritative  article and it doesnt mention the term ma at all.

so how do you know its a ma,


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

I find it incredible that a person from the U.K. has trouble reading English, and doesn’t understand how encyclopedias work.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I find it incredible that a person from the U.K. has trouble reading English, and doesn’t understand how encyclopedias work.


dont deflect

you said it was a ma, and it seems you now dont know why you think it a ma.

i mean it doesnt even look like a ma, so ive no idea how you formed  that opinion


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> dont deflect
> 
> you said it was a ma, and it seems you now dont know why you think it a ma.
> 
> i mean it doesnt even look like a ma, so ive no idea how you formed  that opinion



In the wiki article, this is the _*first sentence*_;

*Tenjin Shinyo-ryu* (天神真楊流, Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū), meaning "Divine True Willow School", can be classified as a traditional school (koryū) of jujutsu.

Jujutsu should be highlighted, that means you can click it to go to another article. This is called a *hyperlink*. When you go to the article on Jujutsu it says this in the *first sentence*;


*Jujutsu* (English: /dʒuːˈdʒʊtsuː/ joo-JOOT-soo; Japanese: 柔術 jūjutsu 

listen (help·info), is a family of Japanese martial arts and a system of close combat (unarmed or with a minor weapon) that can be used in a defensive or offensive manner to kill or subdue one or more weaponless or armed and armored opponents.

If you still don’t get it after this explanation, I can’t help you. I would just recommend to stop taking blows to your head during Karate class.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 18, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I mean we all know these are not workable techniques in this form. But they are not ment to be. They are not judged on their workability.
> 
> There is a reason the uke just falls over during these demonstrations.


I'll save Chris the bother of pointing out that this isn't actually Japanese Jujutsu. (Except in the same sense that BJJ is in that it is a lineal descendant of Japanese arts.)

I think I know what you mean by "not workable techniques in this form", but you might want to clarify for those who don't. These are actual techniques and I've successfully executed about 80% of those in sparring. (Not against opponents feeding me that kind of stylized, crappy, unrealistic punching, but that certainly would have made it easier.) I do recognize that the quality of execution ranges from poor to mediocre in ways which indicate they probably don't do much (if any) actual sparring if this is a 3rd dan test.



drop bear said:


> If that same wrestler goes in to a JJJ school. Nobody would care. Because winning fights or being good at this physical expression of martial arts isn't the point of what they are doing.
> 
> They are trying to be good at Japanese Jujitsu. Which has its own measure of standard.


That might be a reasonable statement regarding an actual traditional JJJ which is focused on preservation of certain historical martial and cultural traditions. I don't think it applies to this particular school, which states on their website _"most martial arts you find these days are mainly for sport, they’re for competitions and such, but in Kinjite, we teach Self-Defence, helping you become more aware of danger and how to defend your self on the streets." _Their stated intent is to develop actual fighting skill - they just aren't (as far as their videos seem to indicate) very good at it.


----------



## jobo (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> In the wiki article, this is the _*first sentence*_;
> 
> *Tenjin Shinyo-ryu* (天神真楊流, Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū), meaning "Divine True Willow School", can be classified as a traditional school (koryū) of jujutsu.
> 
> ...


now youve posted two things that disagree with each other

how do you know which to believe ?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I have to ask, what is the self defense/fighting benefit of learning a martial art like this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is definitely valid martial material (both concepts and techniques) encoded in that highly stylized and formalized presentation. The real world application would obviously look significantly different.

The presenters demonstrated actual skill in the presentation of that encoded material. I don't know whether they can actually fight - that depends on what sort of training they have done besides that stylized, formalized demonstration format. However if you gave me a practitioner who could demonstrate that level of movement skill but didn't know how to fight then I could teach them how to fight effectively much more quickly than I could a typical untrained beginner. (Conversely if an instructor in that school was willing to share their knowledge with me, I bet I could pull out something of value which I could use to improve my game. I've found that lots of schools have lost essential elements of fighting training but still retain some valuable gems which can be applied effectively by someone who does understand how to fight.)


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There is definitely valid martial material (both concepts and techniques) encoded in that highly stylized and formalized presentation. The real world application would obviously look significantly different.
> 
> The presenters demonstrated actual skill in the presentation of that encoded material. I don't know whether they can actually fight - that depends on what sort of training they have done besides that stylized, formalized demonstration format. However if you gave me a practitioner who could demonstrate that level of movement skill but didn't know how to fight then I could teach them how to fight effectively much more quickly than I could a typical untrained beginner. (Conversely if an instructor in that school was willing to share their knowledge with me, I bet I could pull out something of value which I could use to improve my game. I've found that lots of schools have lost essential elements of fighting training but still retain some valuable gems which can be applied effectively by someone who does understand how to fight.)



This seems more like a potential of fighting ability from someone who already knows how to fight from an outside source. What about someone whose only exposure to martial arts is something like this (a kata-based MA system)? Could they be a competent fighter or defend themselves in a competent manner?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> This seems more like a potential of fighting ability from someone who already knows how to fight from an outside source. What about someone whose only exposure to martial arts is something like this (a kata-based MA system)? Could they be a competent fighter or defend themselves in a competent manner?


I assume you mean any outside source, whether another martial art or real life fighting experience.

If they only do the kata and don’t have other elements in their training then I certainly wouldn’t count on it. I see some good stuff in their movement, but that doesn’t mean they have all the necessary pieces of the puzzle.

(Just to be clear, I’m speaking only to your hypothetical. I don’t know what kind of training Tenjin Shinyo Ryu does behind closed doors and I don’t know what additional background any of those individuals might have.)

BTW, I see a much higher quality of movement in the video you posted than in the one db posted with the pseudo-Japanese Jujutsu. I bet I could get one of those Tenjin Shinyo Ryu guys up to speed on actual fighting skill (if they don’t already have it) faster than the Kinjite guy.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 18, 2020)

Tenjin Shinyo ryu includes randori in their training, AFAIK.  They also practice Kodokan Judo alongside their Jujutsu.  The late shihan of the school Kubota sensei was also 8th dan Judo, and regularly taught seminars at the Kodokan.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Tenjin Shinyo ryu includes randori in their training, AFAIK.  They also practice Kodokan Judo alongside their Jujutsu.  The late shihan of the school Kubota sensei was also 8th dan Judo, and regularly taught seminars at the Kodokan.



Yeah, but when you say “randori” what type of randori is it? Is it more like Judo randori or Aikido randori? If it’s like the latter, it doesn’t mean much.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 18, 2020)

In the mid 1960's there was a judo school near me.  That was the popular TMA at that time and in previous years.  I was going to join, but before I got around to it, it closed up, so I joined a karate school a couple of blocks away.  Soon afterwards, that ex-judo school became Joe Lewis' karate school.  Karate grew while judo shrank.  Then Bruce Lee and "Kung Fu" TV show hit and kung fu began its growth.  All this while TKD invaded the USA.

The community college had a jujitsu class ran by a tough, little, hard-a** former All Japan JuJitsu champion, Sensei Seki.  He was very old school.  My first couple of months consisted of throwing myself into the air and slamming into the mat at various angles. This activity was not destined to take over.  My commitment to karate was thus firmly reinforced.  But I diverge from my soon to be made point.

Full contact karate/kick boxing made its mark in the late 70's. Then MMA came on the scene and Gracie's BJJ appeared and became the golden art.  Boxing's popularity ebbed and flowed, depending on if any superstars caught our attention.  Now, the MA world is a goulash or buffet of many arts and combinations.

JJJ, a 400 ? year old TMA, always had a small following here.  BJJ, a recent art, I think owes its popularity due to its incorporation in MMA.  Who knows what will be the next "hot" MA?


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but when you say “randori” what type of randori is it? Is it more like Judo randori or Aikido randori? If it’s like the latter, it doesn’t mean much.



Like Judo randori is what I mean.

You do realise where bjj came from right?  And where Judo came from?

Kinda odd that you would be championing the effectiveness of an art that got it's technical base from another art you dismiss as 'performance art' and 'dress up'.

It's clear that you don't actually know the first thing about the classical arts - why do you think you are in a position to describe what they are or aren't?  And do you really think that your characterisations have not been incredibly insulting?  What to you think of people who jokingly dismiss bjj with homophobic quips?  Clever and accurate, or juvenile and ignorant?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 18, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Tenjin Shinyo ryu includes randori in their training, AFAIK.  They also practice Kodokan Judo alongside their Jujutsu.  The late shihan of the school Kubota sensei was also 8th dan Judo, and regularly taught seminars at the Kodokan.


Ah, that would help explain some of the quality of their movement. From what I’ve observed practitioners at schools which never do randori tend to start letting little flaws skip into their grappling technique because they don’t develop a realistic  awareness of how an opponent’s body will react. If the Tenjin Shinyo Ryu guys never did randori then I was prepared to be impressed at how well they had maintained the proper body dynamics.


----------



## Buka (Oct 18, 2020)

This is an interesting .


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Like Judo randori is what I mean.



Do you have any evidence of this beyond one of the grandmasters having a high rank in Judo? Judo randori works because there's no strikes or weapon use. I highly doubt that a Jujutsu that utilizes those things would utilize a randori similar to Judo.



> You do realise where bjj came from right?  And where Judo came from?
> 
> Kinda odd that you would be championing the effectiveness of an art that got it's technical base from another art you dismiss as 'performance art' and 'dress up'.



You do realize that Tenshin Shinyo Ryu isn't the only base of Judo right? Kano also studied Kito Ryu, various other Jujutsu, and western wrestling. Further, he HEAVILY modified the techniques he picked up from those Jujutsu schools when he created his system. But yeah, thanks for the reminder.



> It's clear that you don't actually know the first thing about the classical arts - why do you think you are in a position to describe what they are or aren't?  And do you really think that your characterisations have not been incredibly insulting?  What to you think of people who jokingly dismiss bjj with homophobic quips?  Clever and accurate, or juvenile and ignorant?



Why? Because I said those classical Jujutsu pretty much amounts to dress up and pretend? Why do you think Kano created Judo in the first place? It was to modernize Jujutsu which was already becoming obsolete by the late 19th century, and is even more obsolete now. I get it, people like Japanese culture, and the samurai and the weaponry, etc. However, let's not act like it's anything then what it actually is.

Doing a classical Japanese jujutsu is no different than people dressing up as knights or pikemen and playing around with medieval European weapons and tactics and participating in renaissance fairs, or doing HEMA and jousting. That is simply the reality. You're not beating a skilled fighter hand to hand with that stuff, and your katana or naginata isn't going to do much good against a hand gun or even a taser. If you wanted to learn how to fight, you'd be taking up a competitive with some actual fighting in it. If you wanted to learn how to use weapons, you'd buy a gun and go to a range, or you'd pick up some knives and learn some Filipino knife arts. So yeah, you're doing it to play pretend, unless you're Japanese and you're doing it to preserve your culture/heritage.

If you think the truth is an insult, that's your problem.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 18, 2020)

lklawson said:


> MMA as a spectator sport seems to have more mind-share/market penetration than Collegiate Wrestling but less than Boxing.  It's televised on sports channels, of course.  I have friends who never trained a day of martial arts who are, nonetheless, MMA "fans."  But they're pretty rare.
> 
> I agree with you that the average person has no clue what BJJ is.



Based on reports/research that I have come across through the years, MMA was (at the time when UFC was at its peak) the fastest growing SPECTATOR sport.  Most of its fans are the same crowd as WWE.  This is different from NHB in its early days when most people who watched UFC and other competitions were martial artists (including combat sports as well).

About 5 years ago, a Brazilian exchange student was at our house visiting our daughter and other friends.  I asked him about BJJ and he had no clue what I was even talking about.  When I described the martial art, he responded, "Oh like Tae Kwon Do".  Another Brazilian informed me that only the punks/gang members took that art.  

I agree that the average person has no real clue what most martial arts are, and clump them together based on their knowledge of one.  For example, all arts are "karate" or "judo" no matter what they really are.

The other thing that the article and OP seem to miss is that people study arts for different reasons and not all of them have to do with just learning to fight.  Some people love the methodology and connection to a long tradition and will always gravitate to JJJ.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Do you have any evidence of this beyond one of the grandmasters having a high rank in Judo? Judo randori works because there's no strikes or weapon use. I highly doubt that a Jujutsu that utilizes those things would utilize a randori similar to Judo.



Evidence of what?  I'm telling you they do randori.  What you choose to imagine that means is your business.  Who said anything about strikes or weapon use?



Hanzou said:


> Doing a classical Japanese jujutsu is no different than people dressing up as knights or pikemen and playing around with medieval European weapons and tactics and participating in renaissance fairs, or doing HEMA and jousting. That is simply the reality.



No, that's your ignorant assessment, as someone with no knowledge of what classical Japanese jujutsu really is.  By way of correction, you have had several active koryu jujutsu practitioners repeatedly tell you that you are both wrong and insulting with that description.  But perhaps you're just too lacking in reading comprehension to understand that, so I'll spell out the distinction for you.

People who "dress up as knights or pikemen and playing around with medieval European weapons and participating in renaissance fairs" are by definition "playing around".  These people are not practicing martial arts, and don't claim to be.  They have no connection to the warfare or weapons they are "playing with" and in the example you describe, typically have little actual knowledge of medieval warfare outside of what they have read in books or manuscripts.  HEMA is by definition reconstructed.

The koryu are martial arts with a direct connection to the time when they were actually used in war.  They claim to be martial arts, teaching martial skills that have been obsolete for centuries.  Trying to diminish or dismiss them by pointing out that they are obsolete is just weird. 

The fact that you seem to have a problem with other cultures dressing differently is similarly weird and has nothing to do with anything.  Using insulting characterisations as you have reflects poorly on you, not the arts or practitioners you immaturely attack.  As I said before.






Hanzou said:


> You're not beating a skilled fighter hand to hand with that stuff, and your katana or naginata isn't going to do much good against a hand gun or even a taser. If you wanted to learn how to fight, you'd be taking up a competitive with some actual fighting in it. If you wanted to learn how to use weapons, you'd buy a gun and go to a range, or you'd pick up some knives and learn some Filipino knife arts. So yeah, you're doing it to play pretend, unless you're Japanese and you're doing it to preserve your culture/heritage.
> 
> If you think the truth is an insult, that's your problem.



If you think your opinions as stated above are 'truths' then I can see I'm wasting my time talking to you.  Your inability to distinguish your own personal biases from objective reality is disheartening.  But then "I should of known better" hey?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 18, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Evidence of what?  I'm telling you they do randori.  What you choose to imagine that means is your business.  Who said anything about strikes or weapon use?



And I'm telling you that not all randori resembles Judo randori. Especially when you have a MA that is largely based on Kata like Tenshin Shinyo is. Further, my research on this Jujutsu doesn't mention randori at all, so some counter-evidence would be appreciated. If you have no evidence to back up what you said earlier, just say so.



> No, that's your ignorant assessment, as someone with no knowledge of what classical Japanese jujutsu really is.  By way of correction, you have had several active koryu jujutsu practitioners repeatedly tell you that you are both wrong and insulting with that description.  But perhaps you're just too lacking in reading comprehension to understand that, so I'll spell out the distinction for you.
> 
> People who "dress up as knights or pikemen and playing around with medieval European weapons and participating in renaissance fairs" are by definition "playing around".  These people are not practicing martial arts, and don't claim to be.  They have no connection to the warfare or weapons they are "playing with" and in the example you describe, typically have little actual knowledge of medieval warfare outside of what they have read in books or manuscripts.  HEMA is by definition reconstructed.
> 
> The koryu are martial arts with a direct connection to the time when they were actually used in war.  They claim to be martial arts, teaching martial skills that have been obsolete for centuries.  Trying to diminish or dismiss them by pointing out that they are obsolete is just weird.



Of course active Koryu practitioners would say I'm wrong, yet not provide anything to show that I'm wrong. They simply don't like how I characterized what they're doing. Sure, I'll grant that people who participate in classical Japanese Jujutsu probably have more direct connection to the actual obsolete martial arts of Japan than their European counterparts (mainly because European knights became obsolete centuries before the Samurai did), but does that make what they're doing any more applicable to the modern era? In the end, you're still playing dress up, practicing a martial art relic, and indulging in a culture that you don't belong to. Like I said, if you're Japanese, wishing to sustain your cultural heritage is understandable, and if your family were samurai, I understand it even more so. People want to preserve their cultural traditions for their future generations.

However, if you're some white dude from Europe or Australia attempting to preserve a culture you don't belong to.... well I suppose we all have our interests.



> The fact that you seem to have a problem with other cultures dress differently is similarly weird and has nothing to do with anything.  Using insulting characterisations as you have reflects poorly on you, not the arts or practitioners you immaturely attack.  As I said before.



I have no idea how you got that impression from what I said.



> If you think your opinions as stated above are 'truths' then I can see I'm wasting my time talking to you.  Your inability to distinguish your own personal biases from objective reality is disheartening.  But then "I should of known better" hey?



No personal biases here my friend, only observation. Since the fighting application of these classical JJ arts are pretty close to nil the only purpose for them is dressing up, learning some Japanese culture, and getting some sort of personal gratification for learning difficult pre-meiji choreography. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you don't want to be compared to a renaissance fair participant, despite the fact that you're not very different from one.

But hey, at least you look cooler.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> Based on reports/research that I have come across through the years, MMA was (at the time when UFC was at its peak) the fastest growing SPECTATOR sport.  Most of its fans are the same crowd as WWE.  This is different from NHB in its early days when most people who watched UFC and other competitions were martial artists (including combat sports as well).
> 
> About 5 years ago, a Brazilian exchange student was at our house visiting our daughter and other friends.  I asked him about BJJ and he had no clue what I was even talking about.  When I described the martial art, he responded, "Oh like Tae Kwon Do".  Another Brazilian informed me that only the punks/gang members took that art.
> 
> ...



The gracies followed a very similar path to mestre Bimba of capoeira. In that they taught their art to rich people.

Which of course wound up being a baller move.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> The koryu are martial arts with a direct connection to the time when they were actually used in war. They claim to be martial arts, teaching martial skills that have been obsolete for centuries. Trying to diminish or dismiss them by pointing out that they are obsolete is just weird.



What do you mean by a direct connection to arts used in war? For example one of our head honchos trains the ADF.

Now he trains a guy who trains a guy who trains me. And I would not say that was a direct connection.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> And I'm telling you that not all randori resembles Judo randori.



What does that have to do with anything?  



Hanzou said:


> Of course active Koryu practitioners would say I'm wrong, yet not provide anything to show that I'm wrong. They simply don't like how I characterized what they're doing. Sure, I'll grant that people who participate in classical Japanese Jujutsu probably have more direct connection to the actual obsolete martial arts of Japan than their European counterparts (mainly because European knights became obsolete centuries before the Samurai did), but does that make what they're doing any more applicable to the modern era? In the end, you're still playing dress up, practicing a martial art relic, and indulging in a culture that you don't belong to. Like I said, if you're Japanese, wishing to sustain your cultural heritage is understandable, and if your family were samurai, I understand it even more so. People want to preserve their cultural traditions for their future generations.
> 
> However, if you're some white dude from Europe or Australia attempting to preserve a culture you don't belong to.... well I suppose we all have our interests.



Are you preserving Brazilian culture in doing bjj?  Are you playing dress up when you do gi bjj?

I just don't understand again, where you get the idea that your opinion matters, when you have admitted yourself that you don't know what you're talking about.



Hanzou said:


> I have no idea how you got that impression from what I said.



I got that impression because you have steadfastly insisted that because koryu practitioners wear hakama when training, that they are 'playing dress up'.  You somehow miss the irony that in bjj you wear keikogi also.. so.. YOU are also just playing dress up right?

Perhaps if you would like to clarify what exactly it is you mean, and then there would be no misunderstanding right?  Beyond wearing different training clothes, what do you mean by 'playing dress up'?



Hanzou said:


> No personal biases here my friend, only observation. Since the fighting application of these classical JJ arts are pretty close to nil the only purpose for them is dressing up, learning some Japanese culture, and getting some sort of personal gratification for learning difficult pre-meiji choreography. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you don't want to be compared to a renaissance fair participant, despite the fact that you're not very different from one.
> 
> But hey, at least you look cooler.



No personal biases?  As I said, this is clearly just a waste of time.  Critical thinking is not something taught to people these days.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> No personal biases here my friend, only observation. Since the fighting application of these classical JJ arts are pretty close to nil the only purpose for them is dressing up, learning some Japanese culture, and getting some sort of personal gratification for learning difficult pre-meiji choreography.



One last question.  What experience fighting with weapons do you have to make such an assessment?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> One last question.  What experience fighting with weapons do you have to make such an assessment?




Wait a second. What experience fighting with weapons does anyone have?


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Wait a second. What experience fighting with weapons does anyone have?



Exactly.  That's kinda the point of learning from schools which were created and continued by people who did.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Wait a second. What experience fighting with weapons does anyone have?



I've had a knife pulled on me three times. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It may not be super common, but it's also certainly not unheard of.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've had a knife pulled on me three times. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It may not be super common, but it's also certainly not unheard of.



Same. But I wouldn't call myself a weapons man.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Exactly.  That's kinda the point of learning from schools which were created and continued by people who did.



Not really a fan of that concept.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> What does that have to do with anything?



You said that this classical JJ style had randori in it that resembles Judo. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of this, because everything I've read about this system shows that it's almost entirely based on various forms of kata.




> Are you preserving Brazilian culture in doing bjj?  Are you playing dress up when you do gi bjj?



I do Brazilian Jiujitsu for self defense. I wear a gi to both denote rank, and to learn how to utilize certain grips when grappling. In all honesty though, I prefer no-gi Bjj do to the wear and tear gi grips can cause to the hands.



> I just don't understand again, where you get the idea that your opinion matters, when you have admitted yourself that you don't know what you're talking about.



Saying that you're playing dress up isn't an opinion. You're wearing a traditional outfit, you're learning Japanese, you're doing various ceremonies and rituals, you're doing choreographed movements based on combat scenarios from feudal Japan, you're utilizing obsolete and outdated weapons and fighting tactics, etc. Where's the lie? What makes you any different than a historical reenactor?



> I got that impression because you have steadfastly insisted that because koryu practitioners wear hakama when training, that they are 'playing dress up'.  You somehow miss the irony that in bjj you wear keikogi also.. so.. YOU are also just playing dress up right?



Again, our uniform serves a purpose when we're fighting, and our martial art is designed for modern self defense. In addition some Bjj schools don't use the gi at all. So no, it's not even close to the same thing.



> Perhaps if you would like to clarify what exactly it is you mean, and then there would be no misunderstanding right?  Beyond wearing different training clothes, what do you mean by 'playing dress up'?



See above.



BrendanF said:


> One last question.  What experience fighting with weapons do you have to make such an assessment?



I've been around guns my entire life, and I learned to shoot when I was very young by my grandfather (though I currently don't own a firearm). I also own a katana (bought it from a nice old Asian lady at a flea market some years back). Finally I was attacked by an assailant wielding a hammer.

However, why would I need to be well versed in weaponry to say that a medieval sword or a polearm are obsolete weapons? That's sort of common sense.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Same. But I wouldn't call myself a weapons man.



OK, but your post wasn't very clear then. How many times do you need to be attacked with a knife before it counts as "having experience"?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

@BrendanF this is the type of randori that would more than likely be found in that classical JJ;






And that is nothing like Judo randori, or Bjj rolling. In fact, it is a far less reliable training tool.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You said that this classical JJ style had randori in it that resembles Judo. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of this, because everything I've read about this system shows that it's almost entirely based on various forms of kata.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the outfit is a bogus point to be honest you have to wear something, if your outfit is designed for your art and you've bought it specially, then its exactly the same, you cant really wear it on a night out, most sports have uniforms, the squash club wouldn't let me play in jeans and outdoor shoes, the pool team insist on smart pants and a polo shirt, you go, you wear the uniform

i turn up for karate in combats and a sweat shirt which i already own, which is probably false economy as i keep wrecking sweat shirts, and it would certainly be cheaper to to wear a gi, but then id have to change before i went home, so swings and roundabouts


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> It's an oft-cited reason... however BJJ's "effectiveness in self defence" is demonstrated/marketed through it's competitive side... that's really where the reputation and image comes from. Claiming one context when really demonstrating another. Now, that's not an issue... the conflation of the two contexts into one image is not uncommon, nor is it poorly done. Is it incorrect, or misleading? Yeah, it is... but not in a way that is overly meaningful to most.


To be honest, it's fairly common, at least in Western culture.  If you look at old Boxing manuals from the early 20th C. and earlier, they're quite often self-described "art of defense" manuals, using boxing.   And then the manual goes on to describe boxing within the context of the rule set of the day.  While some of them do include some instruction on foul and illegal techniques "wink wink nudge nudge," the gist of it was to rules-legal boxing.

It also wasn't particularly rare to have one manual with sections on Boxing, Wrestling, and Fencing.




Physical Culture and Self Defense by lklawson



The Science of Self Defense by lklawson



Fencing, Boxing, and Wrestling, 1897 by lklawson

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> the outfit is a bogus point to be honest you have to wear something, if your outfit is designed for your art and you've bought it specially, then its exactly the same, you cant really wear it on a night out, most sports have uniforms, the squash club wouldn't let me play in jeans and outdoor shoes



Not really. The sleeve grips and collar chokes are extremely useful self defense skills picked up from utilizing the gi. I've been able to control people by simply using the sleeve grip.

That said, No-gi is also very good because it provides training in more universal grips, and buying a rash guard and some sweat pants/shorts is far cheaper than a Bjj gi.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There is definitely valid martial material (both concepts and techniques) encoded in that highly stylized and formalized presentation. The real world application would obviously look significantly different.
> 
> The presenters demonstrated actual skill in the presentation of that encoded material. I don't know whether they can actually fight - that depends on what sort of training they have done besides that stylized, formalized demonstration format. However if you gave me a practitioner who could demonstrate that level of movement skill but didn't know how to fight then I could teach them how to fight effectively much more quickly than I could a typical untrained beginner. (Conversely if an instructor in that school was willing to share their knowledge with me, I bet I could pull out something of value which I could use to improve my game. I've found that lots of schools have lost essential elements of fighting training but still retain some valuable gems which can be applied effectively by someone who does understand how to fight.)


It's hard to tell much from "snapshots" like this.  Most people will admit that Judoka have a pretty good foundation for fighting but if you look at videos of the kata they do (Nage No Kata, Ju No Kata, etc.) and see how stylized it looks, well, based on just that a lot of people would dismiss Judo pretty much out of hand.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> It's hard to tell much from "snapshots" like this.  Most people will admit that Judoka have a pretty good foundation for fighting but if you look at videos of the kata they do (Nage No Kata, Ju No Kata, etc.) and see how stylized it looks, well, based on just that a lot of people would dismiss Judo pretty much out of hand.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



No you wouldn't, because it's pretty easy to find examples of Judo randori, and Judo being used in a self defense/fighting context.

Not so much the case with classical JJ.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Not really. The sleeve grips and collar chokes are extremely useful self defense skills picked up from utilizing the gi. I've been able to control people by simply using the sleeve grip.
> 
> That said, No-gi is also very good because it provides training in more universal grips, and buying a rash guard and some sweat pants/shorts is far cheaper than a Bjj gi.


 i dont understand your point, you have a special uniform that you wear, at least sometimes for ma, that exactly the same as the people your criticising, for having a special uniform to train in.

all sports have a uniform either by rules or by practicality, commonly both


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Do you have any evidence of this beyond one of the grandmasters having a high rank in Judo? Judo randori works because there's no strikes or weapon use. I highly doubt that a Jujutsu that utilizes those things would utilize a randori similar to Judo.


You think there are no strikes in Judo randori?  hahahahahahahaha

There's plenty of close-lining and "accidents."  There's a whole meta-art of slipping in strikes that the ref will accept as normal contact.  Some of my favorites are elbows and shoulders while turning in for a hip toss.  And that's just when atemi is technically illegal, never mind if you find an instructor who actually teaches atemi and atemi waza.

Son, you really need to stop.  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> i dont understand your point, you have a special uniform that you wear, at least sometimes for ma, that exactly the same as the people your criticising, for having a special uniform to train in.
> 
> all sports have a uniform either by rules or by practicality, commonly both



Except Classical JJ isn't a sport.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> No you wouldn't, because it's pretty easy to find examples of Judo randori, and Judo being used in a self defense/fighting context.
> 
> Not so much the case with classical JJ.


have you considered that the rarity may be because not many people do it and those that do are middle aged and so less likely to be  in the sort of places anyway


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You think there are no strikes in Judo randori?  hahahahahahahaha
> 
> There's plenty of close-lining and "accidents."  There's a whole meta-art of slipping in strikes that the ref will accept as normal contact.  Some of my favorites are elbows and shoulders while turning in for a hip toss.  And that's just when atemi is technically illegal, never mind if you find an instructor who actually teaches atemi and atemi waza.
> 
> Son, you really need to stop.  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."



So the fact that you sneak in strikes either under the nose of a ref, or because your instructor wants to teach dirty stuff, or because you want to show how much of a bada$$ you are means that Judo randori has strikes? That's no different than me jamming my elbow into the neck of my partner when I enter side control or head butt someone when I go in for an ezekiel choke while in mount. Me being an *** to my training partner or a dirty competitor doesn't mean that Bjj or Judo contains strikes when rolling/randori.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Except Classical JJ isn't a sport.


well that really demands that you give a commonly accepted definition of sport that excludes it


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> What do you mean by a direct connection to arts used in war?


Like Boxing and Judo?






JNC: Boxing for Beginners: Jacomb











Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> No you wouldn't, because it's pretty easy to find examples of Judo randori, and Judo being used in a self defense/fighting context.
> 
> Not so much the case with classical JJ.


Quiet son.  Go sit down, the grown-ups are talking.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So the fact that you sneak in strikes either under the nose of a ref, or because your instructor wants to teach dirty stuff, or because you want to show how much of a bada$$ you are means that Judo randori has strikes? That's no different than me jamming my elbow into the neck of my partner when I enter side control or head butt someone when I go in for an ezekiel choke while in mount. Me being an *** to my training partner or a dirty competitor doesn't mean that Bjj or Judo contains strikes when rolling/randori.


No.  It means that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well that really demands that you give a commonly accepted definition of sport that excludes it



Classical JJ exponents would get pissy if you call what they do a sport.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No.  It means that you don't know what you're talking about.



Says the guy who says there's strikes in Judo randori, and in the exact same sentence says they're illegal.....


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Classical JJ exponents would get pissy if you call what they do a sport.


im not at this moment interested in your mind reading powers

really i want you to provided a commonly accepted definition of sport that backs up your claim the cjj is not a sport


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> im not at this moment interested in your mind reading powers
> 
> really i want you to provided a commonly accepted definition of sport that backs up your claim the cjj is not a sport



I would imagine it would be because they don't compete. It's rather difficult to be considered a sport if there's no competitive aspect.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Says the guy who says there's strikes in Judo randori, and in the exact same sentence says they're illegal.....


And the fact that you don't understand it only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.  That's the point.  You are making pronouncements and blathering on about stuff that you have less than even a superficial understanding of.

Here's a hint.  You watching some youtube videos about "Japanese ju jutsu" doesn't make you an expert on the topic any more than watching porn makes a virgin an expert on sex.

This is where you start bragging about your great exploits and conquests.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I would imagine it would be because they don't compete. It's rather difficult to be considered a sport if there's no competitive aspect.


so is that you taking a wild guess or some secret definition your not prepared to share, lots of thing that do have a competitive aspect are not classed as sport, poker and darts for two, so that cant be the defining aspect can it

its a commonly accepted definition thats required, otherwise just say its your opinion and not an actual fact and we can move on


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> And the fact that you don't understand it only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.  That's the point.  You are making pronouncements and blathering on about stuff that you have less than even a superficial understanding of.



The fact that you contradicted yourself in your own post in an asinine attempt to prove me wrong invalidates your entire statement here. However, let's try this again; there are no strikes in Judo randori. You doing them in an underhanded manner doesn't disprove that fact. Just like me jamming an elbow into my partner's throat while in side control doesn't disprove the fact that there is no striking in Bjj rolling either. The fact that you seemingly don't understand this is quite telling.



> Here's a hint.  You watching some youtube videos about "Japanese ju jutsu" doesn't make you an expert on the topic any more than watching porn makes a virgin an expert on sex.



Where did I ever say I was an "expert" on Japanese Jujutsu? Also please keep the discussion of sex to yourself.



> This is where you start talking about your great exploits and conquests.



Uh What?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> let's try this again;


Don't bother.  Your fact-free and understanding-free claims don't interest me.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> so is that you taking a wild guess or some secret definition your not prepared to share, lots of thing that do have a competitive aspect are not classed as sport, poker and darts for two, so that cant be the defining aspect can it



Poker and darts are classed as sports dude.



> its a commonly accepted definition thats required, otherwise just say its your opinion and not an actual fact and we can move on



You mean a commonly accepted definition like something that requires a competition between individuals or groups?


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Poker and darts are classed as sports dude.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a commonly accepted definition like something that requires a competition between an individual or group?


the nature of commonly accepted mean one you haven't just made

you know, an authoritative body, the Olympics association, a court of law that sort of thing

nb the Olympic association said darts was not a sport and the English courts said that poker was not


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> you know, a dictionary or the Olympics association, a court of law that sort of thing



You mean like this;

sport

1.
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team *competes* against another or others for entertainment.

from the online dictionary on google that you can easily access yourself which pretty much said what I stated about 10 posts ago?


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You mean like this;
> 
> sport
> 
> ...


thats 1.1 which leads me to suspect that there are other definitions that you have elected to suppress, perhaps a link

if we take that a face value then a game of soccer played in the freezing rain that no body finds entertaining would not be classed as a sport


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> @BrendanF this is the type of randori that would more than likely be found in that classical JJ;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not randori. That is the randori no kata from Shodokan aikido, a kata that contains the techniques allowed in competition. And aikido is a gendai budo, not classical JJ.






The techniques are used consistently in competition.






Again, assuming that you're not deforming facts on purpose (BTW judo has the same exact thing, also called randori no kata), it's clear that you're talking about things that you don't understand.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Again, assuming that you're not deforming facts on purpose (BTW judo has the same exact thing, also called randori no kata), it's clear that you're talking about things that you don't understand.


That's been pretty standard of him in this thread. 

Pretty much the only reason I'm still monitoring this thread is because Tony and Chris are in it and they always have something useful to listen to.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats 1.1 which leads me to suspect that there are other definitions that you have elected to suppress, perhaps a link
> 
> if we take that a face value then a game of soccer played in the freezing rain that no body finds entertaining would not be classed as a sport


here the oxford english


Hanzou said:


> You mean like this;
> 
> sport
> 
> ...


here is the oxford english bdef
a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job:
Football, basketball, and hockey are all team sports.
I enjoy winter sports like skiing and skating.
[ U ] UK
all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment:
She used to do/play a lot of sport when she was younger.

and before you say you dont care about english english

here is Websters defintion

noun
Definition of _sport_ (Entry 2 of 3)

1a: a source of diversion : RECREATION
b: sexual play
c(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure
(2): a particular activity (such as an athletic game) so engaged in
2a: PLEASANTRY, JEST
b: often mean-spirited jesting : MOCKERY, DERISION


so as they are the most authoritative source on English and american English , those are the commonly accepted 
definitions

you need to rebut those


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> That's not randori. That is the randori no kata from Shodokan aikido, a kata that contains the techniques allowed in competition. And aikido is a gendai budo, not classical JJ.
> 
> Again, assuming that you're not deforming facts on purpose (BTW judo has the same exact thing, also called randori no kata), it's clear that you're talking about things that you don't understand.



I said that's the type of randori that they would do, if they would do a randori at all. I'm well aware that Aikido isn't a Classical JJ. The point is that Brendan stated that Tenshin Shinyo Ryu had randori like Judo, and in absence of his evidence to support that claim, I posted that response.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 19, 2020)

Without any evidence to support your claim, and without any knowledge whatsoever of the system you're talking about.

What is your basis to say that the randori in TSR is similar to the Shodokan kata that you mentioned?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You think there are no strikes in Judo randori?  hahahahahahahaha
> 
> There's plenty of close-lining and "accidents."  There's a whole meta-art of slipping in strikes that the ref will accept as normal contact.  Some of my favorites are elbows and shoulders while turning in for a hip toss.  And that's just when atemi is technically illegal, never mind if you find an instructor who actually teaches atemi and atemi waza.
> 
> Son, you really need to stop.  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."


I figured out a long time ago that just because a given combat sport doesn't allow certain moves doesn't necessarily mean competitors in that sport don't know how to use those moves. What it may mean is that they know how to use those moves in such a way that the ref doesn't see it and penalize them.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Without any evidence to support your claim, and without any knowledge whatsoever of the system you're talking about.
> 
> What is your basis to say that the randori in TSR is similar to the Shodokan kata that you mentioned?



I think you should follow the line of discussion between myself and the other poster before you make such claims. Brendan stated that this CJJ had randori like Judo. I've been asking him to verify that for multiple posts, since based on what I've read, Tenshin Shinyo Ryu contains no randori at all. Finally, I posted that *IF* TSRJ had randori, it would more than likely resemble the video I posted.

I'm still waiting for Brendan to get back to me. Based on everything I've read and seen on the art, I'm leaning towards no randori in TSRJ. Which further removes it from being a "combative" martial art, and moves it closer to what I like to call "renaissance fair Jujutsu".


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I figured out a long time ago that just because a given combat sport doesn't allow certain moves doesn't necessarily mean competitors in that sport don't know how to use those moves. What it may mean is that they know how to use those moves in such a way that the ref doesn't see it and penalize them.


There's a subtlety to it which is just lost on some people.

Same goes for Boxing and Wrestling.  I haven't seen too many pure BJJ matches but I'm assuming that the same is true there.  One of my current Black Belts in Judo is a Brown in BJJ.  Does some teaching.  I'll discuss it with him tonight.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think you should follow the line of discussion between myself and the other poster before you make such claims. Brendan stated that this CJJ had randori like Judo. I've been asking him to verify that for multiple posts, since *based on what I've read, Tenshin Shinyo Ryu contains no randori at all*.



Where did you read that? Based on this thread, you'll forgive me for wanting a look at your source, since you have a tendency to misread/misquote them. A 5-second Google search says otherwise:



> A number of koryu ryuha still use forms of randori in their training, such as Tenjin Shinyo-ryu jujutsu, Shi Ten-ryu Kumi-uchi, Ise Jitoku Tenshin-ryu jujutsu, Takenouchi-ryu (Takeuchi-ryu) jujutsu, Sekiguchi Shinshin-ryu jujutsu, Sosuishi-ryu jujutsu, Tendo-ryu naginatajutsu, Jikishinkage-ryu naginatajutsu, Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryu kenjutsu, Owari Kan-ryu and possibly a number of lines of Shinkage-ryu heiho. [...]
> 
> The Shihanke of Tenjin Shinyo-ryu, Kubota Toshihiro sensei is not only the headmaster a jujutsu ryuha, but is also a 7th dan in Kodokan judo, teaching courses at the Kodokan building on a regular basis.



Source: Stephen Delaney, Shihan-dai, Seirenkan Dōjō Sōsuishi-ryū (posted on another forum, don't know if I can post a link here).



> RANDORI HO These techniques are also referred to, as midare keiko an older term used in Tenjin Shinyo Ryu they are applied freely at will, instead of performing agreed upon kata. There are 18 listed techniques within the training curriculum. They include techniques such as Seoi nage, Koshi nage, Juji gatame, Ude garami, Hadaka jime ,Sode guruma and so on.These 18 waza can in Randori become a million waza.



Source: 
Paul Masters, Menkyo Kaiden, _TENJIN SHINYO RYU JUJUTSU_, p. 17, available online.



> Finally, I posted that *IF* TSRJ had randori, it would more than likely resemble the video I posted.



And this is nonsense, as you don't have a single clue about TSR. You are making stuff up, again.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Where did you read that? Based on this thread, you'll forgive me for wanting a look at your source, since you have a tendency to misread/misquote them. A 5-second Google search says otherwise:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, so then we’re back to the question I asked before: Is the “randori” like Judo, like Aikido, or like kata?


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Okay, so then we’re back to the question I asked before: Is the “randori” like Judo, like Aikido, or like kata?



Besides there being absolutely no reason for randori to "be like kata", it is literally written in the post you were responding to.



> RANDORI HO These techniques are also referred to, as midare keiko an older term used in Tenjin Shinyo Ryu *they are applied freely at will, instead of performing agreed upon kata.* There are 18 listed techniques within the training curriculum. They include techniques such as Seoi nage, Koshi nage, Juji gatame, Ude garami, Hadaka jime ,Sode guruma and so on.These 18 waza can in Randori become a million waza.



By the way, where did you read that TSR had no randori, again?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Besides there being absolutely no reason for randori to "be like kata", it is literally written in the post you were responding to.



Which really doesn't help. That description could apply to what occurs in Judo and Aikido randori, yet those two martial arts do randori very differently.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 19, 2020)

Please don't move the goalposts.

It helps a lot, as it refutes both your assertions:



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> *Tenshin Shinyo Ryu contains no randori at all*





			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> *F* TSRJ had randori, it would more than likely resemble the video I posted.



For the third time, what source did you read to base your statements on?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Please don't move the goalposts.
> 
> It helps a lot, as it refutes both your assertions:



Both assertions taken way out of context. 

It's also not moving goal posts. What their form of "randori" is like was pretty much the point of that entire back and forth that you decided to jump into.



> For the third time, what source did you read to base your statements on?



Sorry, I missed the last time you asked;

Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū - Wikipedia

Particularly this quote;


> *The training methodology, as with most koryu systems, is kata based or a form of pre-arranged fighting. Students learn the specific subtleties, or the more hidden meaning of the form, through the continuous repetitions of the katas*. There are over 130 kata of this classical jujutsu, unarmed combat teaching from seated positions, standing positions, weapons defence, and also includes special healing methods and resuscitation.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, but your post wasn't very clear then. How many times do you need to be attacked with a knife before it counts as "having experience"?



You would need to be able to demonstrate that you can do it.

So if I attack you with a knife. You should be able to stop me.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You would need to be able to demonstrate that you can do it.
> 
> So if I attack you with a knife. You should be able to stop me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> the nature of commonly accepted mean one you haven't just made
> 
> you know, an authoritative body, the Olympics association, a court of law that sort of thing
> 
> nb the Olympic association said darts was not a sport and the English courts said that poker was not


Finding an accepted definition is pretty easy. You could just look for it in a dictionary or a dictionary website. Here's one: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." (Google result from Oxford Languages)


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Finding an accepted definition is pretty easy. You could just look for it in a dictionary or a dictionary website. Here's one: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." (Google result from Oxford Languages)


well since then ive quoted both the oxford and Websters that are far less prescriptive, once you actually open them and read it, something it seems youve failed to do here


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well since then ive quoted both the oxford and Websters that are far less prescriptive, once you actually open them and read it, something it seems youve failed to do here


That was the entirety of the primary definition. The others were for different usages that don't apply. But apparently you know what was on the web page I read, even though you didn't read it.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Finding an accepted definition is pretty easy. You could just look for it in a dictionary or a dictionary website. Here's one: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." (Google result from Oxford Languages)



My friend, there's really no point in wasting your time explaining the definition of something as elementary as sport to someone who is purposely being obtuse.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> To be honest, it's fairly common, at least in Western culture.  If you look at old Boxing manuals from the early 20th C. and earlier, they're quite often self-described "art of defense" manuals, using boxing.   And then the manual goes on to describe boxing within the context of the rule set of the day.  While some of them do include some instruction on foul and illegal techniques "wink wink nudge nudge," the gist of it was to rules-legal boxing.
> 
> It also wasn't particularly rare to have one manual with sections on Boxing, Wrestling, and Fencing.
> 
> ...



Exept we find more boxing or BJJ used in the context of self defence than most other martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> My friend, there's really no point in wasting your time explaining the definition of something as elementary as sport to someone who is purposely being obtuse.


As I told Steve the other day, it's a way to pass the time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There is definitely valid martial material (both concepts and techniques) encoded in that highly stylized and formalized presentation. The real world application would obviously look significantly different.
> 
> The presenters demonstrated actual skill in the presentation of that encoded material. I don't know whether they can actually fight - that depends on what sort of training they have done besides that stylized, formalized demonstration format. However if you gave me a practitioner who could demonstrate that level of movement skill but didn't know how to fight then I could teach them how to fight effectively much more quickly than I could a typical untrained beginner. (Conversely if an instructor in that school was willing to share their knowledge with me, I bet I could pull out something of value which I could use to improve my game. I've found that lots of schools have lost essential elements of fighting training but still retain some valuable gems which can be applied effectively by someone who does understand how to fight.)


Agreed. I think that - used well - those stylized drills force the practitioner to focus on specific principles. I feel like they get too much attention in some schools (and maybe entire styles), but they're just a different kind of drill. Like any drill, there can be positives and negatives. Like any drill, if they're the only way you approach a technique, your skills will be shallow, in my opinion. And like many other drills, the movements sometimes translate to situations that are barely similar, if you understand the principles.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think that - used well - those stylized drills force the practitioner to focus on specific principles. I feel like they get too much attention in some schools (and maybe entire styles), but they're just a different kind of drill. Like any drill, there can be positives and negatives. Like any drill, if they're the only way you approach a technique, your skills will be shallow, in my opinion. And like many other drills, the movements sometimes translate to situations that are barely similar, if you understand the principles.



The issue is without seeing the randori it is hard to tell.

It is like watching John wick to decide if keanu reeves can fight.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think that - used well - those stylized drills force the practitioner to focus on specific principles. I feel like they get too much attention in some schools (and maybe entire styles), but they're just a different kind of drill. Like any drill, there can be positives and negatives. Like any drill, if they're the only way you approach a technique, your skills will be shallow, in my opinion. And like many other drills, the movements sometimes translate to situations that are barely similar, if you understand the principles.


I've said many times that I believe Judo's Nage No Kata is designed to teach one or two important principles about each throw.  It doesn't really matter if it looks stylized or not as long as you learn the lesson intended to be imparted.  But now Nage No Kata is a competition kata, which I believe emphasizes the stylized feel and competitors too interested in the competition element could lose sight of the lesson they're supposed to learn.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The issue is without seeing the randori it is hard to tell.
> 
> It is like watching John wick to decide if keanu reeves can fight.


Agreed. I try to reserve my opinion on someone's overall fighting ability, rather than judge it from a video of some drill. They may be great at the drill, but bad at application of those skills to a dynamic situation with a resisting opponent. Or they may be awful at that drill, but really good at other fighting skills (like someone who is a beginner in a new system, but has meaningful background somewhere else).


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The issue is without seeing the randori it is hard to tell.
> 
> It is like watching John wick to decide if keanu reeves can fight.



Exactly, which is why the randori piece is important, and I wish I could get a definitive answer without all the snark.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I've said many times that I believe Judo's Nage No Kata is designed to teach one or two important principles about each throw.  It doesn't really matter if it looks stylized or not as long as you learn the lesson intended to be imparted.  But now Nage No Kata is a competition kata, which I believe emphasizes the stylized feel and competitors too interested in the competition element could lose sight of the lesson they're supposed to learn.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I have the same belief about the Classical Forms (short 2-man kata) found in NGA. They often are viewed as the entire foundation of the system, but I think they're just meant to build (as you said) a few principles in each technique. The rest should develop in other drills, randori, etc.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That was the entirety of the primary definition. The others were for different usages that don't apply. But apparently you know what was on the web page I read, even though you didn't read it.


here is the entire defintion from websters,

*sport*
verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
	


\ ˈspȯrt  \
sported; sporting; sports
*Definition of sport*
 (Entry 1 of 3)

intransitive verb

1a: to amuse oneself : FROLIClambs sporting in the meadow
b: to engage in a sport
2a: to mock or ridicule something
b: to speak or act in jest : TRIFLE
3[sport entry 2] : to deviate or vary abruptly from type (as by bud variation) : MUTATE
transitive verb

1: to display or wear usually ostentatiously : BOASTsporting expensive new shoes
2[sport entry 2] : to put forth as a sport or bud variation
sport

noun
Definition of _sport_ (Entry 2 of 3)

1a: a source of diversion : RECREATION
b: sexual play
c(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure
(2): a particular activity (such as an athletic game) so engaged in
2a: PLEASANTRY, JEST
b: often mean-spirited jesting : MOCKERY, DERISION
3a: something tossed or driven about in or as if in play
b: LAUGHINGSTOCK
4a: SPORTSMAN
b: a person considered with respect to living up to the ideals of sportsmanshipa good sporta poor sport
c: a companionable person
5: an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissue
sport

adjective
variants: or sports

the primary defintion is

1a: a source of diversion : RECREATION

and ignoring the one about sex
c(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> here is the entire defintion from websters,
> 
> *sport*
> verb
> ...


So, which definition fits your need?

Or were you trying to understand how it was being used?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Exactly, which is why the randori piece is important, and I wish I could get a definitive answer without all the snark.



It is intentionally concealed to maintain an image.

The idea is if you can't see it you can't make a judgement on it so therefore it is good.


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, which definition fits your need?
> 
> Or were you trying to understand how it was being used?


all of them fit my need


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is intentionally concealed to maintain an image.
> 
> The idea is if you can't see it you can't make a judgement on it so therefore it is good.



That makes sense considering that I can find no video of randori for any of these arts, but I can find plenty of video for everything else they do.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> That makes sense considering that I can find no video of randori for any of these arts, but I can find plenty of video for everything else they do.



One of the biggest driving factors for BJJ being as good as it is, is that instructors can loose fights. 

This is kind of a monumental step forward in the evolution of martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is intentionally concealed to maintain an image.
> 
> The idea is if you can't see it you can't make a judgement on it so therefore it is good.


In a lot of cases, folks only post what they think looks cool or is particularly informative to present students. And most have been in their art too long to successfully think about what an outsider might be interested in seeing to evaluate before visiting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> One of the biggest driving factors for BJJ being as good as it is, is that instructors can loose fights.
> 
> This is kind of a monumental step forward in the evolution of martial arts.


I entirely agree with this. It takes a lot to build that culture where it's okay if the instructor isn't Superman. Which is odd, because nobody would be surprised if a gymnast could out-do their coach, after a point.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> In a lot of cases, folks only post what they think looks cool or is particularly informative to present students. And most have been in their art too long to successfully think about what an outsider might be interested in seeing to evaluate before visiting.



Yes, but not a single student ever posting a randori video from any classical JJ system, in a family of systems that supposedly do randori quite often? I find that very odd. That led me to my initial conclusion that these arts are mainly kata based, and if there is randori, it's probably more along the lines of Aikido stylistically;








Instead of Judo;


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but not a single student ever posting a randori video from any classical JJ system, in a family of systems that supposedly do randori quite often? I find that very odd. That led me to my initial conclusion that these arts are mainly kata based..



They are mainly kata based.  But they also do randori.  And they also do Judo.. so why would they need to recreate the wheel there?  They can just do Judo randori if they decide that's the only thing that matters.

Just like the school I study also does Judo alongside.  But I'll leave you to tell me all about it, your expertise has so enlivened this thread.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> They are mainly kata based.  But they also do randori.  And they also do Judo.. so why would they need to recreate the wheel there?  They can just do Judo randori if they decide that's the only thing that matters.
> 
> Just like the school I study also does Judo alongside.  But I'll leave you to tell me all about it, your expertise has so enlivened this thread.



Them adding Judo to the curriculum doesn't apply to Tenjin Shinyo Ryu's randori. I already know what Judo randori looks like, I want to see what Tenjin Shinyo Ryu's randori looks like.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You would need to be able to demonstrate that you can do it.



I have. Three times. How many times do you require?


> So if I attack you with a knife. You should be able to stop me.


So you require 100% success? With how large a sample size? I keep asking, and you keep not answering.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Them adding Judo to the curriculum doesn't apply to Tenjin Shinyo Ryu's randori. I already know what Judo randori looks like, I want to see what Tenjin Shinyo Ryu's randori looks like.



Unfortunately they don't seem to think catering to your wants is a top priority.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Unfortunately they don't seem to think catering to your wants is a top priority.



Perhaps not. But what about your school? Do you have any examples of your dojo's classical Jujutsu randori? Additionally, what is the name of your style of JJJ?


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 19, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Perhaps not. But what about your school? Do you have any examples of your dojo's classical Jujutsu randori? Additionally, what is the name of your style of JJJ?



No, I don't.  I'm a beginner student of my school and certainly don't speak for it.  My guess (as an outsider, who doesn't actually know) is that Tenjin Shinyo ryu randori would look exactly like Judo randori.  But as I said I don't know.  I only know that I've been told by people who do it that they do randori.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I have. Three times. How many times do you require?
> 
> So you require 100% success? With how large a sample size? I keep asking, and you keep not answering.



I will say 80% on demand. Consistently be able to pull knives off people.

So Maby a hundred times. You can reliably get a knife off a guy.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I will say 80% on demand. Consistently be able to pull knives off people.
> 
> So Maby a hundred times. You can reliably get a knife off a guy.



And do these have to be attackers, or will you accept full on sparring, say, with rubber knives or markers or those electric knives?
And how do you arrive at those numbers? Are they based on anything, or are you just picking a number that's high enough nobody is likely to reach it, thus "supporting" your conclusion?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> And do these have to be attackers, or will you accept full on sparring, say, with rubber knives or markers or those electric knives?
> And how do you arrive at those numbers? Are they based on anything, or are you just picking a number that's high enough nobody is likely to reach it, thus "supporting" your conclusion?



Just picking a number that would be considered pretty normal for any other sort of guy.

So if say I was a wrestler. I would probably want to have successfully wrestled a fair few more than three guys before I started to bang on about it.

Look if you could pull a rubber knife off most people that would be pretty convincing.

I mean a black belt BJJer can submit most people on demand.

I have been to the strippers three times in my life. But I wouldn't class myself as a stripper guy


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> And do these have to be attackers, or will you accept full on sparring, say, with rubber knives or markers or those electric knives?
> And how do you arrive at those numbers? Are they based on anything, or are you just picking a number that's high enough nobody is likely to reach it, thus "supporting" your conclusion?



Here is an example. Lachlan guiles is a leglock guy. So i would expect to see him submitting people with leg locks.


----------



## dunc (Oct 20, 2020)

Hi

Coming to this thread late as someone who perhaps spans both the Japanese and Brazilian styles...

I tend to agree that the word jiu jitsu is becoming a short hand for BJJ
Even in Japan the word jujutsu doesn't really equate to a particular style. Technically it's a subsystem found within many smaller, localised old styles. As people have pointed out these old styles (koryu) tend to be focused on preserving the cultural traditions and are not particularly popular especially with the younger generations. Worth noting that a fair amount of (broken) judoka do migrate over to koryu to keep training as they get older
Unfortunately in the west the majority of Japanese Jujutsu schools are a hash of judo, karate and aikido which, in my view, is a shame as they miss the critical point of how the elements were originally integrated. The quality of these styles is generally pretty poor and realistically they will never compete with BJJ for the Jiu Jitsu moniker

I agree with @Tony Dismukes that BJJ risks evolving in a direction that makes it less and less applicable for self defence over time. Many academies incorporate other classes (striking, MMA etc) to provide a more holistic service for members, but many don't &/or people at these academies can just attend the BJJ sport classes
Many BJJ academies do teach the old self defence curriculum as part of the core BJJ classes. This is basically the same as the judo one (maybe a smaller number of techniques?). However, I never felt that this went far enough and, in my view, there are quite a few gaps in the execution of many of these techniques

On the other hand there are a lot of valid self defence techniques and principles to be found in the old Japanese styles. I feel that these compliment BJJ excellently, largely due to their shared history and philosophy and because they focus on the stand up self defence which is clearly not a focus for BJJ
The issue is sifting through the 1,000s of techniques to find the ones that are applicable to a modern context and then to test and refine them under pressure. Not many people are doing this, but I do feel it would be a very valuable exercise

Hope this makes sense

D


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Just picking a number that would be considered pretty normal for any other sort of guy.
> 
> So if say I was a wrestler. I would probably want to have successfully wrestled a fair few more than three guys before I started to bang on about it.
> 
> ...



OK. So I've done it three times with real knives. 100% success. OK, I did lose an eye once, but I survived. I count that as a win. I don't know how many times in practice, and I sure don't have a record of what percentage succeeded, but certainly I succeed more often than not.



> I have been to the strippers three times in my life. But I wouldn't class myself as a stripper guy



I'm not as stringent as you. I'd give you credit for being a stripper guy.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Just picking a number that would be considered pretty normal for any other sort of guy.
> 
> So if say I was a wrestler. I would probably want to have successfully wrestled a fair few more than three guys before I started to bang on about it.
> 
> ...


your  giving  a specific  hard number 80% for want you want as evidence, but then talking in generalities for your example
i could submit MOST people on demand, if most is defined as 51 %


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> No, I don't.  I'm a beginner student of my school and certainly don't speak for it.  My guess (as an outsider, who doesn't actually know) is that Tenjin Shinyo ryu randori would look exactly like Judo randori.  But as I said I don't know.  I only know that I've been told by people who do it that they do randori.



And what is the name of your Jujutsu school?

I disagree that it would look exactly like Judo randori. As shown in the gif I posted, Judo is a completely different tone to what we see in TSRJ's demonstrations. Further, Judo's randori is only that way because strikes are removed. In any case, I agree with you that like most JJJ's it is dominated by kata practice, which highly limits its capabilities as a fighting art. A fine art to pretend to be a samurai warrior on the weekends, certainly. As an art that would stop a sociopath from turning your face into hamburger meat? Not so much.

Which in turn is why the term "Jujitsu", "Jujutsu", "Jiujitsu", etc. is slowly but surely becoming associated with Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Here is an example. Lachlan guiles is a leglock guy. So i would expect to see him submitting people with leg locks.



Stuff like that is why I'm not all too worried about Bjj losing it's effectiveness via sport. That was some very impressive guard retention considering how he was being pressured, and I've never seen anyone utilize the turtle in that way to neutralize a potential back take.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I entirely agree with this. It takes a lot to build that culture where it's okay if the instructor isn't Superman. Which is odd, because nobody would be surprised if a gymnast could out-do their coach, after a point.


Kinda disagree.  Does anyone think that Cus D'mato could beat Tyson when he was coaching him?

Does ANY combat sports competitor, past children, think that their coach could beat them up?  No, of course not.  It's silly.  What you and 'bear are doing, without even realizing it, is falling into the asian martial mythos that western culture has built up since the '60s.  Sure you're rejecting it, but you assume that it was commonly believed in the first place.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> They are mainly kata based.  But they also do randori.  And they also do Judo.. so why would they need to recreate the wheel there?  They can just do Judo randori if they decide that's the only thing that matters.
> 
> Just like the school I study also does Judo alongside.  But I'll leave you to tell me all about it, your expertise has so enlivened this thread.


There's randori and then there's randori.  Last night I was just doing "light randori," not to a fall (though that happened), just to fitting in and finding the balance.  It's "free practice."  Randori is *NOT* supposed to be shiai.  Too many people confuse free practice with competition.  You don't always spar all out in boxing.  You don't always go all out in wrestling training falls.  And you don't always go all out in free practice. 

In fact, I'd argue that, in Judo at least, the point of randori is training.  The idea is to get better, not to win.  Kano argued that too much competition mindset actually harmed Judo and that too many Judoka were doing randori incorrectly; with a mind to winning instead of learning.

This seems to be a misconception that the OP has.  One of several.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I have been to the strippers three times in my life. But I wouldn't class myself as a stripper guy


But the strippers you went to would classify you as such.  They got paid.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> There's randori and then there's randori.  Last night I was just doing "light randori," not to a fall (though that happened), just to fitting in and finding the balance.  It's "free practice."  Randori is *NOT* supposed to be shiai.  Too many people confuse free practice with competition.  You don't always spar all out in boxing.  You don't always go all out in wrestling training falls.  And you don't always go all out in free practice.
> 
> In fact, I'd argue that, in Judo at least, the point of randori is training.  The idea is to get better, not to win.  Kano argued that too much competition mindset actually harmed Judo and that too many Judoka were doing randori incorrectly; with a mind to winning instead of learning.
> 
> ...



Yes, because I said that randori is ALWAYS a competition.

Oh wait, that's right, I NEVER said that. Reading is fundamental friend.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

dunc said:


> The issue is sifting through the 1,000s of techniques to find the ones that are applicable to a modern context and then to test and refine them under pressure.


Pretty much everything is applicable to a modern context because the human body hasn't changed.  It still breaks in exactly the same way now as it did 2,000 years ago.  If there is a challenge, it's knowing which techniques are applicable to any given circumstance and how to apply them within that context.  Some techniques are far easier to apply with a greater likelihood of success.  The _Term of Art_ for these has become "High Percentage Techniques."  There are other techniques which may be more difficult to apply.  And there are some techniques which apply very infrequently in a modern context.  As an extreme example, a technique for disarming a swordsman seems like it would be a pretty infrequent need.  Nevertheless there are, bizarrely, still sword attacks (though rare), and (slightly more commonly) machete attacks.  But more common still are clubs held and swung in ways analogous to a sword for which the same disarming technique may be applicable.

So pretty much every technique is still "applicable" to a modern context.  But I would recommend you try to figure out which are the most likely and common applications and study them first.  Then branch out to the ever more unlikely or esoteric.

The thing is, that this is not a particularly modern "problem."  Societies have been changing since the beginning and what worked 100 years previously, for any given society at any given time, may no longer be applicable to them.  Changing technologies, such as the introduction of bronze, or later iron, then steel, often changed which techniques were more common or applicable.  Changes in social norms or laws could change what techniques were seen as viable and which would get you ostracized or face legal repercussions.  Even differences in cultural norms from one similar culture to another often changes what techniques and strategies were likely or applicable.  For example, in German and Austrian culture, from at least  late 18th C. up until the mid-20th C., a dueling scar on the cheek, a "schmisse" was a badge of honor, mark of a brave man (and good husband material), and was absolutely required to get anywhere in a military career.  It was a badge of honor.  Conversely, in 19th C. Spanish culture (overlapping time periods), a dueling scar on the cheek was _señalada_ (a "mark"), of someone who was a scallywag, an inferior person, and a bad fighter.  It was a mark of shame.  (ref: Bowie Knife Fights, Fighters & Fighting Techniques. . .: More on Spanish Knife Culture ).  Yeah, there was a little bit of truth mixed in with the Inigo Montoya character.    But that changes how duels were fought between the two cultures.  One had duels which were custom designed to create a facial scar because the person wanted one.  The other would mark for life as a loser.

And that is just a few examples.  What about when technology or social norms changes armor and clothing.  You can see that happening in the U.S. *right now*.  Ballistic resistant body armor is becoming more common.  It started with cops in the 70's with Second Chance and has slowly progressed to where even Rent-a-Cop "Polyester Police" security guards are often required to wear it.  Right this second, body armor is one of the hottest selling products in the Firearms-for-Self-Defense community.  Websites like TacticalSh*t run specials and are often sold out.  That's changing what martial techniques are viable.  A knife-thrust to the chest is less likely to strike home; you may need to choose a different target.  It *certainly* impacted the martial use of firearms in the 70's by forcing what has become known as the Mozambique Drill (aka: "Failure to Stop Drill" or "Failure Drill").  But the funny thing is, *it's not new by any means*!  You can look at the Fechtbucks (medieval "fight manuals") and see knights fighting in armor and having to deliberately target "not the chest."  You can read accounts and material from the Napoleonic era, where breastplates were common, and see how fighters would have to deliberately target "not the chest," even with firearms of the day.  (And I've come across some wonderful information tracking the same for combat use in WWI, including military specs for ballistic resistant personal armor!)

Everything that's old is new again.  And what's "high percentage" now might not be in 50 years, or 20, or maybe not even in 10.  Society, technology, laws, and social norms are always in a state of flux.  It's not particularly hard to imagine the U.S. culture developing to regard BJJ as a "thug's pastime" and applying significant social pressure against it.  Just combine the fact that it is (from reports I've seen) often thought of in Brazil as a "thug" martial art with the social pressure associated with smoking or racism.  Et voila! 

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yes, because I said that randori is ALWAYS a competition.
> 
> Oh wait, that's right, I NEVER said that. Reading is fundamental friend.


Are you still talking?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Are you still talking?



Just correcting the BS spewed by certain posters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but not a single student ever posting a randori video from any classical JJ system, in a family of systems that supposedly do randori quite often? I find that very odd. That led me to my initial conclusion that these arts are mainly kata based, and if there is randori, it's probably more along the lines of Aikido stylistically;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's certainly possible. I think I've only ever located one example of "sparring" in NGA videos, and it was really folks trying to force techniques. I've seen actual sparring happen in schools (it was usually just strikes), but haven't seen a video of it ever. Nearly 100% of the videos posted are either the Classical Techniques (the short 2-man kata) or the "attack line" (common drill feeding an attack). That combination is probably between 10% and 50% of what time is spent on, depending upon the school and instructor, in my experience. So I assume the same level of omission is possible for videos in other styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Just picking a number that would be considered pretty normal for any other sort of guy.
> 
> So if say I was a wrestler. I would probably want to have successfully wrestled a fair few more than three guys before I started to bang on about it.
> 
> ...


I'd argue if someone is better than 50% in taking a knife away from someone who isn't drunk or clumsy and is actually trying, they're pretty danged good. If it gets to 80%, either the defender is phenomenal, or the attacker isn't really trying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Kinda disagree.  Does anyone think that Cus D'mato could beat Tyson when he was coaching him?
> 
> Does ANY combat sports competitor, past children, think that their coach could beat them up?  No, of course not.  It's silly.  What you and 'bear are doing, without even realizing it, is falling into the asian martial mythos that western culture has built up since the '60s.  Sure you're rejecting it, but you assume that it was commonly believed in the first place.
> 
> ...


Actually, that's what I was saying. In many TMA schools, where the (probably Westernized) culture of authority exists, folks tend to get the impression the instructor is some superhuman fighter, and size and strength (and youth and athleticism) don't matter. Since they came up in that culture, themselves, the instructors tend to not take chances that would allow them to be defeated. Mostly (or all) because of that mythos you speak of.

Go to a boxing gym, and folks wouldn't be terribly surprised if the best coach isn't the best fighter in the room (even if perhaps he once was). I'd guess @Tony Dismukes isn't able to best everyone he teaches in BJJ, and neither he nor the students are either surprised or concerned by that.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Just correcting the BS spewed by certain posters.


Irony.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> But the strippers you went to would classify you as such.  They got paid.



Not until they know me by name.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, that's what I was saying. In many TMA schools, where the (probably Westernized) culture of authority exists, folks tend to get the impression the instructor is some superhuman fighter, and size and strength (and youth and athleticism) don't matter. Since they came up in that culture, themselves, the instructors tend to not take chances that would allow them to be defeated. Mostly (or all) because of that mythos you speak of.
> 
> Go to a boxing gym, and folks wouldn't be terribly surprised if the best coach isn't the best fighter in the room (even if perhaps he once was). I'd guess @Tony Dismukes isn't able to best everyone he teaches in BJJ, and neither he nor the students are either surprised or concerned by that.



You also have the possibility of someone coming in from the outside and best everyone. 

Because concepts like an open mat allow for that. 

So say Lachlan guiles rolls up to the class one day on his holidays or something and leg locks everyone in the room. He would be given that opportunity to do so. 

Because it isn't that big a deal


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK. So I've done it three times with real knives. 100% success. OK, I did lose an eye once, but I survived. I count that as a win. I don't know how many times in practice, and I sure don't have a record of what percentage succeeded, but certainly I succeed more often than not.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not as stringent as you. I'd give you credit for being a stripper guy.



If you can basically do the thing on demand then you can basically do the thing. 

It is like water diviners. Ok. They have tales of street success. But put them in a room and tell them to find a bucket of water and they can't. 

So yeah for knife if you can take a rubber knife off most guys under some pretty basically realistic conditions then you could be a weapon guy.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You also have the possibility of someone coming in from the outside and best everyone.
> 
> Because concepts like an open mat allow for that.
> 
> ...


Which is perfectly fine during Open Mat but not so much during an instruction period if it wasn't a leg-lock lesson.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Pretty much everything is applicable to a modern context because the human body hasn't changed. It still breaks in exactly the same way now as it did 2,000 years ago.



That is silly. 

Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed. 

This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Which is perfectly fine during Open Mat but not so much during an instruction period if it wasn't a leg-lock lesson.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Does Japanese jujitsu do an open mat?

Basically Lachlan guiles would roll up to JJJ class and never leglock anyone. And that class would suffer for it.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> That is silly.
> 
> Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed.
> 
> This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.



Not only that, but the world has changed. We're no longer sitting in seiza sipping tea with a tanto at our side nor are we walking around next to authority figures carrying katanas. Thus there's very little application for training that revolves around those scenarios outside of cultural preservation/appropriation, or simply living out a personal samurai fantasy.


----------



## dunc (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Pretty much everything is applicable to a modern context because the human body hasn't changed.  It still breaks in exactly the same way now as it did 2,000 years ago.  If there is a challenge, it's knowing which techniques are applicable to any given circumstance and how to apply them within that context.  Some techniques are far easier to apply with a greater likelihood of success.  The _Term of Art_ for these has become "High Percentage Techniques."  There are other techniques which may be more difficult to apply.  And there are some techniques which apply very infrequently in a modern context.  As an extreme example, a technique for disarming a swordsman seems like it would be a pretty infrequent need.  Nevertheless there are, bizarrely, still sword attacks (though rare), and (slightly more commonly) machete attacks.  But more common still are clubs held and swung in ways analogous to a sword for which the same disarming technique may be applicable.
> 
> So pretty much every technique is still "applicable" to a modern context.  But I would recommend you try to figure out which are the most likely and common applications and study them first.  Then branch out to the ever more unlikely or esoteric.
> 
> ...



Hi

I don’t agree with this 100%
1. As you say there are clearly old techniques that could be adapted for modern weapons / clothing. I think it would be interesting to train the modern adaptions primarily rather than the traditional ones. This is better than, for example, training sword disarms regularly and occasionally trying to figure out how the techniques change when a sword becomes a baseball bat
2. There are quite a few movements that are foundational in some older systems, but maybe not so important for a modern context (& therefore shouldn’t be foundational any more) an example is the positioning to access (& prevent your opponent accessing) your swords. If you’re not walking around armed today then perhaps your core positioning and angling will change in order to be optimal
3. The traditional schools do not do a good job of training against “modern” strikers and grapplers. For example The core attacking (uke) strikes used in the traditional schools are not the strikes you see in say kickboxing/boxing etc. I hear the argument that a punch is a punch, but I don’t buy it. The set up, timing, rhythm etc are very, very different and that’s a pretty important thing to train against
4. The chain of transmission in traditional systems is 100% reliant on this chain working perfectly. Unfortunately life doesn’t work like that and students miss details which are then not passed onto their students and so on. So it’s conceivable that some techniques are being taught now that have mistakes in them which need to be ironed out by testing under pressure

For these kind of reasons I do feel that there are adaptions needed for the traditional systems to be optimal for today’s context

I hope this makes sense

D


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Not only that, but the world has changed. We're no longer sitting in seiza sipping tea with a tanto at our side nor are we walking around next to authority figures carrying katanas. Thus there's very little application for training that revolves around those scenarios outside of cultural preservation/appropriation, or simply living out a personal samurai fantasy.



I think defending this concept that they got it right a hundred years ago. Supports the training module of some arts.

Where I am an it either works or it doesn't kind of guy.

And there is so much more nuance between a technique that works and one that doesn't even when they look similar.

Ippon seonagi






Ippon seonagi that works.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> That is silly.
> 
> Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed.


Not particularly.  The same throws, chokes, and joint locks as before, 500 years ago or 5,000.  




Beni Hassan wrestling tomb art c. 3000 B.C. by lklawson
[Ankle Lock bottom row]





[Arm locks]





[Arm lock]





[Knee ride on back]





[Arm lock]





[Leg entanglement]





[Full Nelson]





[Front Headlock Choke]

There are thousands more, but I'm getting tired of embedding them.



> This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.


Which kata?  There are thousands of kata and hundreds of thousands of different claimed reasons for them.  It's a stupid argument.

Nope.  The same techniques that worked in day of yore still work and in the same circumstances as before.  The only question is which of those circumstances likely to happen?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Not only that, but the world has changed. We're no longer sitting in seiza sipping tea with a tanto at our side nor are we walking around next to authority figures carrying katanas. Thus there's very little application for training that revolves around those scenarios outside of cultural preservation/appropriation, or simply living out a personal samurai fantasy.


And only weird people wear wrestling singlets or kirtka on the street.  That doesn't mean wrestling and sambo don't "work."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Not particularly.  The same throws, chokes, and joint locks as before, 500 years ago or 5,000.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet 90% of submissions in MMA are.


Rear Naked Choked
Guillotine Choke
Triangle Choke
Arm Triangle Choke
Arm Bar
Not leg entanglement or a knee ride on the back. Which won't work as we have a better understanding of how to gain mechanical advantage.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

dunc said:


> Hi
> 
> I don’t agree with this 100%
> 1. As you say there are clearly old techniques that could be adapted for modern weapons / clothing. I think it would be interesting to train the modern adaptions primarily rather than the traditional ones. This is better than, for example, training sword disarms regularly and occasionally trying to figure out how the techniques change when a sword becomes a baseball bat


I don't materially disagree.  I'm just stating that there is still a place for those techniques and gave an example.



> 2. There are quite a few movements that are foundational in some older systems, but maybe not so important for a modern context (& therefore shouldn’t be foundational any more) an example is the positioning to access (& prevent your opponent accessing) your swords. If you’re not walking around armed today then perhaps your core positioning and angling will change in order to be optimal


Maybe not to you but many of those techniques for preventing someone else from accessing your sword are similar, or sometime identical, to the Weapons Retention techniques used by armed police.  So, while you may not have a particular use for a technique that prevents someone from snatching a weapon from your side, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place.



> 3. The traditional schools do not do a good job of training against “modern” strikers and grapplers. For example The core attacking (uke) strikes used in the traditional schools are not the strikes you see in say kickboxing/boxing etc. I hear the argument that a punch is a punch, but I don’t buy it. The set up, timing, rhythm etc are very, very different and that’s a pretty important thing to train against
> 
> 4. The chain of transmission in traditional systems is 100% reliant on this chain working perfectly. Unfortunately life doesn’t work like that and students miss details which are then not passed onto their students and so on. So it’s conceivable that some techniques are being taught now that have mistakes in them which need to be ironed out by testing under pressure


There's a huge discussion there.  It's probably too big for this reply but I get it.  I honestly think that a lot of it is because there are people who didn't understand the techniques but taught them anyway.  My favorite example is the standard Karate-style "high block" and "middle block."  I always believe that it was stupid and didn't "work" until I read Jack Dempsey's Championship Fighting and realized that all those Karateka had been told the wrong thing.  It's not a "chamber your limb, then block" as two movements, it's a "swat block, then riposte with a backfist."




> For these kind of reasons I do feel that there are adaptions needed for the traditional systems to be optimal for today’s context


Well, yes and no.  I mean, it's not as if the people way-back-when didn't have sticks and clubs to contend with.  We just need to take it and find where it fits in our environment.  It's not so much adaptation as just a recognition.  Just like we don't see a whole ton of foot long, needle pointed, straight daggers attacking us in an icepick grip.  Those old German deggen techniques still work just fine, we just might want to save those for later and study defense for attacks were are more likely to see today.  I mean, does anyone think that a racecar driver doesn't know how to drive "on the street" because his competitive environment is "drive fast, turn left" or that turning left has no application when he's on surface streets?

We just need to apply the techniques and strategies which are appropriate for our circumstances at the time.  Right?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think defending this concept that they got it right a hundred years ago. Supports the training module of some arts.
> 
> Where I am an it either works or it doesn't kind of guy.
> 
> ...


I've seen the classical seo work many times.  Made it work myself.  Heck, I saw it work a few times just last night.

Oh, and on that second clip, the first throw was Morote Seonage, not Ippon.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> And only weird people wear wrestling singlets or kirtka on the street.  That doesn't mean wrestling and sambo don't "work."



It's not how they're dressed, it's what they're doing. A double leg takedown in a singlet is far more practical than learning a naginata kata in a kimino and hakama.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> And yet 90% of submissions in MMA are.
> 
> 
> Rear Naked Choked
> ...


The last image was a Guillotine Choke.  Did you not actually pay attention before you hit reply?


----------



## dunc (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I don't materially disagree.  I'm just stating that there is still a place for those techniques and gave an example.
> 
> Maybe not to you but many of those techniques for preventing someone else from accessing your sword are similar, or sometime identical, to the Weapons Retention techniques used by armed police.  So, while you may not have a particular use for a technique that prevents someone from snatching a weapon from your side, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place.
> 
> ...



Probably we are in a similar place
For me it’s about 
a) allowing/embracing the evolution of techniques that clearly took place before the Meiji era
b) making sure that training time is optimised for the desired outcome (eg self defence techniques for today’s environment vs preserving lessons from the past unchanged)
c) being competent when dealing with someone from other styles


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It's not how they're dressed, it's what they're doing. A double leg takedown in a singlet is far more practical than learning a naginata kata in a kimino and hakama.


Practical for what?

That's my point.  The naginata stuff still "works."  It's just that you're a ton less likely to see a circumstance where that's needed right now.  So if you're interested primarily is self defense, maybe put off the naginata stuff for later, after you've got the most likely attacks covered.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Practical for what?



Practical for someone trying to take someone else off their feet. Wasn't that why it was banned from Judo, because it was too simple and too effective?



> That's my point.  The naginata stuff still "works."  It's just that you're a ton less likely to see a circumstance where that's needed right now.  So if you're interested primarily is self defense, maybe put off the naginata stuff for later, after you've got the most likely attacks covered.



It "works" in the sense that swinging a bladed spear will cut someone you swing it at. The problem is that the likelihood of you encountering someone wielding a Naginata, you having a Naginata on your person when someone attacks, or you being able to use a Naginata effectively against an assailant makes its usefulness pretty close to zero,


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Practical for someone trying to take someone else off their feet. Wasn't that why it was banned from Judo, because it was too simple and too effective?


That wasn't the question nor the context.  The question isn't "why was the double supposedly banned from Judo Shia," the question was "practical in what context; what makes you think that naginata is not practical?"  This is pretty obvious and if you didn't get it then you've just got an ax to grind.



> It "works" in the sense that swinging a bladed spear will cut someone you swing it at.


Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about "swinging" a polearm.



> The problem is that the likelihood of you encountering someone wielding a Naginata, you having a Naginata on your person when someone attacks, or you being able to use a Naginata effectively against an assailant makes its usefulness pretty close to zero,


Shocking!  If only someone had said that in the post you were replying to but apparently misunderstanding!    You can be honest.  It's deliberate at this point, isn't it.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> That wasn't the question nor the context.  The question isn't "why was the double supposedly banned from Judo Shia," the question was "practical in what context; what makes you think that naginata is not practical?"  This is pretty obvious and if you didn't get it then you've just got an ax to grind.
> 
> Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about "swinging" a polearm.
> 
> ...



Your question was "What makes the DLT practical". I said quite simply; "It's practical for someone trying to take someone else off their feet". I used the Judo ban as an example for how practical it is, because a martial art that specializes in takedowns and throws had to ban it because it was neutralizing a large amount of their techniques in competition. If you wish, we can make this even simpler in the fact that you can use the DLT in a variety of situations and contexts, which makes it a highly effective and practical technique.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a Naginata, which is highly impractical and frankly has very little value in terms of self defense or fighting. Which of course makes sense, since it was designed for medieval warfare in an open battlefield, not for inside a car, a subway, an apartment, or a city street.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Your question was "What makes the DLT practical"


No, it wasn't.  I told you what the question was and you are ignoring it.  Again.  This is a pattern for you.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> The last image was a Guillotine Choke.  Did you not actually pay attention before you hit reply?



If that hand and elbow placement is accurate, that isn't a guillotine choke.



lklawson said:


> No, it wasn't.  I told you what the question was and you are ignoring it.  Again.  This is a pattern for you.



Your question:

[DLT] Is practical for what?

My answer:
To take someone off their feet and dump them on the ground.

Where am I ignoring your question?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> If that hand and elbow placement is accurate, that isn't a guillotine choke.


Just like the dude's 16" waist, and his stick-figure bird ankles, and his too-short forearm are obviously intended to be anatomically correct?  The way they drew artwork for this is different from what you think you know.  It's not supposed to be photo-realistic.  Based on the translations I've read, this is either a choke, a neck-crank, or both.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Just like the dude's 16" waist, and his stick-figure bird ankles, and his too-short forearm are obviously intended to be anatomically correct?  The way they drew artwork for this is different from what you think you know.  It's not supposed to be photo-realistic.  Based on the translations I've read, this is either a choke, a neck-crank, or both.



Or simply a headlock, because you aren't choking anything with your hand and elbow in that position. I take it that this is an instructional manual? If the goal was to teach to choke someone, there's going to be a lot of disappointed people.

I'll also add that based on those illustrations you posted, we've definitely gotten way better at grappling over the last few hundred years. Some of that stuff in those illustrations would be classified as "crappling" because it would be incredibly easy to roll out of or counter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not until they know me by name.


You'll need to leave a bigger tip.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You also have the possibility of someone coming in from the outside and best everyone.
> 
> Because concepts like an open mat allow for that.
> 
> ...


I love that idea. I haven't been able to do open-mat times at any of the places I've taught. I want to, though I doubt I'd get many takers with a small program. Just not as interesting for the visitor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> That is silly.
> 
> Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed.
> 
> This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.


I think what he was saying is it all (if it ever worked) still works. It's a matter of figuring out which work well enough and in enough situations to focus on those. And that does change over time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Does Japanese jujitsu do an open mat?
> 
> Basically Lachlan guiles would roll up to JJJ class and never leglock anyone. And that class would suffer for it.


That would be a per-school decision. JJJ isn't even a single style, but a family of styles.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think what he was saying is it all (if it ever worked) still works. It's a matter of figuring out which work well enough and in enough situations to focus on those. And that does change over time.



I think the portion in parenthesis really needs to be bolded. Some of the stuff passed down in the old days was complete bunk and never properly vetted or tested. Hence why I think our reverence for certain "relic" techniques and belief in their efficacy is misplaced.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think the portion in parenthesis really needs to be bolded. Some of the stuff passed down in the old days was complete bunk and never properly vetted or tested. Hence why I think our reverence for certain "relic" techniques and belief in their efficacy is misplaced.


I suspect there's been some signal loss from when they were first taught. I've looked at some of the techniques I learned, and had to ask whether they were always this obscure and hard to get to, or have we (those learning the style) simply lost what the technique was supposed to be and/or what made it available (the entry or situation that makes it a reasonable choice).

I suspect some of both that and the never properly vetted. I also suspect there are some techniques that were meant for training a principle, rather than for application. They make great sense as drills, but not so much as functional fighting techniques.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That would be a per-school decision. JJJ isn't even a single style, but a family of styles.



Ok. Name one JJJ school that holds the equivalent of an open mat. 

You can have the entire family of schools if you want.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think what he was saying is it all (if it ever worked) still works. It's a matter of figuring out which work well enough and in enough situations to focus on those. And that does change over time.



I don't think he is saying that. I think he is creating a platform for dogma.

So. JJJ has a proven? History of their martial arts working in the battlefield for hundreds of years. We have preserved their system of training and replicate it and because the human body has not changed. Therefore we have a proven system of martial arts.

Very much like the kata fallacy.

It removes any requirement to show the system works in any context.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I love that idea. I haven't been able to do open-mat times at any of the places I've taught. I want to, though I doubt I'd get many takers with a small program. Just not as interesting for the visitor.



BJJ created a different culture than has been seen in a lot of martial arts. Where sparring sessions are open to outsiders. 

It is a high risk strategy if you are intent on protecting an image. Which many martial arts styles are. 

Which is also why we won't see randori filmed in some schools.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Just like the dude's 16" waist, and his stick-figure bird ankles, and his too-short forearm are obviously intended to be anatomically correct?  The way they drew artwork for this is different from what you think you know.  It's not supposed to be photo-realistic.  Based on the translations I've read, this is either a choke, a neck-crank, or both.



So martial arts hasn't evolved but being able to draw the human body has?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Or simply a headlock, because you aren't choking anything with your hand and elbow in that position. I take it that this is an instructional manual?


Yes.  Written in a 500 year old German dialect.  There are, I think, 4 total manuals by this instructor.  He's a major source for those studying this branch of "knightly" martial arts.



> If the goal was to teach to choke someone, there's going to be a lot of disappointed people.
> 
> I'll also add that based on those illustrations you posted, we've definitely gotten way better at grappling over the last few hundred years. Some of that stuff in those illustrations would be classified as "crappling" because it would be incredibly easy to roll out of or counter.


Most of these old fight manuals cannot be read the same way that you read a modern manual.  They illustrated things differently at different time and for different reasons.  Many of these are the equivalent of short-hand notes written and illustrated by the student himself (particularly the Italian Longsword stuff) and are not intended to show every last step.  Many other manuals are actually the equivalent of advertisements by fighting experts looking to land a cushy job teaching a Noble's sons.  These are often written so that it leaves out important steps, or even the "finish" ; it'd be silly to give away the goods when you're trying to make book of of them.

As bizarre as it may sound to you, it takes a lot of work to read and understand these.  I actually sat through a seminar by a Professor on how to read and understand Medieval "instructional" manuscripts.  If you don't do it right, your recipe for bread will be screwed up because you only thought you knew how to read a Medieval manual when you didn't.  

While I found that seminar highly instructive, I found the seminar on the historic context of Dueling to be much more engaging.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So martial arts hasn't evolved but being able to draw the human body has?


No.  You're ability to understand how to read Medieval manuscripts, or their contexts, is untrained.  

I'll say it again, but I doubt it'll sink in.  Photo-realism wasn't important for most Medieval instructional manuscripts.  They had their own ideas of how to record what was important and they're not necessarily your ideas.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Not only that, but the world has changed. We're no longer sitting in seiza sipping tea with a tanto at our side nor are we walking around next to authority figures carrying katanas. Thus there's very little application for training that revolves around those scenarios outside of cultural preservation/appropriation, or simply living out a personal samurai fantasy.


I've been getting into archery this last few months, so I'm going to use an analogy from that domain.

If you want a bow to hunt deer and bring home meat for your family, then from a strictly functional standpoint a modern compound bow is the way to go. These bows can produce reliable precision accuracy and killing power with less training time than any other bow in the history of archery. This would explain why (in the U.S. at least) these bows are generally the most popular especially among hunters.

On the other hand, there are still people out there who can hand knap flint arrowheads and build simple bows and arrows with nothing more than hand tools and materials they find in the forest. Personally, I think that's really cool. I think the world is a little richer because that kind of cultural knowledge has been preserved. Are these bows and arrows the most effective tool currently available for hunting food? Nah, but that's not really the point. Heck, for most of us the easiest way to get meat is to go to the supermarket.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Yes.  Written in a 500 year old German dialect.  There are, I think, 4 total manuals by this instructor.  He's a major source for those studying this branch of "knightly" martial arts.



Okay, but that doesn’t change the fact that what was depicted in that image isn’t a choke. In fact, that’s almost exactly how someone shouldn’t do the guillotine choke.




> Most of these old fight manuals cannot be read the same way that you read a modern manual.  They illustrated things differently at different time and for different reasons.  Many of these are the equivalent of short-hand notes written and illustrated by the student himself (particularly the Italian Longsword stuff) and are not intended to show every last step.  Many other manuals are actually the equivalent of advertisements by fighting experts looking to land a cushy job teaching a Noble's sons.  These are often written so that it leaves out important steps, or even the "finish" ; it'd be silly to give away the goods when you're trying to make book of of them.



That’s a very long winded excuse. Again, if that’s being advertised as a choke, then it’s false advertisement. You can try it yourself; wrap your arm around the side of your partner’s neck with your hand palm up right under your partner’s head, and try to choke them. You can even clamp your hands together. Let me know how it works out for you.



> As bizarre as it may sound to you, it takes a lot of work to read and understand these.  I actually sat through a seminar by a Professor on how to read and understand Medieval "instructional" manuscripts.  If you don't do it right, your recipe for bread will be screwed up because you only thought you knew how to read a Medieval manual when you didn't.



Cool. That still isn’t a Guillotine though.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but that doesn’t change the fact that what was depicted in that image isn’t a choke. In fact, that’s almost exactly how someone shouldn’t do the guillotine choke.


By your uninformed say so.



> That’s a very long winded excuse. Again, if that’s being advertised as a choke, then it’s false advertisement.


Why don't you translate the 500 year old dialect and tell me what your translation is. 



> Cool. That still isn’t a Guillotine though.


Dueling isn't a guillotine choke?  Tell me more.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> By your uninformed say so.



Like I said, you can attempt it yourself. It’s not going to choke out your partner.



> Why don't you translate the 500 year old dialect and tell me what your translation is.



How does a translation change the fact that that image isn’t depicting a valid choking technique?



> Dueling isn't a guillotine choke?  Tell me more.



I wasn’t talking about dueling, I was talking about that pic you claimed was a Guillotine choke. As for the rest of those holds, yeah they’re rather suspect as well.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've been getting into archery this last few months, so I'm going to use an analogy from that domain.
> 
> If you want a bow to hunt deer and bring home meat for your family, then from a strictly functional standpoint a modern compound bow is the way to go. These bows can produce reliable precision accuracy and killing power with less training time than any other bow in the history of archery. This would explain why (in the U.S. at least) these bows are generally the most popular especially among hunters.
> 
> On the other hand, there are still people out there who can hand knap flint arrowheads and build simple bows and arrows with nothing more than hand tools and materials they find in the forest. Personally, I think that's really cool. I think the world is a little richer because that kind of cultural knowledge has been preserved. Are these bows and arrows the most effective tool currently available for hunting food? Nah, but that's not really the point. Heck, for most of us the easiest way to get meat is to go to the supermarket.



Hey, I wasn’t saying learning old stuff has no value, it certainly does. I was merely pointing out that you cross a line when you start to believe that wielding a medieval spear from Asia, or practicing a kata where you ambush a seated person drinking tea is as practical as carrying a knife or learning the guard, or learning boxing.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No.  You're ability to understand how to read Medieval manuscripts, or their contexts, is untrained.
> 
> I'll say it again, but I doubt it'll sink in.  Photo-realism wasn't important for most Medieval instructional manuscripts.  They had their own ideas of how to record what was important and they're not necessarily your ideas.



Makes sense there is a text that only the initiated can decipher.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Name one JJJ school that holds the equivalent of an open mat.
> 
> You can have the entire family of schools if you want.


I don’t know the policies of more than a few. I can recall a couple where I could have gone and played. Not sure how intense their sparring would be, nor if that same open invite would have applied if my core wasn’t closely related. That last part is part of the overall issue, I think. I expect an open mat time at a BJJ school, they’d be happy to let me get on the mats and get pretzeled, even though I’m not a BJJ guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> BJJ created a different culture than has been seen in a lot of martial arts. Where sparring sessions are open to outsiders.
> 
> It is a high risk strategy if you are intent on protecting an image. Which many martial arts styles are.
> 
> Which is also why we won't see randori filmed in some schools.


I agree with all but the last sentence. I don’t think the omission is nearly as purposeful as you suspect.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I expect an open mat time at a BJJ school, they’d be happy to let me get on the mats and get pretzeled, even though I’m not a BJJ guy.



Yes they would. Especially if you tell them you're from Aikido.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with all but the last sentence. I don’t think the omission is nearly as purposeful as you suspect.



I think it is so ingrained in the culture that it is not seen as purposeful.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I don’t know the policies of more than a few. I can recall a couple where I could have gone and played. Not sure how intense their sparring would be, nor if that same open invite would have applied if my core wasn’t closely related. That last part is part of the overall issue, I think. I expect an open mat time at a BJJ school, they’d be happy to let me get on the mats and get pretzeled, even though I’m not a BJJ guy.



Or if you are from a competing BJJ school.

Rather than the days of the dojo storm.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not until they know me by name.



So "that guy with the tie die man thong" doesn't count?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think it is so ingrained in the culture that it is not seen as purposeful.


That's a possibility. I think it's mostly a matter of what they think is important (and as I said before, what they think looks interesting). Even some of the TMA places I've been to that spar don't see it as fundamental, so they focus vidoes on the stuff that they think is.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That's a possibility. I think it's mostly a matter of what they think is important (and as I said before, what they think looks interesting). Even some of the TMA places I've been to that spar don't see it as fundamental, so they focus vidoes on the stuff that they think is.



I think this is more indicative of what it's like going to open mats (a bit more extreme though);






btw, this guy's channel is pretty entertaining.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 21, 2020)

Okay.... so I go away for two days, and this all happens? This is going to take a while, so I'll split it all up, and might take me a few days to catch up, but let's start with page 4....



Hanzou said:


> Yes, it sounds very much like Sal's Burger and Fries of Memphis Tennessee, or any string of those tiny burger joints off the interstates in the U.S. It's small, you only hear about them if someone tells you. They only allow a certain number of people inside because it's a literal shack and can't fit a large amount of people inside. They're broke so they can't afford a credit card machine (and they're trying to avoid the IRS) so it's cash only, so if you tend to only carry cards you're not getting served, etc. In the end though, you're still getting burger, fries, and a soda. Probably a delicious burger and fries, but still a burger and fries regardless. However, on the other hand, that delicious burger might get you sick as well, because while it was delicious going down, the quality of the cook in the kitchen is always suspect.



Then you not only have no clue what you're talking about, but you have stubbornly refused to listen to information telling you what the reality is. Look, I get it... you're not a fan of thinking you perhaps might not get what you're talking about, but... you don't get what you're talking about. There's no point re-stating it, though, as it's just what you're arguing against (with no knowledge, education, experience, understanding, or any attempt to gain any of the aforementioned).

Either listen when given information, or understand that your "opinion" is baseless, and meaningless, and therefore is of no import or value to the conversation.



Hanzou said:


> There's some folks who only seek out those types of places, since it gives them a taste of Americana. Others prefer the assurance that they're not going to die of intestinal poisoning, and choose the larger burger chains. When I was younger, I was more apt to try those smaller burger places. Sometimes I got sick, sometimes I got a delicious burger. Now that I'm older, I tend to avoid those types of places because I have no desire to spend my traveling time in a gas station bathroom.



Yeah... the fact that you can't discern between a quality restaurant as a one-off location, and a little bowl of salmonella doesn't really factor in here... all it shows that you have no way to form any actual judgement as you don't have the skills or knowledge to do so. 



Hanzou said:


> You mean they're seeking a martial art to protect themselves and they find a martial art where they learn to have a tea party in traditional Japanese garb. Yes, I can see how that could be off-putting for someone.[/QUTOE]
> 
> No, I mean the words I said. I do suggest you try actually recognising that.
> 
> ...


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Like I said, you can attempt it yourself. It’s not going to choke out your partner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, so I say that pretty much all the joint locks and chokes have been known for thousands of years because there's only so many ways to hyper-extend a joint or choke a person, then I give 8 examples in artwork and manuals dating back from 500 years to 5,000 years, conclusively proving my point...

...and you want to ***** about whether or not one of them is a choke or a neck crank based on 500 year-old, non-photorealistic, artwork, in an instructional style you have no experience with?  Does that about sum it up?  Do you have any idea how small and petty that is?


<sheesh>  Go be petty about something else, somewhere else.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Hey, I wasn’t saying learning old stuff has no value, it certainly does. I was merely pointing out that you cross a line when you start to believe that wielding a medieval spear from Asia, or practicing a kata where you ambush a seated person drinking tea is as practical as carrying a knife or learning the guard, or learning boxing.


And you're trying to score points by splitting hairs about what is "practical" without defining what "practical" is, in what context, and in what circumstance, all while trying hard to imply that anyone is disagreeing.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Makes sense there is a text that only the initiated can decipher.


If by "initiated" you mean, reading a 500 year old German dialect, then yes.  Can you read 500 year old German dialect?  

Shoot, most people today seem to have problems reading current English, never-mind 200 year old English with ligatures and long-S's.  

Like fighting, it's not a secret but it's not something that everyone knows how to do.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Then you not only have no clue what you're talking about, but you have stubbornly refused to listen to information telling you what the reality is. Look, I get it... you're not a fan of thinking you perhaps might not get what you're talking about, but... you don't get what you're talking about. There's no point re-stating it, though, as it's just what you're arguing against (with no knowledge, education, experience, understanding, or any attempt to gain any of the aforementioned).



I'm arguing against the notion that rarity makes something better or special. Sometimes things are more rare because it simply doesn't appeal to a lot of people, thus never gained enough resources to spread. You seem to think that studying an obsolete martial art is akin to eating fine cuisine. You're welcome to that opinion. I view it differently because nothing suggests that studying an obsolete martial art is anything special or of higher quality, it just means you found a less popular martial art style.



> Yeah... the fact that you can't discern between a quality restaurant as a one-off location, and a little bowl of salmonella doesn't really factor in here... all it shows that you have no way to form any actual judgement as you don't have the skills or knowledge to do so.



Oh I can certainly discern between a high quality restaurant and a one-off location. I'm disagreeing with your assessment that the rarity of those classical JJ styles makes them comparable to a high quality restaurant, since in the end they're just offering burgers and fries like everyone else.

Re-format the rest of your response please.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

lklawson said:


> OK, so I say that pretty much all the joint locks and chokes have been known for thousands of years because there's only so many ways to hyper-extend a joint or choke a person, then I give 8 examples in artwork and manuals dating back from 500 years to 5,000 years, conclusively proving my point...
> 
> ...and you want to ***** about whether or not one of them is a choke or a neck crank based on 500 year-old, non-photorealistic, artwork, in an instructional style you have no experience with?  Does that about sum it up?  Do you have any idea how small and petty that is?
> 
> ...



See post #226 on why I focused on that particular image. Someone decided to make a post about that image and erroneously claim that it was something it wasn't.

Yes there are only so many ways to choke a person. That image you showed isn't one of them. If the images are highly inaccurate, then what's the point of showing them? You do understand that incorrect execution of locks and chokes can render them ineffective right? So if a student followed those images to the letter, they wouldn't be able to pull off what those techniques are supposed to do.

So again, why post them? To prove a point that techniques haven't really changed when your own post pretty much contradicts that very point?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I'm arguing against the notion that rarity makes something better or special. Sometimes things are more rare because it simply doesn't appeal to a lot of people, thus never gained enough resources to spread. You seem to think that studying an obsolete martial art is akin to eating fine cuisine. You're welcome to that opinion. I view it differently because nothing suggests that studying an obsolete martial art is anything special or of higher quality, it just means you found a less popular martial art style.


No.  "Fine cuisine" is a matter of opinion and personal preference.  In some places it means snails, in other places poisonous fish served raw, in other places pickled jellyfish served in old coke bottles, and in other places it's fermented rotted shark carcass buried in the sand for 4 months.

Once again, you're trying to shoe-horn *YOUR* narrow ideas into vast cultural constructs spanning thousands of years.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> See post #226 on why I focused on that particular image. Someone decided to make a post about that image and erroneously claim that it was something it wasn't.


And I tried to educate you but you're stubbornly and pettily resisting learning something.  Covering your ears and yelling "no no no no no" isn't a good look for anyone and particularly not for you.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No.  "Fine cuisine" is a matter of opinion and personal preference.  In some places it means snails, in other places poisonous fish served raw, in other places pickled jellyfish served in old coke bottles, and in other places it's fermented rotted shark carcass buried in the sand for 4 months.
> 
> Once again, you're trying to shoe-horn *YOUR* narrow ideas into vast cultural constructs spanning thousands of years.



That's fine. However, why should we compare a martial art to a "fine cuisine" simply because it's old and lost it's usefulness and general purpose?



lklawson said:


> And I tried to educate you but you're stubbornly and pettily resisting learning something.  Covering your ears and yelling "no no no no no" isn't a good look for anyone and particularly not for you.



What are you trying to educate me on exactly? How a guillotine choke works? A choke I've done thousands of times, and actually taught to people? 

The only thing you've "educated" me on is your refusal to admit you're wrong.


----------



## dunc (Oct 21, 2020)

Yeah I tend to agree that equating koryu to fine cuisine and more popular arts to McDs isn't a good way to go

What the koryu arts offer is an amazing depth of knowledge and lessons drawn from many years of bloody history. Many of these are highly relevant to today's world (if translated / adjusted). It's hard to access these lessons and many of the technical points contained in these styles are super useful for self defence and not included in the modern, more popular styles

However, there are poor koryu traditions that have lost a lot on the way as much as there are truly world class martial artists keeping their particular tradition alive 

There are also many details and refinements of the old techniques that are only found in modern styles that have improved things over many hours of competition and sparring

I'd say whether we'd consider something to be "fine martial arts cuisine" has a lot to do with the quality of the person leading the training group / dojo / ryu / academy etc and the depth of knowledge that they have offer (which may also be influenced by the style)


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> What are you trying to educate me on exactly?


I've told you several times now but you're too stubborn, petty, and argumentative to notice.  Telling you again won't change that.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I've told you several times now but you're too stubborn, petty, and argumentative to notice.  Telling you again won't change that.



So why are you arguing that techniques haven’t changed over time, and use examples of medieval “crappling” to refute your own argument?


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, right now BJJ is pretty popular, especially compared to other jujutsu forms. But these things go in waves. We’ll see how it is 10-20 years down the road. My biggest concern is the increasing number of BJJ schools which train only for groundfighting competition and never have students learning how to defend a punch. If that becomes the norm, then I think the art will lose popularity among those who want to learn how to fight and defend themselves.


hard to say, really, but BJJ has an advantage in that it is often closely linked to MMA.  Even in schools that focus primarily on gi and no-gi competition, there is generally a relationship with a sister school or affiliate that will focus on more than just grappling competition.  Absent this, you might be right, but I think this is common enough to be considered the rule and not an exception.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Let's make a thread "will wrestling eventually replace Brazilian jujitsu?".
> 
> Also, Hanzou, your last answer confirmed that you were only looking to spit on classical jujutsu. That's a pitiful attitude to have.


Can't happen because if it's ground fighting and it works, it's BJJ.  

While intended to be tongue in cheek, it's also intrinsic to the mindset of BJJ.  While the actual instruction and training focus of BJJ schools shifts depending on the overall goals of the school (IBJJF grappling competitions, submission grappling competitions, MMA, or all of the above), the mindset is universal.  If something works, it's BJJ.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> Based on reports/research that I have come across through the years, MMA was (at the time when UFC was at its peak) the fastest growing SPECTATOR sport.  Most of its fans are the same crowd as WWE.  This is different from NHB in its early days when most people who watched UFC and other competitions were martial artists (including combat sports as well).
> 
> About 5 years ago, a Brazilian exchange student was at our house visiting our daughter and other friends.  I asked him about BJJ and he had no clue what I was even talking about.  When I described the martial art, he responded, "Oh like Tae Kwon Do".  Another Brazilian informed me that only the punks/gang members took that art.
> 
> ...


My impression is that BJJ in Brazil is like Boxing in America, a sport that largely attracts kids who are at risk, poor, and are looking for something that will help them navigate growing up in a tough place.  I think casually suggesting it's for punks and gang members because some random exchange student said so is pretty crappy... along the lines of suggesting that boxing is only for punks and gang members because some kid from an upper middle class neighborhood sadi so.  I'd wager your Brazilian exchange student didn't come from the favela, and I'd guess he has no idea what he's talking about.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, but your post wasn't very clear then. How many times do you need to be attacked with a knife before it counts as "having experience"?


You didn't ask me, but I'd answer one time is experience.  The real questions are how many times before you are "experienced", and how many times before you are an expert?


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> It's an oft-cited reason... however BJJ's "effectiveness in self defence" is demonstrated/marketed through it's competitive side... that's really where the reputation and image comes from. Claiming one context when really demonstrating another. Now, that's not an issue... the conflation of the two contexts into one image is not uncommon, nor is it poorly done. Is it incorrect, or misleading? Yeah, it is... but not in a way that is overly meaningful to most..


As opposed to traditional Jujutsu, which is demonstrated/marketed through... what exactly?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

lklawson said:


> If by "initiated" you mean, reading a 500 year old German dialect, then yes.  Can you read 500 year old German dialect?
> 
> Shoot, most people today seem to have problems reading current English, never-mind 200 year old English with ligatures and long-S's.
> 
> Like fighting, it's not a secret but it's not something that everyone knows how to do.



Apparently Infidels like me can't even read German pictures. 

Yeah look it doesn't matter all that much. As there is enough evidence based stuff out there to keep me going that is expressed in modern English.

And is conveniently also the systems used by the best guys.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> My impression is that BJJ in Brazil is, like Boxing in America, a sport that largely attracts kids who are at risk, poor, and are looking for something that will help them navigate growing up in a tough place.  I think casually suggesting that because some random Brazilian exchange student said it's for punks and gang members is pretty crappy... along the lines of suggesting that boxing is only for punks and gang members.  I'd wager your Brazilian exchange student didn't come from the favela.


To be fair, that was exactly the reputation Boxing had in late 18th C. and through mid-19th C. England.  It was actually thought of as barbaric by the middle class and much of the upper class.  It was outlawed and matches had to be planned at times and places so to minimize (honest, un-bribed) police involvement.  I republished an antique manual (Handbook to Boxing, by Owen Swift, 1840) with an opening statement defending the noble art.  The bad reputation that Boxing had was one of the driving reasons that the Marquis of Queensbury wrote his updated, "more civilized," rules.

Due to the fact that it has had a reputation of a thug's art, used only by barbaric knuckle draggers, it doesn't take much effort to imagine it being the same again at some point.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK. So I've done it three times with real knives. 100% success. OK, I did lose an eye once, but I survived. I count that as a win. I don't know how many times in practice, and I sure don't have a record of what percentage succeeded, but certainly I succeed more often than not.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not as stringent as you. I'd give you credit for being a stripper guy.


I've had knives pulled on me more than three times.  But I wouldn't consider myself a knife expert, and I'd never consider myself a self defense expert.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Name one JJJ school that holds the equivalent of an open mat.
> 
> You can have the entire family of schools if you want.


Conversely, the family of grappling that includes BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling...  can you name one that doesn't hold the equivalent of an open mat?  I can't think of one.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've been getting into archery this last few months, so I'm going to use an analogy from that domain.
> 
> If you want a bow to hunt deer and bring home meat for your family, then from a strictly functional standpoint a modern compound bow is the way to go. These bows can produce reliable precision accuracy and killing power with less training time than any other bow in the history of archery. This would explain why (in the U.S. at least) these bows are generally the most popular especially among hunters.
> 
> On the other hand, there are still people out there who can hand knap flint arrowheads and build simple bows and arrows with nothing more than hand tools and materials they find in the forest. Personally, I think that's really cool. I think the world is a little richer because that kind of cultural knowledge has been preserved. Are these bows and arrows the most effective tool currently available for hunting food? Nah, but that's not really the point. Heck, for most of us the easiest way to get meat is to go to the supermarket.



I wanted to have a think a bit and then touch on this idea.

It is not the concept of outlier methods that I am against. But this weird drop off a ledge in to nothing when it comes to the end result.

So here is some guys making a pool by hand. And it is not as practical as a modern pool.

But it is still a pool. It still has visible worth.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Conversely, the family of grappling that includes BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling...  can you name one that doesn't hold the equivalent of an open mat?  I can't think of one.



Everyone in my area accommodates martial arts tourism. 

We have a circus in town at the moment and there are a couple of blue belts there that turn up and train. And one of them is a killer because he is an acrobat and I assume he never grades. 

So he comes in and schools the rest of us blue belts. 

But there is no issue as far as image or making use look bad or anything.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> As opposed to traditional Jujutsu, which is demonstrated/marketed through... what exactly?



Legends and folklore from feudal Japan.....

Nevermind that many of these surviving Jujutsu styles were created during the Edo period  where there was little to no warfare taking place, so you just had people teaching watered down JJJ from earlier periods, and other people creating their own JJJ with no means of testing its effectiveness. Keep watering it down through the centuries and you have a lot of the classical JJ being taught today.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I wanted to have a think a bit and then touch on this idea.
> 
> It is not the concept of outlier methods that I am against. But this weird drop off a ledge in to nothing when it comes to the end result.
> 
> ...



And possibly why BJJ won't take over Medieval knight fighting. 

Because there is a tangible end result.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


>



Classical Japanese Jujitsu should consider going this route. There's zero difference.


----------



## Buka (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> My impression is that BJJ in Brazil is like Boxing in America, a sport that largely attracts kids who are at risk, poor, and are looking for something that will help them navigate growing up in a tough place.  I think casually suggesting it's for punks and gang members because some random exchange student said so is pretty crappy... along the lines of suggesting that boxing is only for punks and gang members because some kid from an upper middle class neighborhood sadi so.  I'd wager your Brazilian exchange student didn't come from the favela, and I'd guess he has no idea what he's talking about.



When I lived in Boston I met a lot of people from Brazil. A very few of the guys had any experience with BJJ, some had a passing knowledge.

But here it’s a completely different story, especially in the winter. Brazillians come here to surf. And most of them roll. I talk to them at the airport all the time. I can usually spot them right off, too, they have the look.

Met a lot of really nice folks.

 And the women are very pretty. I think they must grow on trees there or something.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Classical Japanese Jujitsu should consider going this route. There's zero difference.


What's the difference between Japanese Jujutsu today and Japanese Jujutsu in medieval Japan?  The battlefield.  It's like taking the kids to plymouth rock to see how the puritans "lived."


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> What's the difference between Japanese Jujutsu today and Japanese Jujutsu in medieval Japan?  The battlefield.  It's like taking the kids to plymouth rock to see how the puritans "lived."









Should we be concerned that everyone in this pic is a white guy?

Again, if you're Japanese, this is your history and culture, so whatever. However, if you're not Japanese, this isn't your history/culture, so why are you engaged in it to this extent?


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Should we be concerned that everyone in this pic is a white guy?
> 
> Again, if you're Japanese, this is your history and culture, so whatever. However, if you're not Japanese, this isn't your history/culture, so why are you engaged in it to this extent?


Well, just to be clear, I think folks need to follow their passions.  I have always been a misfit and a nerd, and have a genuine soft spot for misfits and nerds.  I roast coffee, make soap, am learning to make pottery, play tabletop RPGs with my friends and can tick off most of the "nerd" stereotypes.  And my wife has the rest covered (she was a "mathlete" for Pete's sake).  Point is, if you want to train in traditional Japanese martial arts, knock yourself out.  If you want to train in a fake or ineffective brand of martial arts because it's cool looking, go for it.  If you want to pretend you're a ninja or actually participate in LARP, have a blast.  I won't judge you if you don't judge me.

But if you're doing something like the above and think you're ACTUALLY learning to fight... or if you're training as a ninja in the land down under, and ACTUALLY think you're a self defense expert... or if you're LARPing and ACTUALLY think that elves, fairies, and other fae folk live among us in secret... you're deluding yourself, and that's bad.  If you've managed to convince other people that you can teach them these things based on imaginary expertise, you are now doing harm to others, and that's a problem.  And to be clear, I've encountered each of those three, along with a guy who thought that the Federation of Planets (the Star Trek fan club) would eventually evolve into the governing body of the future.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> I've had knives pulled on me more than three times.  But I wouldn't consider myself a knife expert, and I'd never consider myself a self defense expert.



I don't think I ever said I was either of those things. I just tried to find out what magic number makes someone "experienced" according to Drop Bear.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> You didn't ask me,



That's ok, it's a public post, so anyone can respond. 



> but I'd answer one time is experience.  The real questions are how many times before you are "experienced", and how many times before you are an expert?



Sure. But the original post I responded to asked 'who has experience with weapons" (paraphrased from memory - I don't think I've messed up the question). So how many times before you're an expert?


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think I ever said I was either of those things. I just tried to find out what magic number makes someone "experienced" according to Drop Bear.


Well, then we agree it's more than three.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's ok, it's a public post, so anyone can respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. But the original post I responded to asked 'who has experience with weapons" (paraphrased from memory - I don't think I've messed up the question). So how many times before you're an expert?


Well, that's the question for you.  What is the magic number?  I mean, Chris presents himself as a self defense expert and you guys indulge him as an expert.  I don't think he's had even the experience you and I have, and we both agree we aren't experts.  It's a real head scratcher.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, then we agree it's more than three.



Is it? Thing is, I'm not really sure there is a magic number.



Steve said:


> Well, that's the question for you.  What is the magic number?  I mean, Chris presents himself as a self defense expert and you guys indulge him as an expert.  I don't think he's had even the experience you and I have, and we both agree we aren't experts.  It's a real head scratcher.



Who is "you guys"? I don't believe I've ever expressed any sort of opinion on Chris' self defense competence. I do think he's very knowledgeable about the history and legends of the Koryu arts, but honestly I'm unlikely to have an opinion about his ability to defend himself or teach someone else.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Classical Japanese Jujitsu should consider going this route. There's zero difference.



Wot. Actual fighting?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Should we be concerned that everyone in this pic is a white guy?
> 
> Again, if you're Japanese, this is your history and culture, so whatever. However, if you're not Japanese, this isn't your history/culture, so why are you engaged in it to this extent?



I think you can do the same thing with a photo from a hatsumi seminar.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. But the original post I responded to asked 'who has experience with weapons" (paraphrased from memory - I don't think I've messed up the question). So how many times before you're an expert?



Sorry to quibble; in response to Hanzou stating that "the fighting application of these classical JJ arts is close to nil" 

I asked "what experience fighting with weapons does he have to make such an assessment.

My point being that these arts derive from a time when there was a population engaging in combat with (and against) weapons regularly - this allows for an accumulation of information and technical know-how which cannot be replicated without such practical experience.  

In other words, there are skills, techniques and knowledge which cannot be learned or understood simply by 'rolling' with someone in a bjj class.  But it doesn't seem that the OP has any interest in any of that.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 21, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Sorry to quibble; in response to Hanzou stating that "the fighting application of these classical JJ arts is close to nil"
> 
> I asked "what experience fighting with weapons does he have to make such an assessment.



That's nice. But I didn't respond to you, so...
I responded to Drop Bear, who asked, essentially, 'who does?', the implication (as I read it) being that nobody had experience fighting with weapons.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> My impression is that BJJ in Brazil is like Boxing in America, a sport that largely attracts kids who are at risk, poor, and are looking for something that will help them navigate growing up in a tough place.  I think casually suggesting it's for punks and gang members because some random exchange student said so is pretty crappy... along the lines of suggesting that boxing is only for punks and gang members because some kid from an upper middle class neighborhood sadi so.  I'd wager your Brazilian exchange student didn't come from the favela, and I'd guess he has no idea what he's talking about.



Well, if you read enough history of BJJ this attitude was very common among Brazilians during its time.  The BJJ schools (and Lutre Liva) liked to go out and fight and thus the stereotype.  I don't think its like boxing in America because there isn't an attitude that these boxers are going out and getting into fights with each other or picking fights.  I should have added the details that I had already heard this reputation prior to speaking with the student and it did reinforce that perception.

For reference, here is a forum discussing this very thing about it in Brazil back in 2013, so it wasn't just me hearing one person's opinion it was based on hearing and reading the same thing over and over.  I trained a limited time in BJJ and have friends that have been at it a very long time and have heard the samething through training in it as well.

Is BJJ Really That Big A Deal, in Brazil?


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 21, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's nice. But I didn't respond to you, so...
> I responded to Drop Bear, who asked, essentially, 'who does?', the implication (as I read it) being that nobody had experience fighting with weapons.



Yes.  And my point initially was... the people who created and perpetuated the arts we are discussing did have that experience.  So maybe there might be something there of value.

My point in clarifying was that 'having a knife pulled on me' doesn't fall into the same category of experience, and is tangential to the original point.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, just to be clear, I think folks need to follow their passions.  I have always been a misfit and a nerd, and have a genuine soft spot for misfits and nerds.  I roast coffee, make soap, am learning to make pottery, play tabletop RPGs with my friends and can tick off most of the "nerd" stereotypes.  And my wife has the rest covered (she was a "mathlete" for Pete's sake).  Point is, if you want to train in traditional Japanese martial arts, knock yourself out.  If you want to train in a fake or ineffective brand of martial arts because it's cool looking, go for it.  If you want to pretend you're a ninja or actually participate in LARP, have a blast.  I won't judge you if you don't judge me.
> 
> But if you're doing something like the above and think you're ACTUALLY learning to fight... or if you're training as a ninja in the land down under, and ACTUALLY think you're a self defense expert... or if you're LARPing and ACTUALLY think that elves, fairies, and other fae folk live among us in secret... you're deluding yourself, and that's bad.  If you've managed to convince other people that you can teach them these things based on imaginary expertise, you are now doing harm to others, and that's a problem.  And to be clear, I've encountered each of those three, along with a guy who thought that the Federation of Planets (the Star Trek fan club) would eventually evolve into the governing body of the future.



Exactly. That's part of the TMA delusion that I often talk about. Another part of the delusion is the belief that if its rare, or hard to find, or old, or traditional it's somehow_ better_. Such as the belief that we haven't developed new methods on how to strangle, lock up, or snap someone's limbs. If you just look at Bjj they come up with new submissions all the time.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think you can do the same thing with a photo from a hatsumi seminar.



Anytime Hatsumi's name comes up, I have to post this clip. The only thing more hilarious than what he does is the excuses people make for why it looks so terrible;


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Exactly. That's part of the TMA delusion that I often talk about. Another part of the delusion is the belief that if its rare, or hard to find, or old, or traditional it's somehow_ better_. Such as the belief that we haven't developed new methods on how to strangle, lock up, or snap someone's limbs. If you just look at Bjj they come up with new submissions all the time.



There are a lot of very useful techniques in the old Japanese styles that are not found in modern systems
Mostly these are on the self defence side of things, and the a lot of the differences stem from a) the fact that they always assume the opponent is armed, b) the freedom to operate without rules or gloves, &/or c) the combination of clothing and the previous points
There are some (not a huge number) techniques and details from the old styles that are not in BJJ, but I’ve found very useful additions to my game
And there is a fair amount of cross over particularly in the judo-like take downs


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> There are a lot of very useful techniques in the old Japanese styles that are not found in modern systems
> Mostly these are on the self defence side of things, and the a lot of the differences stem from a) the fact that they always assume the opponent is armed, b) the freedom to operate without rules or gloves, &/or c) the combination of clothing and the previous points
> There are some (not a huge number) techniques and details from the old styles that are not in BJJ, but I’ve found very useful additions to my game
> And there is a fair amount of cross over particularly in the judo-like take downs



Do you have an example?

Here is one from BJJ. 






And you may notice the hips are in a weird spot. But if you get blocked it is then easier to face them again rather than have your back taken and suplexed or something. So this would be a more self defence version of the hip throw.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> There are a lot of very useful techniques in the old Japanese styles that are not found in modern systems
> Mostly these are on the self defence side of things, and the a lot of the differences stem from a) the fact that they always assume the opponent is armed, b) the freedom to operate without rules or gloves, &/or c) the combination of clothing and the previous points
> There are some (not a huge number) techniques and details from the old styles that are not in BJJ, but I’ve found very useful additions to my game
> And there is a fair amount of cross over particularly in the judo-like take downs



A lot of that simply sounds like mindset though. The “rules” exist in Bjj to allow practice at full force, giving the practitioner the feeling of weight, pressure, and violence. In some cases, strikes are incorporated so that a person learn to deal with someone punching them in the face while in guard or something similar.

However, I don’t think someone using Bjj in a self defense situation is mentally trapped in a “rules” mindset. They may show some level of restraint, but I’ve seen Bjj practitioners purposely snap limbs, or hold chokes far longer than necessary (and then start stomping the person after they passed out). They can get to that point because when they train, they’re 3/4 of the way there, only stopping because their partner taps.

My point is, I don’t think operating under a “rules” mindset is a factor one way or another. I would even argue that operating without one can be a hinderance, because you never get to fully train that dangerous technique, thus you’re never able to use it when you need it. 

I mean in all seriousness, if we had a Bjj black belt go up against a JJJ black belt (unarmed) is there any doubt that the Bjj black belt would maul the JJJ practitioner, and be far more capable of killing them?

In terms of techniques, I definitely know there’s WAY more techniques in JJJ than Bjj. I’m just wondering how much fat you have to trim through to get to the useful stuff.


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> A lot of that simply sounds like mindset though. The “rules” exist in Bjj to allow practice at full force, giving the practitioner the feeling of weight, pressure, and violence. In some cases, strikes are incorporated so that a person learn to deal with someone punching them in the face while in guard or something similar.
> 
> However, I don’t think someone using Bjj in a self defense situation is mentally trapped in a “rules” mindset. They may show some level of restraint, but I’ve seen Bjj practitioners purposely snap limbs, or hold chokes far longer than necessary (and then start stomping the person after they passed out). They can get to that point because when they train, they’re 3/4 of the way there, only stopping because their partner taps.
> 
> ...



I'm a total fan of the benefits of training full force and therefore accepting the rules that necessarily need to be introduced
And if you have to be binary about it then probably the identical twin who trains full force under a rule set will tool their sibling who trains without rules or resistance in a contest

But I don't think you have to be binary about this and there are a lot of important technical differences between the two that would benefit both sides

The techniques for "no-rules self defence" are present in JJJ and there is a very rich, deep curriculum here (yes you need to filter out some of the wheat from the chaff). It's also perfectly possible to train and develop the necessary skills to apply these under pressure, basically through specific sparring, setting things up, but not completing the move etc
I wish more people who had the deep technical understanding from JJJ did this and I for one am doing more and more of it over time as I figure out & incorporate exercises that work well

I feel the no-rules thing has become a bit of a crutch for people in TMA who don't want to fail and learn


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Do you have an example?
> 
> Here is one from BJJ.
> 
> ...



Example of which?
Thanks


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> I'm a total fan of the benefits of training full force and therefore accepting the rules that necessarily need to be introduced
> And if you have to be binary about it then probably the identical twin who trains full force under a rule set will tool their sibling who trains without rules or resistance in a contest
> 
> But I don't think you have to be binary about this and there are a lot of important technical differences between the two that would benefit both sides
> ...



I absolutely believe that some techniques from classical JJ can benefit Bjj. Wrist locks immediately come to mind, since it adds an extra layer of complexity to grappling, and is legal in many Bjj competitions, so it can be practiced fully in a sparring context. I just find the "no-rules" self defense stuff to be highly suspect. For example, that video of Hatsumi I posted where he's doing stuff like pulling hair and kicking the groin is certainly "no-rules", but the fundamentals are completely off. In fact, they're so off that the kicking the groin and chops to the throat are pointless because you will never get a resisting opponent in a position to do those techniques in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm of the mindset that a lot of classical JJs are in a similar boat, because there's no testing ground for those techniques. When you're not capable of putting those techniques through a filter, they begin to wither and die under the weight of their disuse. Yes, the "no-rules" thing is definitely a crutch, and in some cases it's also a noose.

BTW, this is why I wanted to see some form of Classical JJ randori or sparring. Typically that is where you can see a martial art in action with no inhibitors in place. The fact that examples of this are very hard to find within classical JJ, but examples of kata and demonstrations are very abundant is troubling. I get it though; Fighting is ugly, fighting is barbaric, fighting is unrefined, and fighting is chaotic. It is a stark contrast to the orderly beauty I see in a lot of those classical JJ demonstrations, which leads me to believe that the randori I'm seeking out of classical JJs simply doesn't exist.

This is fine by the way. There is nothing wrong with indulging in another culture, and learning the ways of an ancient Asian warrior class. However, the problems begin to emerge when you start believing that that kata you're performing in samurai garb is the same as the Judoka slamming his partner under full resistance. It's not the same, and you're not developing the same level of martial experience as that Judoka is. See Hatsumi in the video above, then compare it to a typical Bjj black belt for further evidence of this.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

Oh, and this is part of the problem as well;

East vs. West: You Can’t Always Believe the Stories – Martial Arts World Report

As a huge fan of Fearless, I was quite disappointed to hear that quite of bit of that story was pure fiction.


----------



## Cynik75 (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> ...BTW, this is why I wanted to see some form of Classical JJ randori or sparring...


Here you have a video from Jujitsu Championship of Poland 2018. The action starts 1:22. 




Polish National Jujitsu Team works very close with the best polish BJJ black belts (and some BJJist are members and coaches of this team, especially for newaza). They work very close with polish ALMMA (Amateur League of MMA) too. 
This id oldest video (from 2006) but it shows very well traditional jujitsu in full contact action:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> Here you have a video from Jujitsu Championship of Poland 2018. The action starts 1:22.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, I'm aware of these folks. I'm talking more along the lines of the classical Jiujitsu folks with the katanas and the hakamas. The "Koryu" styles of JJJ.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, just to be clear, I think folks need to follow their passions.  I have always been a misfit and a nerd, and have a genuine soft spot for misfits and nerds.  I roast coffee, make soap, am learning to make pottery, play tabletop RPGs with my friends and can tick off most of the "nerd" stereotypes.  And my wife has the rest covered (she was a "mathlete" for Pete's sake).  Point is, if you want to train in traditional Japanese martial arts, knock yourself out.  If you want to train in a fake or ineffective brand of martial arts because it's cool looking, go for it.  If you want to pretend you're a ninja or actually participate in LARP, have a blast.  I won't judge you if you don't judge me.
> 
> But if you're doing something like the above and think you're ACTUALLY learning to fight... or if you're training as a ninja in the land down under, and ACTUALLY think you're a self defense expert... or if you're LARPing and ACTUALLY think that elves, fairies, and other fae folk live among us in secret... you're deluding yourself, and that's bad.  If you've managed to convince other people that you can teach them these things based on imaginary expertise, you are now doing harm to others, and that's a problem.  And to be clear, I've encountered each of those three, along with a guy who thought that the Federation of Planets (the Star Trek fan club) would eventually evolve into the governing body of the future.


There's a lot of people who throw the term "LARP" around as an insult at things that aren't.  I've known folks who did actual real LARP.  But most of the time it seems to be misapplied to people learning to actually fight, but in a context that most aren't likely to see today.  Many of my friends who do HEMA are actually learning to fight with Longswords &tc.  But none of them have convinced themselves that they're ever going to have an actual Medieval style armored life-and-death combat.  But they have learned how to fight in that context.  Why?  Who cares.

And what is even more unexpected for people who throw the "LARP" insult around, is that there is quite often an intersection between actual LARPing and honestly learning how to fight in an ancient context.  For example, I have friends in the SCA.   They certainly dress in period cloths and try to "live" in period ways from time to time.  But a lot of good research on period fighting methods have come out of those folks.  Because it's a facet of the whole that they're interested in. 

Another example would be SASS (Single Action Shooting Society), aka "Cowboy Action Shooting."  They dress in "cowboy" period cloths, take "cowboy" style names, only use guns designed prior to about 1898 ims.  Yet they know how to shoot better than most average folks I've seen, including a lot of "gun in the sock drawer" gun owners, are accurate and fast, and could, if needed drill a bad guy with alacrity using revolver, shotgun, or rifle.  And, yes, I've seen them run SA revolvers as fast as a lot of average joes can run a semi without that goofy "fanning" that people seem to think.  Not kidding.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Chris presents himself as a self defense expert and you guys indulge him as an expert.


Does he?  I mean, he might, but I don't recall seeing him make the assertion.  I know he's asserted expertise in certain Asian based martial arts which he's studied.  Has he actually said he's a "self defense expert?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Sorry to quibble; in response to Hanzou stating that "the fighting application of these classical JJ arts is close to nil"
> 
> I asked "what experience fighting with weapons does he have to make such an assessment.
> 
> ...


We still do that.  I regularly and continually train with LEO, C.O., and combat vets.  Melee weapons are still common.  One Marine I train with from time to time had to fight against a Machete (aka "short sword") when it was in South America.  And the the non-firearms weapons experiences runs the whole list of sticks, clubs, knives, and "swords."  

You know what martial arts these guys study?  All of them.  I work with guys who study Danzan Ryu, Judo, "Classical" Ju Jutsu, BJJ, "Combatives," antique western styles (Bowie Knife, Pugilism, Applegate/Fairbairn/Sykes/Styers/Biddle) &tc.  They have the actual, still happening, experience.   That Marine I mentioned above?  He studies Judo and U.S. Civil War era arts, including Musketry.  So when I see bozos like hanzou and drop bear claiming that these old things aren't applicable to modern self defense, don't work, are silly, LARPing, or any other stupid and uninformed things they like to say, then I know they're willfully fracking ignorant.  Sometimes I try to set them straight but usually they are too stubborn, conceited, and arrogant to pay any attention, preferring to swim in the mire of their own B.S. echo chamber.

I usually end up getting tired, throw up my hands, and leave them to their conceited ignorance.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> Well, if you read enough history of BJJ this attitude was very common among Brazilians during its time.  The BJJ schools (and Lutre Liva) liked to go out and fight and thus the stereotype.  I don't think its like boxing in America because there isn't an attitude that these boxers are going out and getting into fights with each other or picking fights.


To be fair, Harrison, in his 1912 book, _The Fighting Spirit of Japan_, claims that while he was studying Judo there, the Judoka would do exactly that.  On the weekends they'd go out and pick fights.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Yes.  And my point initially was... the people who created and perpetuated the arts we are discussing did have that experience.  So maybe there might be something there of value.
> 
> My point in clarifying was that 'having a knife pulled on me' doesn't fall into the same category of experience, and is tangential to the original point.


It's actually pretty common for people who are still studying these arts to continue to get said experience.  I train with them and talk to them all the time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Oh yeah, I'm aware of these folks. I'm talking more along the lines of the classical Jiujitsu folks with the katanas and the hakamas. The "Koryu" styles of JJJ.



Yes I agree
This isn't Japanese JJ, it's more a blend of different styles (looks like karate and BJJ to me)


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> There's a lot of people who throw the term "LARP" around as an insult at things that aren't.  I've known folks who did actual real LARP.  But most of the time it seems to be misapplied to people learning to actually fight, but in a context that most aren't likely to see today.  Many of my friends who do HEMA are actually learning to fight with Longswords &tc.  But none of them have convinced themselves that they're ever going to have an actual Medieval style armored life-and-death combat.  But they have learned how to fight in that context.  Why?  Who cares.
> 
> And what is even more unexpected for people who throw the "LARP" insult around, is that there is quite often an intersection between actual LARPing and honestly learning how to fight in an ancient context.  For example, I have friends in the SCA.   They certainly dress in period cloths and try to "live" in period ways from time to time.  But a lot of good research on period fighting methods have come out of those folks.  Because it's a facet of the whole that they're interested in.
> 
> ...



Aren't those exceptions that don't prove the rule?

For example, if I'm looking to purchase a gun for my (and my family's) protection, would I purchase a revolver from the Civil War, or would I purchase a modern hand gun? Obviously, if I collect guns, and I have a hobby of shooting old fashioned guns, I might be interested in a Civil War firearm, however for practical purposes, I'd be using and carrying the modern hand gun.

The same applies when we talk about Modern versus Classical Jujitsu. Sure, there's value in studying those ancient arts, but if a woman is asking me what martial art can best protect her from getting attacked, I'd tell her to learn Bjj and take a self defense class. I would never tell her to join a Tenjin Shino Ryu or similar school.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 22, 2020)

Well, can't talk about Hatsumi but Rory Miller went from judo to classical jujutsu and found the latter very applicable to real world violence, and his experience can hardly be discounted.

Interview: Rory Miller, Detentions Specialist and Conflict Expert - Ikigai Way

I just thought I'd drop this interview here.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> There's a lot of people who throw the term "LARP" around as an insult at things that aren't.  I've known folks who did actual real LARP.  But most of the time it seems to be misapplied to people learning to actually fight, but in a context that most aren't likely to see today.  Many of my friends who do HEMA are actually learning to fight with Longswords &tc.  But none of them have convinced themselves that they're ever going to have an actual Medieval style armored life-and-death combat.  But they have learned how to fight in that context.  Why?  Who cares.
> 
> And what is even more unexpected for people who throw the "LARP" insult around, is that there is quite often an intersection between actual LARPing and honestly learning how to fight in an ancient context.  For example, I have friends in the SCA.   They certainly dress in period cloths and try to "live" in period ways from time to time.  But a lot of good research on period fighting methods have come out of those folks.  Because it's a facet of the whole that they're interested in.
> 
> ...


Completely agree with all of that.  I mentioned LARP specifically because it tends to be used pejoratively.  I think it looks fun.  The key, though, is that folks who LARP generally know that they are pretending.  LARP is used in the context of martial arts to describe folks who don't know that they're pretending.

I have never participated in the SCA, but have many friends who did (we're all old now, so most are "retired").  Based on the stories they tell, they trained hard for the various types of things they did, and they went out and did those things.  I don't know if what they were doing is historically accurate, but I do believe they were developing real skills.


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I absolutely believe that some techniques from classical JJ can benefit Bjj. Wrist locks immediately come to mind, since it adds an extra layer of complexity to grappling, and is legal in many Bjj competitions, so it can be practiced fully in a sparring context.



Yes that's a good example. In BJJ most people know and use the compression style of wrist locks, but there are quite a few other ways to attack the wrist from JJJ that I use effectively all the time in rolling
I've also added a couple of new chokes to our arsenal (all but one of them are quite brutal so we tend to keep them in the "for a-holes" drawer) and reasonably regularly find ways to apply a concept or "part of a technique" from JJJ to improve on my BJJ technique



Hanzou said:


> I just find the "no-rules" self defense stuff to be highly suspect. For example, that video of Hatsumi I posted where he's doing stuff like pulling hair and kicking the groin is certainly "no-rules", but the fundamentals are completely off.



There are two points here
1. No-rules techniques are suspect
I can confidently assert that there are many no-rules techniques that are both viable and more efficient than their rules-compliant alternatives. I've tested these to sort the wheat from the chaff and will continue to do so (because there are a lot of them)
I hope this is self evident, but maybe a simple example is when you're grappling in a gi (standing) instead of trying to hook their leg with yours kick them in the balls and you'll find them set up beautifully for a take down without much effort or pushing and pulling on your part. It's a more efficient way to create kuzushi

2. The clip posted is completely off
It's not a good clip to learn ground work from and I wouldn't recommend anyone learn groundwork from the Bujinkan curriculum. But Hatsumi shows variations of trap and roll (a BJJ foundational movement), he doesn't have to move very much because his partner has reacted a lot to the pain &/or he catches them very early before they've settled in & they don't really know how to attack well, but the bridge and roll is there
He also shows the feet in armpit mount escape, again used in BJJ
Worth remembering that he has 4th dan Judo so, whilst newaza is clearly not his thing, he does have some experience of it



Hanzou said:


> However, the problems begin to emerge when you start believing that that kata you're performing in samurai garb is the same as the Judoka slamming his partner under full resistance. It's not the same, and you're not developing the same level of martial experience as that Judoka is.



I agree with this, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Does he?  I mean, he might, but I don't recall seeing him make the assertion.  I know he's asserted expertise in certain Asian based martial arts which he's studied.  Has he actually said he's a "self defense expert?"
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Errr..  yeah.  He has.


----------



## BrendanF (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I don’t think someone using Bjj in a self defense situation is mentally trapped in a “rules” mindset. They may show some level of restraint, but I’ve seen Bjj practitioners purposely snap limbs, or hold chokes far longer than necessary (and then start stomping the person after they passed out). They can get to that point because when they train, they’re 3/4 of the way there, only stopping because their partner taps.
> 
> My point is, I don’t think operating under a “rules” mindset is a factor one way or another.



Yes but the problem with that is that you don't know what you don't know.  You don't know how some of the habits you form doing unarmed ground grappling can be the most efficient for that context but completely tactically UNsound when in other situations.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Completely agree with all of that.  I mentioned LARP specifically because it tends to be used pejoratively.  I think it looks fun.  The key, though, is that folks who LARP generally know that they are pretending.  LARP is used in the context of martial arts to describe folks who don't know that they're pretending.
> 
> I have never participated in the SCA, but have many friends who did (we're all old now, so most are "retired").  Based on the stories they tell, they trained hard for the various types of things they did, and they went out and did those things.  I don't know if what they were doing is historically accurate, but I do believe they were developing real skills.


Yeah, SCA heavy weapons fighting is very much not historically accurate sword fighting (in a number of ways), but the top fighters are very good at what you might describe a a form of hard-contact sport stickfighting. In addition, I'd say that SCA fighting can provide some insights into certain aspects of historical combat (particularly the use of the shield and formation fighting) which aren't commonly addressed in most martial arts.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, SCA heavy weapons fighting is very much not historically accurate sword fighting (in a number of ways), but the top fighters are very good at what you might describe a a form of hard-contact sport stickfighting. In addition, I'd say that SCA fighting can provide some insights into certain aspects of historical combat (particularly the use of the shield and formation fighting) which aren't commonly addressed in most martial arts.


The SCA folks I know all agree that the competition sports therein are not really good representations of historic (or any) combat.  That said, many (but not all) also make a study of the actual fighting applications.  They just know the difference between what is part of the game and what isn't.  It's a bit like USPSA guys knowing that the 180 rule is part of the game and not necessarily applicable to anything outside of the range.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> There are two points here
> 1. No-rules techniques are suspect
> I can confidently assert that there are many no-rules techniques that are both viable and more efficient than their rules-compliant alternatives. I've tested these to sort the wheat from the chaff and will continue to do so (because there are a lot of them)
> I hope this is self evident, but maybe a simple example is when you're grappling in a gi (standing) instead of trying to hook their leg with yours kick them in the balls and you'll find them set up beautifully for a take down without much effort or pushing and pulling on your part. It's a more efficient way to create kuzushi



Yes, I would agree that in some cases pain compliance can lead to better results. I'm talking more along the lines of silly stuff like Hatsumi kicking a guy in the nuts 4 times after he's supposedly moved him off of mount, or doing patty-kicks to the head when he's in north-south with absolutely no effort made to control the body. To your example, I would actually argue that learning the throw by hooking the leg instead of kicking in the nuts is the better option, because not only can you train it more, but then you'll know how to throw if your groin kick fails to achieve the desired result.



> 2. The clip posted is completely off
> It's not a good clip to learn ground work from and I wouldn't recommend anyone learn groundwork from the Bujinkan curriculum. But Hatsumi shows variations of trap and roll (a BJJ foundational movement), he doesn't have to move very much because his partner has reacted a lot to the pain &/or he catches them very early before they've settled in & they don't really know how to attack well, but the bridge and roll is there
> He also shows the feet in armpit mount escape, again used in BJJ
> Worth remembering that he has 4th dan Judo so, whilst newaza is clearly not his thing, he does have some experience of it



Which is a joke. Reacting to possible pain reaction is a pretty terrible way to train a technique, because once again pain is unpredictable. In other words, if your trap and roll is dependent on a nipple twist, and you're in a situation where you can't reach or twist the nipple, then your trap and roll is doomed. It's even worse when your partner does a perceived reaction to the supposed painful technique and just rolls off of you like a helpless baby. That simply isn't the reality, and that's why utilizing the principles without the pain factor involved is the superior way to train the technique. If my Upa is based on sound body mechanics (proper trapping of the foot and arm, proper bridging and turning), then it has a much higher chance of being successful against a wider variety of assailants.



> I agree with this, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive



You can apply that same general principle to what I said above. If I've performed an Upa under duress hundreds of times in class, then I have a very high chance of performing that technique when someone is actually on top of me. Meanwhile, if I'm learning a side control escape and that escape is completely based on me jamming my finger into the eye of my assailant, I have a far less likely chance of performing that escape when someone is actually on top of me. Why? Because I've never really jammed my partner's eye, and I've never experienced the wide range of possible reactions from the eye jam.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Yes but the problem with that is that you don't know what you don't know.  You don't know how some of the habits you form doing unarmed ground grappling can be the most efficient for that context but completely tactically UNsound when in other situations.



If we're talking purely about technique, again you're 3/4 of the way there. If I've locked a triangle choke on a multitude of opponents trying to punch me in the face and who know the basics of how to stop my triangle, then me locking the triangle on some goon who doesn't know what the hell is going on just became a lot easier.

It's the same situation here;






You can be at the starting point of that break (Omoplata) many times in training, and your partner will typically tap out because s/he knows its over. However, al it requires is continuing the pressure and you get a shoulder break, and an opponent who is no longer a threat.


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yes, I would agree that in some cases pain compliance can lead to better results. I'm talking more along the lines of silly stuff like Hatsumi kicking a guy in the nuts 4 times after he's supposedly moved him off of mount, or doing patty-kicks to the head when he's in north-south with absolutely no effort made to control the body. To your example, I would actually argue that learning the throw by hooking the leg instead of kicking in the nuts is the better option, because not only can you train it more, but then you'll know how to throw if your groin kick fails to achieve the desired result.
> 
> 
> Which is a joke. Reacting to possible pain reaction is a pretty terrible way to train a technique, because once again pain is unpredictable. In other words, if your trap and roll is dependent on a nipple twist, and you're in a situation where you can't reach or twist the nipple, then your trap and roll is doomed. It's even worse when your partner does a perceived reaction to the supposed painful technique and just rolls off of you like a helpless baby. That simply isn't the reality, and that's why utilizing the principles without the pain factor involved is the superior way to train the technique. If my Upa is based on sound body mechanics (proper trapping of the foot and arm, proper bridging and turning), then it has a much higher chance of being successful against a wider variety of assailants.
> ...



You can train these no-rules techniques under pressure. As a minimum to the point of set up and with safety equipment you can go further
People don't do that much because either it's a waste of time for competitors or they don't like the idea of sparring and hide behind the "this is hard to spar" argument

In my experience there are many banned techniques that are fundamentally more efficient than their rules compliant versions. I don't include pain compliance in these as that's really only icing on the cake of fundamental structural technique

So if you can train them under pressure and they are more efficient and your focus is self defence then why focus on less efficient & potentially risky (for self defence) safe versions?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> You can train these no-rules techniques under pressure. As a minimum to the point of set up and with safety equipment you can go further
> People don't do that much because either it's a waste of time for competitors or they don't like the idea of sparring and hide behind the "this is hard to spar" argument
> 
> In my experience there are many banned techniques that are fundamentally more efficient than their rules compliant versions. I don't include pain compliance in these as that's really only icing on the cake of fundamental structural technique
> ...



But even with padding, you can't properly simulate the pain component of an attack. For example, not everyone takes getting kicked in the groin the same, even if you hit the target dead on before a throw. So you're actually ASSUMING what your target's reaction will be, something you simply can't count on. You can never jam your partner in the eye to properly simulate the effects of an eye jam, or if poking someone in the eye would even be all that effective to begin with. Thus if you're relying on pain to make your techniques more effective, you're actually ending up with weaker techniques than the "safe" versions you can perform over and over again on a variety of opponents to the point of mastery.


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

I don't think relying on pain is a good idea
It's a very useful addition to a structural technique


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> I don't think relying on pain is a good idea
> It's a very useful addition to a structural technique



Eh.... If you just want to add some brutality to what you do, sure. However, it's better to have a sound technique that can be practiced repeatedly without any unreliable components. You can add pain to the equation after you've executed the technique properly. For example, hip throw and then stomp their face.


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

Yes we agree that you need sound, structural technique that doesn't rely on pain


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Should we be concerned that everyone in this pic is a white guy?
> 
> Again, if you're Japanese, this is your history and culture, so whatever. However, if you're not Japanese, this isn't your history/culture, so why are you engaged in it to this extent?


Why not be?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Should we be concerned that everyone in this pic is a white guy?
> 
> Again, if you're Japanese, this is your history and culture, so whatever. However, if you're not Japanese, this isn't your history/culture, so why are you engaged in it to this extent?



I'm not Korean. According to the DNA people, I'm as white as you can get. And yet, I've spent a considerable portion of my life wearing Korean clothing. So what?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm not Korean. According to the DNA people, I'm as white as you can get. And yet, I've spent a considerable portion of my life wearing Korean clothing. So what?



There's a difference between wearing a uniform for a sport and pretending to be The Last Samurai.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> There's a difference between wearing a uniform for a sport and pretending to be The Last Samurai.


I'm curious.  What's the club or event that this pic is from?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> Example of which?
> Thanks



useful techniques in the old Japanese styles that are not found in modern systems

An example of one of these techniques that is better for SD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Aren't those exceptions that don't prove the rule?
> 
> For example, if I'm looking to purchase a gun for my (and my family's) protection, would I purchase a revolver from the Civil War, or would I purchase a modern hand gun? Obviously, if I collect guns, and I have a hobby of shooting old fashioned guns, I might be interested in a Civil War firearm, however for practical purposes, I'd be using and carrying the modern hand gun.
> 
> The same applies when we talk about Modern versus Classical Jujitsu. Sure, there's value in studying those ancient arts, but if a woman is asking me what martial art can best protect her from getting attacked, I'd tell her to learn Bjj and take a self defense class. I would never tell her to join a Tenjin Shino Ryu or similar school.


Those two aren't at the same level. You've talked about the weapon in the first one and the system in the second. The SA revovler is more like the sword from Koryu arts. Training with the SA revolver for "Cowboy Action Shooting" would be more like training in a Koryu (though there are problems with that analogy).

The question would be whether training with the SA revolver improves overall ability with other guns that might be more desirable for defensive use, rather than for SASS competition.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm not Korean. According to the DNA people, I'm as white as you can get. And yet, I've spent a considerable portion of my life wearing Korean clothing. So what?



So if someone trains at your club they will  recreate an honest representation of Korean culture?

Because of the clothing.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Those two aren't at the same level. You've talked about the weapon in the first one and the system in the second. The SA revovler is more like the sword from Koryu arts. Training with the SA revolver for "Cowboy Action Shooting" would be more like training in a Koryu (though there are problems with that analogy).
> 
> The question would be whether training with the SA revolver improves overall ability with other guns that might be more desirable for defensive use, rather than for SASS competition.



Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.





We can look at this and determine if it could be used in self defense. 

Which is about the best determination we have for modern shooting to be honest.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So if someone trains at your club they will  recreate an honest representation of Korean culture?
> 
> Because of the clothing.



No, because we're not training the culture. We're training the martial art. I have no idea what the people in that picture are doing. But merely wearing a suit of armor from another culture doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, because we're not training the culture. We're training the martial art. I have no idea what the people in that picture are doing. But merely wearing a suit of armor from another culture doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.



Correct and that is kind of the difference.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point in bringing it up being that, despite the fact that they're <cough> "playing dress up," taking fictitious names, pretending as if they're in a time period and place that they're not, using antique designed weapons that most agree have been improved on by modern alternatives; i.e.: <cough> "LARPing," they still have significant and viable skill which is directly applicable to the modern firearms-for-fighting context.

So this B.S. "playing dress-up" horseshiz that some people like to pull is a fallacy.  It's conclusively demonstrated multiple times now that studying "antique" fighting skills, both armed and unarmed, even using "less than modern weapons," can, and often does, lead directly to applicable and viable fighting capacity even in a modern context.  I.E., it can certainly be "practical" in some cases despite of what some people continue to claim.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Those two aren't at the same level. You've talked about the weapon in the first one and the system in the second. The SA revovler is more like the sword from Koryu arts. Training with the SA revolver for "Cowboy Action Shooting" would be more like training in a Koryu (though there are problems with that analogy).
> 
> The question would be whether training with the SA revolver improves overall ability with other guns that might be more desirable for defensive use, rather than for SASS competition.



The point is for the purpose of self protection, why would I purchase an antique gun over a modern gun when the modern gun is superior in every way?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> My point in bringing it up being that, despite the fact that they're <cough> "playing dress up," taking fictitious names, pretending as if they're in a time period and place that they're not, using antique designed weapons that most agree have been improved on by modern alternatives; i.e.: <cough> "LARPing," they still have significant and viable skill which is directly applicable to the modern firearms-for-fighting context.
> 
> So this B.S. "playing dress-up" horseshiz that some people like to pull is a fallacy.  It's conclusively demonstrated multiple times now that studying "antique" fighting skills, both armed and unarmed, even using "less than modern weapons," can, and often does, lead directly to applicable and viable fighting capacity even in a modern context.  I.E., it can certainly be "practical" in some cases despite of what some people continue to claim.




 "they still have significant and viable skill"

Yep that. That is the fundamental difference.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> The point is for the purpose of self protection, why would I purchase an antique gun over a modern gun when the modern gun is superior in every way?


No, the point, which you seem to keep deliberately missing, is not the tool, but the skills built.  The skills are very clearly "practical," despite being learned and practiced with "an antique gun."


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No, the point, which you seem to keep deliberately missing, is not the tool, but the skills built.  The skills are very clearly "practical," despite being learned and practiced with "an antique gun."



Okay, but why build skills with an inferior weapon? Wouldn’t I be better off building skills with the superior weapon?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> "they still have significant and viable skill"
> 
> Yep that. That is the fundamental difference.


So then you agree that it's not about how the skill is acquired, whether in some "classical" Ju Jutsu koryu while "playing dress-up," or in something that you personally like better.  As long as the skills are developed to actually fight, it doesn't matter what they wear, where they practice, or even if they want to pretend that they're in a different place and time period.

Good.  This is progress.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but why build skills with an inferior weapon? Wouldn’t I be better off building skills with the superior weapon?


The question is irrelevant because the skill is still built regardless.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Because the skill is still built regardless.



Skill yes, the same level of skill, no, because the modern weapon is more accurate, reliable, and easier to handle than the antique.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> So then you agree that it's not about how the skill is acquired, whether in some "classical" Ju Jutsu koryu while "playing dress-up," or in something that you personally like better.  As long as the skills are developed to actually fight, it doesn't matter what they wear, where they practice, or even if they want to pretend that they're in a different place and time period.
> 
> Good.  This is progress.



Absolutely. Very few people bag out catch wrestling. Because there are catch wrestlers who will maul you. 

I mean you are not going to laugh at a Senegalese wrestler dressed up in his gear.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

lklawson said:


> So then you agree that it's not about how the skill is acquired, whether in some "classical" Ju Jutsu koryu while "playing dress-up," or in something that you personally like better.  As long as the skills are developed to actually fight, it doesn't matter what they wear, where they practice, or even if they want to pretend that they're in a different place and time period.
> 
> Good.  This is progress.



Are the skills developed to actually fight though?


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, they're actually shooting things.


lklawson said:


> My point in bringing it up being that, despite the fact that they're <cough> "playing dress up," taking fictitious names, pretending as if they're in a time period and place that they're not, using antique designed weapons that most agree have been improved on by modern alternatives; i.e.: <cough> "LARPing," they still have significant and viable skill which is directly applicable to the modern firearms-for-fighting context.
> 
> So this B.S. "playing dress-up" horseshiz that some people like to pull is a fallacy.  It's conclusively demonstrated multiple times now that studying "antique" fighting skills, both armed and unarmed, even using "less than modern weapons," can, and often does, lead directly to applicable and viable fighting capacity even in a modern context.  I.E., it can certainly be "practical" in some cases despite of what some people continue to claim.


I think you actually misunderstand the "playing dress up' horseshiz point.  (BTW, horseshiz??? LOL).  

I think it's almost exactly the opposite of what you articulate above.  The problem isn't with people who dress up and actually learn functional skills that they apply in a particular context.  SCA, these cowboys, HEMA, Dog  Brothers, BJJ, MMA... it's all people learning something, and then doing that thing.  They practice, they train, they perform, and they get better. 

The problem IS with people who assume the trappings of an activity without actually engaging in the activity.  Pretending to be a fighter.  Pretending to be a self defense expert.  Pretending to be a ninja.  It's fine to pretend, like being an Elven Sorcerer out in the park on a sunny afternoon casting lightning bolts at your buddies.  It's fine to pretend to be a ninja sneaking around the park and tumbling with your friends.  But it's just healthy to understand the difference between real life and make believe.  I think if the cowboys were using dime store cap guns, we'd be having a different discussion.


----------



## dunc (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> useful techniques in the old Japanese styles that are not found in modern systems
> 
> An example of one of these techniques that is better for SD.



For example BJJ does not do a good job of dealing with a grab and punch. I’m not sure if it even appears in the BJJ SD curriculum. However, there are a tonne of techniques in the JJJ systems that deal with this scenario


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

dunc said:


> For example BJJ does not do a good job of dealing with a grab and punch. I’m not sure if it even appears in the BJJ SD curriculum. However, there are a tonne of techniques in the JJJ systems that deal with this scenario



You mean this?






Interestingly, they found that the easiest counter (overhand and spin) worked the best.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The competition element helps for evalutation, for sure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> The point is for the purpose of self protection, why would I purchase an antique gun over a modern gun when the modern gun is superior in every way?


I was just correcting the analogy, which failed to reach that point.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Correct and that is kind of the difference.



What's the difference between wearing Korean clothes and practicing a Korean empty hand martial art and wearing Japanese armor and practicing a Japanese sword art?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I was just correcting the analogy, which failed to reach that point.



Fair enough.

I suppose the main point is that the belief that martial arts hasn’t improved over the course of history is rather flawed. For example, the top guys in Bjj now would school the Gracie family of the 90s. Also MMA has clearly evolved to the point where the guys coming in now are far more advanced than MMA fighters from years past. You could say the same for just about any combat sport.

 If MA has improved to that extent in a little over 20 years, why would we believe a martial art largely unchanged from hundreds of years ago would be valid now (if it was ever valid in the first place)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I suppose the main point is that the belief that martial arts hasn’t improved over the course of history is rather flawed. For example, the top guys in Bjj now would school the Gracie family of the 90s. Also MMA has clearly evolved to the point where the guys coming in now are far more advanced than MMA fighters from years past. You could say the same for just about any combat sport.
> 
> If MA has improved to that extent in a little over 20 years, why would we believe a martial art largely unchanged from hundreds of years ago would be valid now (if it was ever valid in the first place)?


I agree that knowledge and strategy has advanced, in general. The question is whether some of the techniques are substantially different. Sure, some are, but is that true of a lot of them? I don't really know what proportion, nor how significant most of those changes are from a not-an-elite-fighter point of view.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I agree that knowledge and strategy has advanced, in general. The question is whether some of the techniques are substantially different. Sure, some are, but is that true of a lot of them? I don't really know what proportion, nor how significant most of those changes are from a not-an-elite-fighter point of view.




Well I don’t know about new techniques. I would just say that existing techniques have (at the very least) been refined and experimented with to create new opportunities and applications. The Bjj Guard and it’s myriad of variations being a prime example.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> The competition element helps for evalutation, for sure.



Not just the competition. As a layman I can see that they seem to be able to shoot things pretty effectively.

Now we could then go to JJJ and say let's see some randori.

Google Image Result for https://media3.giphy.com/media/jUwpNzg9IcyrK/giphy.gif


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> You mean this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah this is a great example
Super experienced grapplers learning how to deal with a grab and a punch for the first time
And it’s one of a very tiny number of videos out there


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 23, 2020)

Quick reminder to all-You are free to argue against any point another poster makes. But your argument can't be about the poster/attacking the poster in any way. You can attack whatever argument you see, just not the poster as an individual.

*William Hollwedel
MartialTalk Moderator*
@Monkey Turned Wolf


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I agree that knowledge and strategy has advanced, in general. The question is whether some of the techniques are substantially different. Sure, some are, but is that true of a lot of them? I don't really know what proportion, nor how significant most of those changes are from a not-an-elite-fighter point of view.



I feel this kinda depends....
There are fairly regular innovations, which can lead to major changes in focus that have a material effect on the “game”
In BJJ examples would be leg locks and gi entanglements (neither concept is new, but innovations in these areas have meant people’s strategies are fundamentally different now)
If you’re training in a particular style, say BJJ, then you do need at least a familiarity with the breadth of things that may get thrown at you (within that style) even if your own focus is on a smaller set of techniques
If your focus is just self defence then probably not so much
However, if your focus is on being a martial artist who can hold their own against other martial artists then I think you need to keep a broader horizon to at least pick up on new ideas that either you could incorporate effectively &/or techniques that are gaining a lot of popularity and therefor the probability of encountering them goes up


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> I feel this kinda depends....
> There are fairly regular innovations, which can lead to major changes in focus that have a material effect on the “game”
> In BJJ examples would be leg locks and gi entanglements (neither concept is new, but innovations in these areas have meant people’s strategies are fundamentally different now)
> If you’re training in a particular style, say BJJ, then you do need at least a familiarity with the breadth of things that may get thrown at you (within that style) even if your own focus is on a smaller set of techniques
> ...



You short cut that issue with broader concepts. It is how MMA handles BJJ to a certain degree.

So defence against a Guillotine choke becomes good posture.

Tyrannosaurus arms becomes the defence to basically every standing arm bar.

So for self defence you don't need all the pieces of the puzzle just the sides.

So a boxer may not understand grab and hit. But they may understand space. If you cut of the space in a clinch you close of striking opportunities.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You short cut that issue with broader concepts. It is how MMA handles BJJ to a certain degree.
> 
> So defence against a Guillotine choke becomes good posture.
> 
> ...



Yes I think that’s generally true, but getting surprised by something can often screw you up
And if you messed up and end up in a bad spot with something you’ve never experienced getting applied, it’s kinda hard to figure out the defence/escape from scratch


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> Yeah this is a great example
> Super experienced grapplers learning how to deal with a grab and a punch for the first time
> And it’s one of a very tiny number of videos out there



In Gracie JJ, there’s a few techniques that deal with that grab, not necessarily the punching aspect. I could be wrong about that. It’s been awhile since I’ve done their self defense -based stuff.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

Yes I think thats it


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> In Gracie JJ, there’s a few techniques that deal with that grab, not necessarily the punching aspect. I could be wrong about that. It’s been awhile since I’ve done their self defense -based stuff.



It doesn't matter. There are judo guys or wrestlers who can break your structure and take advantage of grabs. 

But most people can't. 

If you grab me and I collar tie you. I will probably have the mechanical advantage unless you have some serious grip skills.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter. There are judo guys or wrestlers who can break your structure and take advantage of grabs.
> 
> But most people can't.
> 
> If you grab me and I collar tie you. I will probably have the mechanical advantage unless you have some serious grip skills.



But we can agree that the scenario (a collar grab and punch) is a pretty common self defence situation that, for a variety of reasons, is not regularly trained in academies etc?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> But we can agree that the scenario (a collar grab and punch) is a pretty common self defence situation that, for a variety of reasons, is not regularly trained in academies etc?



The defence to that attack is regularly trained though. 

Concepts not scenarios.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The defence to that attack is regularly trained though.
> 
> Concepts not scenarios.



Really? I’ve never seen it drilled or pressure tested at a BJJ academy


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter. There are judo guys or wrestlers who can break your structure and take advantage of grabs.
> 
> But most people can't.
> 
> If you grab me and I collar tie you. I will probably have the mechanical advantage unless you have some serious grip skills.



True. The only dangerous variable is the punching, but if the grappler closes the distance I don't think a lot of those punches will be all that effective.

With that said, I typically don't see collar grab punch stuff. I typically see people getting sucker punched by assailants.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Skill yes, the same level of skill, no,


Nope.  The fundamentals are exactly the same.  I speak from a certain level of expertise on this matter.



> because the modern weapon is more accurate, reliable, and easier to handle than the antique.


All three of those claims are wrong.  There are important ways that "more modern" firearms are distinctly different and could add advantages, but not the ones you listed.  

This shows, yet again, that you are not qualified to argue on the subject.  You should stop talking and listen & learn.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Are the skills developed to actually fight though?


Yes.  He already stipulated to that, as should you.  Or do you want to look at the video he posted, again?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Yeah, they're actually shooting things.
> I think you actually misunderstand the "playing dress up' horseshiz point.  (BTW, horseshiz??? LOL).


The comment is not directed at you, sir.  As we agreed, the pejorative "LARP" and "dress up" have been misapplied many times, by others, and have been so again here in this thread (again, not by you).



> I think it's almost exactly the opposite of what you articulate above.  The problem isn't with people who dress up and actually learn functional skills that they apply in a particular context.  SCA, these cowboys, HEMA, Dog  Brothers, BJJ, MMA... it's all people learning something, and then doing that thing.  They practice, they train, they perform, and they get better.
> 
> The problem IS with people who assume the trappings of an activity without actually engaging in the activity.  Pretending to be a fighter.  Pretending to be a self defense expert.  Pretending to be a ninja.  It's fine to pretend, like being an Elven Sorcerer out in the park on a sunny afternoon casting lightning bolts at your buddies.  It's fine to pretend to be a ninja sneaking around the park and tumbling with your friends.  But it's just healthy to understand the difference between real life and make believe.  I think if the cowboys were using dime store cap guns, we'd be having a different discussion.


I don't materially disagree.  My assertion is that some (here and elsewhere) seem to automatically assume that because some practitioner is engaging in what they call "playing dress up" and "LARPing" that they are not also gaining applicable skills.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> I feel this kinda depends....
> There are fairly regular innovations, which can lead to major changes in focus that have a material effect on the “game”


I think that it's the height of hubris to believe that in more than 5,000+ years of documented grappling that anyone has "improved" on anything.  Anything we do now has been done in the past 5,000 years.  The only things that change are the rules.  When the French "invented" Greco-Roman wrestling by rebranding local French wrestling styles, it was not the same as actual Grecian or Roman wrestling which, from the images and accounts, had many techniques and strategies which are not present in frenchie wrestling specifically because of the rule sets.  Then someone comes along and throws out the Greco-Roman rule set, applies one more similar to the ancient rules, adapts the techniques and strategies they know to fit the new rule set, then pats themselves on the back for being "innovative" by re-learning how to do things that the Greeks were documented doing 3,000 years ago.  Good job.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Nope.  The fundamentals are exactly the same.  I speak from a certain level of expertise on this matter.
> 
> All three of those claims are wrong.  There are important ways that "more modern" firearms are distinctly different and could add advantages, but not the ones you listed.



So a gun from the 1860s is just as accurate, reliable, and handles exactly like a modern firearm? We've made no technological progress in gun manufacturing at all in 160 years?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I think that it's the height of hubris to believe that in more than 5,000+ years of documented grappling that anyone has "improved" on anything.  Anything we do now has been done in the past 5,000 years.  The only things that change are the rules.  When the French "invented" Greco-Roman wrestling by rebranding local French wrestling styles, it was not the same as actual Grecian or Roman wrestling which, from the images and accounts, had many techniques and strategies which are not present in frenchie wrestling specifically because of the rule sets.  Then someone comes along and throws out the Greco-Roman rule set, applies one more similar to the ancient rules, adapts the techniques and strategies they know to fit the new rule set, then pats themselves on the back for being "innovative" by re-learning how to do things that the Greeks were documented doing 3,000 years ago.  Good job.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



This is pure fantasy. Grapplers today are vastly superior to grapplers in the past. How are they superior? They utilize more refined techniques, and in some cases they have innovated on a variety of fronts. You throw a grappler from the early 1900s into a contest with a modern grappler, and they'd get manhandled. Hell, put a grappler from the 1990s in the ring with a modern grappler, same result.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but why build skills with an inferior weapon? Wouldn’t I be better off building skills with the superior weapon?


Why on earth would anybody learn to fight with, or against, some outdated, antique, inferior weapon?  I mean, it's not like anybody actually uses, for instance, a quarterstaff or <cough> "bo staff" any more.

Oh wait...


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> This is pure fantasy. Grapplers today are vastly superior to grapplers in the past. How are they superior? They utilize more refined techniques, and in some cases they have innovated on a variety of fronts. You throw a grappler from the early 1900s into a contest with a modern grappler, and they'd get manhandled. Hell, put a grappler from the 1990s in the ring with a modern grappler, same result.


Sorry, we've already established that you're not qualified to talk about this.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So a gun from the 1860s is just as accurate,


The ones being built now, using the "antique" designs, are just as accurate as any.  



> reliable,


Buy any Ruger, Smith, or Uberti SAA and they are every bit as reliable as anything else you can buy, more so than some.



> and handles exactly like a modern firearm?


That's not what you claimed.  You wrote "easier to handle" and that is wrong.  An SAA is exceptionally easy to "handle" (use). 



> We've made no technological progress in gun manufacturing at all in 160 years?


Straw man and mark of either sloppy thinking or desperation.  No one but you has made that claim.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I think that it's the height of hubris to believe that in more than 5,000+ years of documented grappling that anyone has "improved" on anything.  Anything we do now has been done in the past 5,000 years.  The only things that change are the rules.  When the French "invented" Greco-Roman wrestling by rebranding local French wrestling styles, it was not the same as actual Grecian or Roman wrestling which, from the images and accounts, had many techniques and strategies which are not present in frenchie wrestling specifically because of the rule sets.  Then someone comes along and throws out the Greco-Roman rule set, applies one more similar to the ancient rules, adapts the techniques and strategies they know to fit the new rule set, then pats themselves on the back for being "innovative" by re-learning how to do things that the Greeks were documented doing 3,000 years ago.  Good job.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I know where you’re coming from on this
The rules do certainly change over time and these clearly have a big effect on the techniques and strategies
Also the context for training changes over time

But whilst there may be nothing new that hasn’t turned up at some point or another in human history, in our context today there are techniques being created that are new to everyone 

I’d also argue that the pool of people training and exchanging information is exponentially larger than it ever has been in history. As a result, and just like any human endeavour you care to choose, it’s highly likely that there are brand new ideas and strategies being developed


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> I know where you’re coming from on this
> The rules do certainly change over time and these clearly have a big effect on the techniques and strategies
> Also the context for training changes over time
> 
> But whilst there may be nothing new that hasn’t turned up at some point or another in human history, in our context today there are techniques being created that are new to everyone


New to people currently alive.



> I’d also argue that the pool of people training and exchanging information is exponentially larger than it ever has been in history. As a result, and just like any human endeavour you care to choose, it’s highly likely that there are brand new ideas and strategies being developed


Only if the environment and the technology changes.  Human joints haven't changed in at least 200,000 years.  I guarantee with 100% certainty that humans have been grappling for the entire time.  And the body hasn't changed in the intervening milenia.  Anything we know now about bending or breaking the body (as opposed to putting it back together again), was recognized a LOOOONG time back.  If we don't currently know something about how to bend and break the human body using bare hands in a wrestling event, then it's because we've forgotten it, probably because of social norms and rules associated with sportive events.  

It is utterly and completely ludicrous to believe that in the last 199,950 years no one figured out how to torque a joint in just that specific way, but, magically, because we're SOOO much smarter than the previous 10,000 generations, we've only just now figured out a 10 degree angle difference or to pull the body in tighter here.  This isn't mechanical propulsion of horses to jets here; this is the human body, which hasn't changed at all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> New to people currently alive.
> 
> Only if the environment and the technology changes.  Human joints haven't changed in at least 200,000 years.  I guarantee with 100% certainty that humans have been grappling for the entire time.  And the body hasn't changed in the intervening milenia.  Anything we know now about bending or breaking the body (as opposed to putting it back together again), was recognized a LOOOONG time back.  If we don't currently know something about how to bend and break the human body using bare hands in a wrestling event, then it's because we've forgotten it, probably because of social norms and rules associated with sportive events.
> 
> ...



Yeah I’m open to that possibility
The truth is we’ll never know
There are definitely innovations that are new to us today which is the pertinent point
And there are things contained in the older traditions that we can learn from and use today


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> This is pure fantasy. Grapplers today are vastly superior to grapplers in the past. How are they superior? They utilize more refined techniques, and in some cases they have innovated on a variety of fronts. You throw a grappler from the early 1900s into a contest with a modern grappler, and they'd get manhandled. Hell, put a grappler from the 1990s in the ring with a modern grappler, same result.


I don't know about this.  Maybe the only advantage modern athletes have is better nutrition and fitness training.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't know about this.  Maybe the only advantage modern athletes have is better nutrition and fitness training.



It'd be interesting to see what are the drivers behind the improvements in various sports that have been around for ever
Are they 100% diet, training methods etc or has our understanding of technique, biomechanics etc improved - dunno


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Sorry, we've already established that you're not qualified to talk about this.



In other words, you're taking your wittle ball and going home.



lklawson said:


> Straw man and mark of either sloppy thinking or desperation.  No one but you has made that claim.



Uh, that's the entire point of what I'm talking about; Modern guns are superior to older guns.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> I know where you’re coming from on this
> The rules do certainly change over time and these clearly have a big effect on the techniques and strategies
> Also the context for training changes over time
> 
> ...


Good points, and an argument for diversity in rulesets and application, not the absence of it.  A grappler who only competes in IBJJF competitions will have a less complete skill set than someone who competes in IBJJF, judo, submission only, gi, and no-gi.  And if, on top of all of that, the person uses grappling skills in a more expansive context where striking can be involved, (e.g., MMA, a copper, bouncer, hitman, gang member, or anarchist) he/she'll have an even broader skill set.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't know about this.  Maybe the only advantage modern athletes have is better nutrition and fitness training.



If we're talking about grappling, modern athletes have the advantage of 20 years of refinement and technique synthesis from multiple grappling systems. For example, the modern Bjj elite grapplers would run circles around the Gracies. Which is why Gracie JJ as a whole tends to shy away from competitive BJJ and focuses on self defense.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> It'd be interesting to see what are the drivers behind the improvements in various sports that have been around for ever
> Are they 100% diet, training methods etc or has our understanding of technique, biomechanics etc improved - dunno


Depends on the sport.  Sometimes, and maybe this is what Hanzou is getting at, it's just a function of better technology.   Look at the swimsuit in competitive swimming.  At one point, the suits were made of wool.  In the 1920s, a person started using the modern "racerback" suit and immediately set new world records.  Then someone wore a suit made of silk and set more world records.  Then nylon came into play in the 1950s... and more world records.  Then lycra, and then in the 1990s (I think), they started wearing the full body suits... all of these made them faster.  

I remember just a few years back in the Sydney games, there was a swimmer using a suit made out of some kind of polyurethane or something that made them like 10% faster than if they swam without it.  

But that said, I don't see BJJ guys wearing grappling shorts that make them stronger or more skilled.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

To illustrate this further;






The reason Curran Jacobs got mauled in this fight was because he was using outmoded strategies against a high-end Bjj grappler.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> New to people currently alive.
> 
> Only if the environment and the technology changes.  Human joints haven't changed in at least 200,000 years.  I guarantee with 100% certainty that humans have been grappling for the entire time.  And the body hasn't changed in the intervening milenia.  Anything we know now about bending or breaking the body (as opposed to putting it back together again), was recognized a LOOOONG time back.  If we don't currently know something about how to bend and break the human body using bare hands in a wrestling event, then it's because we've forgotten it, probably because of social norms and rules associated with sportive events.
> 
> ...


I do agree with much of what you have written here especially the part on how human anatomy hasn't changed much in 200,000 years however, on the average, people are larger and live longer than they did in the last 100 years.   Technology and the flow of information is also much more disseminated now as compared to the past so it is conceivable that more breakthroughs in strategies and tactics to apply techniques are evolving quicker today than they would in the past when this information was held by very few.  

I would also add that if people had this knowledge before and we have 'forgotten' it through the years, the methods used to preserve and hand down this information may not be as good as they are now so it is a question that really cannot be answered unless old texts are unearthed that demonstrate that this knowledge existed.  

I do appreciate that to call our generation the smartest and the most evolved with better and completely new systems seems a little arrogant.   Just in the shear volume of time you stated it would be strange to think someone in our ancestry didn't stumble on to any or all of these techniques that we 'claim' to be new and evolved at one point in time in history.   Would they have had the time and resources or even forethought to pass it down is where I think we have an advantage over the previous generations.   We live longer and are more wealthier on average.  We also seem to have access to more varied body sizes and types that will assist in exploring the concepts in a broader sense.  Is that an improvement or evolution ?  Only if the environment or technology changes as you said.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Depends on the sport.  Sometimes, and maybe this is what Hanzou is getting at, it's just a function of better technology.   .


 
In terms of guns, certainly. When it comes to grappling, we're better now because we have more communication, so information is spread more rapidly, and that fosters experimentation and innovation. For example, I can check out Danaher's back take to guillotine on youtube, and experiment with it and make it my own. If I start subbing people left and right at a tournament with my modified variation of Danaher's technique, then a lot of Bjj folks are going to be messing around with it, and it'll get modified, refined, and improved even further. That is Bjj's main advantage, because other grappling systems aren't huge fans of people bringing new techniques into the system, and that causes stagnation.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> In other words, you're taking your wittle ball and going home.


No.  I'm saying that you are unqualified to comment due to ignorance and lack of understanding.



> Uh, that's the entire point of what I'm talking about; Modern guns are superior to older guns.


Which is irrelevant to my point so stop trying to divert.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No.  I'm saying that you are unqualified to comment due to ignorance and lack of understanding.



Says the guy who doesn’t know what a guillotine choke looks like..... 



> Which is irrelevant to my point so stop trying to divert.



But you were responding to MY point.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> In terms of guns, certainly. When it comes to grappling, we're better now because we have more communication, so information is spread more rapidly, and that fosters experimentation and innovation. For example, I can check out Danaher's back take to guillotine on youtube, and experiment with it and make it my own. If I start subbing people left and right at a tournament with my modified variation of Danaher's technique, then a lot of Bjj folks are going to be messing around with it, and it'll get modified, refined, and improved even further. That is Bjj's main advantage, because other grappling systems aren't huge fans of people bringing new techniques into the system, and that causes stagnation.


Ummm, not quite.  You can watch the video and try it but it MAY improve your previous technique but WATCHING and trying it out in your local club will more than likely NOT result in the leaps you talking about because the other side of the equation is TESTING out what you have seen against opponents that are BETTER than you.   This is a key ingredient to improving and one that is often overlooked.   Better competition forces you to come up with solutions that will work for you in that situation.  Simply having access to information is not enough.   Being challenged to learn it and understand it under a multitude of high pressure situations will give you a better opportunity to grow your performance.   This is true of not only BJJ but any MA system worth it's salt.  Without testing there is no truth (Mas Oyama).


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> I would also add that if people had this knowledge before and we have 'forgotten' it through the years, the methods used to preserve and hand down this information may not be as good as they are now so it is a question that really cannot be answered unless old texts are unearthed that demonstrate that this knowledge existed.


I don't particularly disagree.  In many cases, the only way things were handed down was from one person to the next, with little to none being written down or recorded.  It's easy for things to get lost or forgotten.



> I do appreciate that to call our generation the smartest and the most evolved with better and completely new systems seems a little arrogant.   Just in the shear volume of time you stated it would be strange to think someone in our ancestry didn't stumble on to any or all of these techniques that we 'claim' to be new and evolved at one point in time in history.   Would they have had the time and resources or even forethought to pass it down is where I think we have an advantage over the previous generations.


Sometimes it's just that no one cared anymore.  It may have been seen as not worth the effort to preserve.  For most cultures, when the bow was invented, the at'latl was discarded and few, if any thought it worth preserving.  It's not particularly difficult to posit a culture where it was really important to know how to break people with bare hands one generation, and then the next, for cultural, social, or technological reasons, suddenly that knowledge is 2nd or 3rd tier.  And if it's considered a "peasant skill" then it is less likely to be preserved by people with the money and resources to record it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Says the guy who doesn’t know what a guillotine choke looks like.....


So you like to claim.



> But you were responding to MY point.


Because you continue to misrepresent what I'm writing.  duh


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I don't particularly disagree.  In many cases, the only way things were handed down was from one person to the next, with little to none being written down or recorded.  It's easy for things to get lost or forgotten.
> 
> Sometimes it's just that no one cared anymore.  It may have been seen as not worth the effort to preserve.  For most cultures, when the bow was invented, the at'latl was discarded and few, if any thought it worth preserving.  It's not particularly difficult to posit a culture where it was really important to know how to break people with bare hands one generation, and then the next, for cultural, social, or technological reasons, suddenly that knowledge is 2nd or 3rd tier.  And if it's considered a "peasant skill" then it is less likely to be preserved by people with the money and resources to record it.
> 
> ...


The breadth of your knowledge in ancient weapons never ceases to amaze me.   Never thought I would hear anyone bring up an at'latl in a current conversation.   Thank you for that !


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Ummm, not quite.  You can watch the video and try it but it MAY improve your previous technique but WATCHING and trying it out in your local club will more than likely NOT result in the leaps you talking about because the other side of the equation is TESTING out what you have seen against opponents that are BETTER than you.   This is a key ingredient to improving and one that is often overlooked.   Better competition forces you to come up with solutions that will work for you in that situation.  Simply having access to information is not enough.   Being challenged to learn it and understand it under a multitude of high pressure situations will give you a better opportunity to grow your performance.   This is true of not only BJJ but any MA system worth it's salt.  Without testing there is no truth (Mas Oyama).



Trying it out at your local club is testing, because there tends to be quite a few people at a club who are better than you are. Competition would be another form of testing, and again if I'm subbing people left and right, then my variation of the technique is repeated within the Bjj community.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Trying it out at your local club is testing, because there tends to be quite a few people at a club who are better than you are. Competition would be another form of testing, and again if I'm subbing people left and right, then my variation of the technique is repeated within the Bjj community.


Yes I am not against this statement.  It is testing however I thought I would point out that there is testing and then there is TESTING.  If we stick to the concept that newer techniques are being conceived all the time now just because we have access to the information (eg:  Danaher's videos) then we remove the element of QUALITY of instruction and instructor.  That, to me, is essential and the ingredient you left out of the initial statement you made the premise being that having access to information will allow for the evolution of newer techniques.   That is not entirely correct or complete but that is fine.   I do not always write complete thoughts whenever I post (try as I might).  The interaction on this board helps to bring the thoughts of an imperfect writer such as myself to better fruition.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Yes I am not on against this statement.  It is testing however I thought I would point out that there is testing and then there is TESTING.  If we stick to the concept that newer techniques are being conceived all the time now just because we have access to the information (eg:  Danaher's videos) then we remove the element of QUALITY of instruction and instructor.  That, to me, is essential and the ingredient you left out of the initial statement you made the premise being that having access to information will allow for the evolution of newer techniques.   That is not entirely correct or complete but that is fine.   I do not always write complete thoughts whenever I post (try as I might).  The interaction on this board helps to bring the thoughts of an imperfect writer such as myself to better fruition.



Which is why I used myself as an example. For me, learning Danaher's technique wouldn't be too much an issue since I understand the starter and finisher of that sequence. The only learning curve would be the transition, which is fairly easy to work through after a few drills and rounds with a partner. Obviously learning from Danaher himself would be preferable, but if it works, it works.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Which is why I used myself as an example. For me, learning Danaher's technique wouldn't be too much an issue since I understand the starter and finisher of that sequence. The only learning curve would be the transition, which is fairly easy to work through after a few drills and rounds with a partner. Obviously learning from Danaher himself would be preferable, but if it works, it works.


Learning from Danaher and trying the techniques against students of a higher calibre (perhaps higher than the average local school is more precise a statement) could result in 'newer' techniques being 'found' faster.   There is an inherent flaw with training with and against solely people from your local club.   The longer you train with and against them the more you learn their strengths and weaknesses and the ability to grow from being pushed diminishes.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't know about this.  Maybe the only advantage modern athletes have is better nutrition and fitness training.



Not really.

What Breaking the 4-Minute Mile Taught Us About the Limits of Conventional Thinking


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> Really? I’ve never seen it drilled or pressure tested at a BJJ academy



You have never seen collar tie stuff in BJJ?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't know about this.  Maybe the only advantage modern athletes have is better nutrition and fitness training.


Besides nutrition, one of the biggest advantages we have today is medical recovery.  While we have long known how to break a body, the technology required to artificially repair it or artificially accelerate its repair is better today.  While Galen pioneered the concept of traction 2,000 years ago, it's only recently that our technology has progressed to where we can reliably reattach tendons and repair, even replace, joints.  Where 100 years ago, a blown ACL would would put a Judoka out of commission for pretty much the rest of his life, or a torn rotator cuff would end a wrestler's career, now these can often be repaired or encouraged to heal at a greatly accelerated rate.

Heck, even just recognizing when someone might have a concussion or TBI and being able to use imaging technology to diagnose, then treat, increases a boxer's ability to continue his sport.

While nutrition helps to improve performance in the sport, medical technology improves an athlete's longevity.  

We really haven't learned a ton about how to break a human body in the last few millennia.  But we've gotten immeasurably better at putting it back together again.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I think that it's the height of hubris to believe that in more than 5,000+ years of documented grappling that anyone has "improved" on anything.  Anything we do now has been done in the past 5,000 years.  The only things that change are the rules.  When the French "invented" Greco-Roman wrestling by rebranding local French wrestling styles, it was not the same as actual Grecian or Roman wrestling which, from the images and accounts, had many techniques and strategies which are not present in frenchie wrestling specifically because of the rule sets.  Then someone comes along and throws out the Greco-Roman rule set, applies one more similar to the ancient rules, adapts the techniques and strategies they know to fit the new rule set, then pats themselves on the back for being "innovative" by re-learning how to do things that the Greeks were documented doing 3,000 years ago.  Good job.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




We can look at the people who win grappling competitions and the systems they use. 

Very few historical grapplers are dominant.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> We can look at the people who win grappling competitions and the systems they use.
> 
> Very few historical grapplers are dominant.


My point is that without the Hot Tub Time Machine, you don't actually know that.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You have never seen collar tie stuff in BJJ?



I’ve never seen anyone training defences against a grab and punch scenario in BJJ


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> My point is that without the Hot Tub Time Machine, you don't actually know that.



Who wins grappling competitions? We can use Google.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Who wins grappling competitions? We can use Google.


Google has a time machine?  They've been holding out!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Google has a time machine?  They've been holding out!



Modern people do old timey systems. Japanese jujitsu for example.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Modern people do old timey systems. Japanese jujitsu for example.


I think you missed the point again.

I have an all-day class to teach tomorrow and I've got to get some things done before then so I guess I have to leave this until next week.

I expect to come back to 12 more pages and hundreds of posts of silliness.  I know you won't disappoint.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I think you missed the point again.



Would it be something about ancient texts that show the real secret of fighting but only you can interpret them?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> We can look at the people who win grappling competitions and the systems they use.
> 
> Very few historical grapplers are dominant.



I would love to see someone stroll into a major grappling competition using some ancient grappling system, or some Koryu Jujutsu and actually win some tournaments.

We all know that won’t happen though.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I would love to see someone stroll into a major grappling competition using some ancient grappling system, or some Koryu Jujutsu and actually win some tournaments.
> 
> We all know that won’t happen though.


You know?  I'd be impressed if someone strolled in from an ancient grappling system and could simply hang. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to win.  But to just do okay would be a success.  More importantly, I think it would be very informative for that person, good and bad.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> You know?  I'd be impressed if someone strolled in from an ancient grappling system and could simply hang. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to win.  But to just do okay would be a success.  More importantly, I think it would be very informative for that person, good and bad.


Just looking for Japanese jujutsu in the Seattle area and came across this video from a local school.  I have questions.


----------



## dunc (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just looking for Japanese jujutsu in the Seattle area and came across this video from a local school.  I have questions.



Yeah that wasn’t technically sound at all


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> You know?  I'd be impressed if someone strolled in from an ancient grappling system and could simply hang. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to win.  But to just do okay would be a success.  More importantly, I think it would be very informative for that person, good and bad.



Agreed. The only classical JJ practitioners who have appeared in any tournaments are ninjutsu practitioners.

They didn’t do so well.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just looking for Japanese jujutsu in the Seattle area and came across this video from a local school.  I have questions.



Good luck getting answers...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2020)

dunc said:


> I feel this kinda depends....
> There are fairly regular innovations, which can lead to major changes in focus that have a material effect on the “game”
> In BJJ examples would be leg locks and gi entanglements (neither concept is new, but innovations in these areas have meant people’s strategies are fundamentally different now)
> If you’re training in a particular style, say BJJ, then you do need at least a familiarity with the breadth of things that may get thrown at you (within that style) even if your own focus is on a smaller set of techniques
> ...


Agreed. If you’re looking at a narrow context, you want to stay up on everything new in that context. For broader contexts, you want to dabble at least a little with any new stuff you can find, either to adopt, or to adapt your defense. Whether that latter applies to self-defense depends what level you’re planning your prep for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't know about this.  Maybe the only advantage modern athletes have is better nutrition and fitness training.


They definitely have that. It would be hard to argue they don’t have better information on the technical aspects, too. Even if all of it existed in the past 5,000 years, it likely was more scattered, as transmission methods were more restrictive. One system today can contain more information, because it’s easier to find and share.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> You know?  I'd be impressed if someone strolled in from an ancient grappling system and could simply hang. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to win.  But to just do okay would be a success.  More importantly, I think it would be very informative for that person, good and bad.



The whole logic basically works against that though.

If you have a system that is perfected in war. And martial arts hasn't evolved. Then all you need to do is perfect that system. If you perfect that system then you are the only person who can really judge its effectiveness.

If you enter a modern grappling environment. That just shows how removed from the original premise of martial arts has become. And getting schooled isn't really a reflection on your skill.

So the criteria for effectiveness isn't grappling skill against anyone. But knowledge of the style itself.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The whole logic basically works against that though.
> 
> If you have a system that is perfected in war. And martial arts hasn't evolved. Then all you need to do is perfect that system. If you perfect that system then you are the only person who can really judge its effectiveness.
> 
> ...



Judo would be the modernization of Japanese Jujutsu.

Unfortunately, some believe that it isn’t a complete martial art, and think that since Classical Jujutsu styles offer everything but the kitchen sink, ‘
it’s better by default.


----------



## dunc (Oct 24, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Judo would be the modernization of Japanese Jujutsu.



Not really
Judo is the sportification of the throwing techniques of JJJ


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 24, 2020)

dunc said:


> Not really
> Judo is the sportification of the throwing techniques of JJJ



Sport was part of it. Kanō also created Judo as a means of personal protection and improvement. This is why it was adopted by police forces and schools  in early modern Japan.


----------



## dunc (Oct 24, 2020)

Yeah but despite his assertion that people should train 50% judo (ie the sporting side) and 50% in the more traditional techniques (ie JJJ) everyone mostly focuses on on the sporting stuff


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 24, 2020)

dunc said:


> Yeah but despite his assertion that people should train 50% judo (ie the sporting side) and 50% in the more traditional techniques (ie JJJ) everyone mostly focuses on on the sporting stuff



But Judo contains traditional elements. Namely it’s kata which generally come from its classical JJ roots.

People get caught up in the removal of strikes, secret techniques, and weapons, but miss the point of that decision; You remove the “dangerous” stuff you can’t train full blast so that you can master the “safer” stuff in a training environment. When the time comes to execute that technique, you’re far more likely to pull it off. It’s really genius when you think about it.

This is why Judo successfully beat JJJ to achieve prominence in Japan, and why the Gracies were very successful in their challenge matches against TMAs decades later; Bjj adopted the same methodology. They simply added a street fighting element to it.


----------



## dunc (Oct 24, 2020)

I agree 100% and this is the point I've been trying to make (badly)
In Judo/BJJ very few people train the traditional / self defence stuff to any degree of skill. Nowadays they focus 90+% on the sporting side
And very few people from JJJ do the sparring thing so miss out on the other side of the equation too


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 24, 2020)

dunc said:


> I agree 100% and this is the point I've been trying to make (badly)
> In Judo/BJJ very few people train the traditional / self defence stuff to any degree of skill. Nowadays they focus 90+% on the sporting side
> And very few people from JJJ do the sparring thing so miss out on the other side of the equation too



To be fair, the Gracie line of Bjj is very heavily invested in the self defense side of things. Rorian, Rickson, Royce, and Relson's schools are very much into the self defense stuff. You're not getting out of white belt without knowing how to counter headlocks, or dealing with punches while in the guard, etc.

Honestly, they're invested in it to their eventual detriment IMO.


----------



## dunc (Oct 24, 2020)

I like what Rener an Ryron are doing to develop this
I also agree with the elements within the BJJ community that realise the lack of self defence training is an issue and are trying to correct this
I think the SD curriculum in BJJ is really limited and the depth of understanding of the techniques isn’t great. Hence they would benefit from incorporating some of the techniques from JJJ into the curriculum and training them under pressure


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 24, 2020)

dunc said:


> I like what Rener an Ryron are doing to develop this
> I also agree with the elements within the BJJ community that realise the lack of self defence training is an issue and are trying to correct this
> I think the SD curriculum in BJJ is really limited and the depth of understanding of the techniques isn’t great. Hence they would benefit from incorporating some of the techniques from JJJ into the curriculum and training them under pressure



I would disagree with it being a "correction". Gracie Jiujitsu's roots are based in self defense, and they used the competitive side to market their system to the masses. What you're seeing now is more like what you see with TMA and sports, where you have groups that want to adhere to the traditional way of doing things, and then you have groups that give the finger to tradition and want to push the competitive side of the art. However, none of it is for anything other than economic purposes. The Gracies adhere to old school Bjj because their schools simply aren't competitive on the sport side of things (Renzo's schools being the exception), and instead of embracing attributes that would make them more competitive, they stick doggedly to old school instruction. I mean, when you have someone like Rickson Gracie saying that stuff like the Berimbolo is BS, that simply carries a lot of weight within the community. However, pretty much no one believes in the invincibility of the Gracies anymore, and acknowledge that when you're looking for competitive Bjj, you might not want to attend a Gracie JJ school.

To their benefit, there's a huge market for self defense, and Gracie JJ schools are getting a lot of money from LEOs and other groups for what they teach. I mean, whenever I start training again, I'm going back to a Gracie JJ school because I have no interest in competitive Bjj, and I'm only looking for self defense at this stage in my life. 

With that said, the sport-based Bjj groups have an argument to make that their version of the art is useful for self defense as well, and it's hard to argue against them. Some of the attributes developed from sport Bjj is very applicable to a self defense situation. The escapes, inverted Guards, leg locking, mobility, wrestling-based takedowns, submission chains, etc. isn't anything to scoff at. It also helps that a lot of sport-based Bjj practitioners have moved into MMA rather effortlessly.

Anyway, you feel that BJJ is limited self defense wise and could learn some things from traditional JJ. What would you say those techniques are?


----------



## dunc (Oct 24, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I would disagree with it being a "correction". Gracie Jiujitsu's roots are based in self defense, and they used the competitive side to market their system to the masses. What you're seeing now is more like what you see with TMA and sports, where you have groups that want to adhere to the traditional way of doing things, and then you have groups that give the finger to tradition and want to push the competitive side of the art. However, none of it is for anything other than economic purposes. The Gracies adhere to old school Bjj because their schools simply aren't competitive on the sport side of things (Renzo's schools being the exception), and instead of embracing attributes that would make them more competitive, they stick doggedly to old school instruction. I mean, when you have someone like Rickson Gracie saying that stuff like the Berimbolo is BS, that simply carries a lot of weight within the community. However, pretty much no one believes in the invincibility of the Gracies anymore, and acknowledge that when you're looking for competitive Bjj, you might not want to attend a Gracie JJ school.
> 
> To their benefit, there's a huge market for self defense, and Gracie JJ schools are getting a lot of money from LEOs and other groups for what they teach. I mean, whenever I start training again, I'm going back to a Gracie JJ school because I have no interest in competitive Bjj, and I'm only looking for self defense at this stage in my life.
> 
> ...



I feel like I’m repeating myself a little so forgive me for that
The BJJ self defence curriculum is very superficial and the execution of many of the techniques is no where near the quality that you’d see in terms of the execution of the core ground techniques

In my view the curriculum (well executed) is probably fine for a bit of rough and tumble. It doesn’t cater well for strikes, grabs (of all sorts) and punches & weapons
The possibility of weapons being present changes a lot about the technique, positioning, primary controls etc etc and this I believe would be a big gain from JJJ
I think there would also be gains to be had by taking execution details from JJJ and building them into the existing curriculum 
And finally the core of the SD curriculum is to deal with situations without striking and there are more efficient ways of solving for many of the situations covered in the BJJ SD curriculum if you allow for striking and a no-rules approach

In my experience of a Gracie academy probably less than 10% of people’s time is devoted to the SD side of things and to be honest most people don’t really try to refine or test the techniques


----------



## drop bear (Oct 24, 2020)

dunc said:


> I feel like I’m repeating myself a little so forgive me for that
> The BJJ self defence curriculum is very superficial and the execution of many of the techniques is no where near the quality that you’d see in terms of the execution of the core ground techniques
> 
> In my view the curriculum (well executed) is probably fine for a bit of rough and tumble. It doesn’t cater well for strikes, grabs (of all sorts) and punches & weapons
> ...



The self defence or weapon stuff still has to work though. Which for weapons especially is a sticking point.

And for striking, stand up, escape, take down defence concepts you are competing against MMA which works.

There is an argument that says say for example winning a self defense may mean getting up and running away. Which is different to the hierarchy of positions in BJJ. Who will generally re-guard to attack with submissions.

But it isn't that big a leap generally.

I mean it might be the difference between suggesting a standing choke rather than a rear naked. Which i assume most people could just do.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 24, 2020)

dunc said:


> I feel like I’m repeating myself a little so forgive me for that
> The BJJ self defence curriculum is very superficial and the execution of many of the techniques is no where near the quality that you’d see in terms of the execution of the core ground techniques
> 
> In my view the curriculum (well executed) is probably fine for a bit of rough and tumble. It doesn’t cater well for strikes, grabs (of all sorts) and punches & weapons
> ...



I understand what you're saying. However, I think what some people miss is that if the core martial art you're practicing bleeds into the SD realm by default, you really don't need to spend a ton of time doing specific self defense exercises.

For example, if I'm well versed in standup and ground grappling, do I really need to know a specific technique on how to escape a headlock? If I'm a boxer, do I need to learn specific self defense tactics against someone trying to sucker punch me, or someone grabbing my collar and trying to punch me in the face? Bjj (and Boxing) provides self defense applications through the meat of their practice, so frankly the specific self defense stuff isn't really all that necessary. In both of my self defense situations, I didn't use anything from the self defense angle I was taught at Relson's school. In the most dangerous situation, I did a Triangle choke from Guard, so it was basic ground fighting knowledge that saved my head from getting bashed into hamburger meat. 

This is why I said the  Gracie's self defense focus will eventually be to their detriment because while what they're offering has merit, some of their sport-based competitors are simply offering superior Bjj. It's really not that difficult to take a black belt from 10th Planet, or ATOS, and train them on how to deal with taking strikes while grappling.

This is also why I'm highly skeptical of systems that overload on the self defense aspects and miss that none of it matters if you can't fight to begin with.


----------



## Buka (Oct 24, 2020)

I first trained with Rickson several years before the first UFC. He taught us a lot about how to strike while grappling. We were pleased that he did.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 25, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I would disagree with it being a "correction". Gracie Jiujitsu's roots are based in self defense, and they used the competitive side to market their system to the masses. What you're seeing now is more like what you see with TMA and sports, where you have groups that want to adhere to the traditional way of doing things, and then you have groups that give the finger to tradition and want to push the competitive side of the art. However, none of it is for anything other than economic purposes. The Gracies adhere to old school Bjj because their schools simply aren't competitive on the sport side of things (Renzo's schools being the exception), and instead of embracing attributes that would make them more competitive, they stick doggedly to old school instruction. I mean, when you have someone like Rickson Gracie saying that stuff like the Berimbolo is BS, that simply carries a lot of weight within the community. However, pretty much no one believes in the invincibility of the Gracies anymore, and acknowledge that when you're looking for competitive Bjj, you might not want to attend a Gracie JJ school.
> 
> To their benefit, there's a huge market for self defense, and Gracie JJ schools are getting a lot of money from LEOs and other groups for what they teach. I mean, whenever I start training again, I'm going back to a Gracie JJ school because I have no interest in competitive Bjj, and I'm only looking for self defense at this stage in my life.
> 
> ...


My view has long been that context training (in this case, training specifically for SD context) makes a difference, but not the huge difference often thought by SD folks. If you took a competition-only BJJ guy and had him focus for a while on SD context, maybe his edge in SD improves 10% (to throw out a number) if he has already been training for reasonable variety. If he has been uber-focused on what wins in BJJ competition (as opposed to wider competitions), the context shift probably has a bigger effect simply because it opens up more stuff to work on.

I think this difference becomes more obvious in the other direction. Because a given competition is (aside from a few notable exceptions) a narrow context, folks training only for that context will probably tend to have a large advantage in that context. They simply aren't spending any of their traininig time on other things, so have more time to focus on what wins that competition. Exceptions likely exist, but I'd expect that to be the general rule.

So, counter to some claims, I don't think sport training is generally so narrow it won't transfer to SD situations. Some of it won't, and may present obstacles to application in SD (like tap-point fighting), but most of it will - especially stuff like MMA-focused training.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 25, 2020)

Buka said:


> I first trained with Rickson several years before the first UFC. He taught us a lot about how to strike while grappling. We were pleased that he did.



I got similar training from Relson, and yes, I’m very glad to have that training.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 25, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My view has long been that context training (in this case, training specifically for SD context) makes a difference, but not the huge difference often thought by SD folks. If you took a competition-only BJJ guy and had him focus for a while on SD context, maybe his edge in SD improves 10% (to throw out a number) if he has already been training for reasonable variety. If he has been uber-focused on what wins in BJJ competition (as opposed to wider competitions), the context shift probably has a bigger effect simply because it opens up more stuff to work on.
> 
> I think this difference becomes more obvious in the other direction. Because a given competition is (aside from a few notable exceptions) a narrow context, folks training only for that context will probably tend to have a large advantage in that context. They simply aren't spending any of their traininig time on other things, so have more time to focus on what wins that competition. Exceptions likely exist, but I'd expect that to be the general rule.
> 
> So, counter to some claims, I don't think sport training is generally so narrow it won't transfer to SD situations. Some of it won't, and may present obstacles to application in SD (like tap-point fighting), but most of it will - especially stuff like MMA-focused training.



Agreed. As an aside, when I was training for competition I was probably in the best shape of my life. Despite knowing more Bjj now, I was probably more capable of defending myself back then than I am now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 25, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Agreed. As an aside, when I was training for competition I was probably in the best shape of my life. Despite knowing more Bjj now, I was probably more capable of defending myself back then than I am now.


Being in "fighting shape" is a real advantage when it's backed by skill.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 26, 2020)

Aside from the emphasis on 'sport' oriented or 'SD' oriented techniques, what are the real differences in the schools ?  I would think that 'sport' oriented schools would focus more time on physical conditioning to make their students as physically fit as possible so that they can out compete other students from other schools.   Not being from a martial art that focuses primarily on 'SD' I can only go by what I have seen in other schools and it seems that the majority of time is spent on 'scenario' training ?  Can anyone offer any other insight into the focus of SD schools ?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 26, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Aside from the emphasis on 'sport' oriented or 'SD' oriented techniques, what are the real differences in the schools ?  I would think that 'sport' oriented schools would focus more time on physical conditioning to make their students as physically fit as possible so that they can out compete other students from other schools.   Not being from a martial art that focuses primarily on 'SD' I can only go by what I have seen in other schools and it seems that the majority of time is spent on 'scenario' training ?  Can anyone offer any other insight into the focus of SD schools ?



Well in the Gracie JJ school I attended (Relson affiliate) there's the self defense stuff that they teach which honestly looks like something you'd see in a TMA. Some people think that stuff is hokey BS, and frankly there's some merit for that criticism, but some of the stuff (the headlock counters) were pretty solid. They also taught dealing with punches while standing, or in Guard, side control, or under mount, which I thought was way more applicable to a SD situation than the one-step SD stuff.

We also learned takedowns (DLT, Hip throw, Body fold, etc.) how to cover distance, how to create distance while standing, etc. I would say it's a pretty holistic experience. I haven't spent any significant time in a sport-based school to say they do anything different. However, some have told me that they don't learn takedowns or punching while grappling.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 26, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Well in the Gracie JJ school I attended (Relson affiliate) there's the self defense stuff that they teach which honestly looks like something you'd see in a TMA. Some people think that stuff is hokey BS, and frankly there's some merit for that criticism, but some of the stuff (the headlock counters) were pretty solid. They also taught dealing with punches while standing, or in Guard, side control, or under mount, which I thought was way more applicable to a SD situation than the one-step SD stuff.
> 
> We also learned takedowns (DLT, Hip throw, Body fold, etc.) how to cover distance, how to create distance while standing, etc. I would say it's a pretty holistic experience. I haven't spent any significant time in a sport-based school to say they do anything different. However, some have told me that they don't learn takedowns or punching while grappling.


Interesting. Could you break down a typical class to give me an idea on how time is spent ?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 26, 2020)

Well, I see this thread has progressed more-or-less as I expected, though a bit more pleasant than I had thought.

My class went well.  Had to work very hard with two of the students for them to make their qualification score but we eventually got them there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 26, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Interesting. Could you break down a typical class to give me an idea on how time is spent ?



Fundamentals (1hr) class would typically work as follows;

-Warm Ups 
-Drilling the techniques of the day
-Rolling


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 26, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Fundamentals (1hr) class would typically work as follows;
> 
> -Warm Ups
> -Drilling the techniques of the day
> -Rolling


Seems reasonable.   Quality is more important that quantity for me but of course I would like to take advantage of both if that was possible.  Does your club offer different streams for mat rats vs weekend warriors ?   Our typical student has an option to go to 3 days of 1-1/2 hour each but mat rats can and do have access to additional time on the floor when they reach a high enough level and show the desire.   Training can go up to 10 hours or more/week not including adding their own fitness regime on off days.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 26, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> Seems reasonable.   Quality is more important that quantity for me but of course I would like to take advantage of both if that was possible.  Does your club offer different streams for mat rats vs weekend warriors ?   Our typical student has an option to go to 3 days of 1-1/2 hour each but mat rats can and do have access to additional time on the floor when they reach a high enough level and show the desire.   Training can go up to 10 hours or more/week not including adding their own fitness regime on off days.



When I attended it did. My old club is gone, but here's a link to a group I used to train with for about a year when I lived in central Ohio. I think they're following a similar format to my old club. I think their website can answer a lot of your questions.

Relson Gracie Jiu Jitsu Academy - Columbus, OH


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 26, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Well in the Gracie JJ school I attended (Relson affiliate) there's the self defense stuff that they teach which honestly looks like something you'd see in a TMA. Some people think that stuff is hokey BS, and frankly there's some merit for that criticism, but some of the stuff (the headlock counters) were pretty solid. They also taught dealing with punches while standing, or in Guard, side control, or under mount, which I thought was way more applicable to a SD situation than the one-step SD stuff.
> 
> We also learned takedowns (DLT, Hip throw, Body fold, etc.) how to cover distance, how to create distance while standing, etc. I would say it's a pretty holistic experience. I haven't spent any significant time in a sport-based school to say they do anything different. However, some have told me that they don't learn takedowns or punching while grappling.


My opinion of one-step stuff is that it just creates a bridge to some bits that don't fit within other training. If the principles are pretty much the same, then it's just another drill for applying them. If the principles aren't much the same, I'm not sure they can serve much purpose (assuming they are a small part of training time).


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 2, 2020)

Okay, so one day I spent over an hour trying to find the one Japanese martial art called "jiu jitsu," from which all other styles of jiu jitsu descended... and I found nothing.

Unless someone here knows otherwise, this tells me that "jiu jitsu" is simply a generic term for grappling arts that originated in mainland Japan or offshoots thereof.  Much in the same way that "kung fu" is a generic term for Chinese striking arts that may or not even be related to each other.

When we're looking at aikido, hapkido, judo, hakko-ryu, etc... most styles of jiu jitsu don't have "jiu jitsu" in the name.

Brazilian jiu jitsu is one of the few that does, and it's the most popular one.  In that case, it has only "taken over" jiu jitsu in the sense that it's the most popular form of it.

But it doesn't "own" the term.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 2, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so one day I spent over an hour trying to find the one Japanese martial art called "jiu jitsu," from which all other styles of jiu jitsu descended... and I found nothing.
> 
> Unless someone here knows otherwise, this tells me that "jiu jitsu" is simply a generic term for grappling arts that originated in mainland Japan or offshoots thereof.  Much in the same way that "kung fu" is a generic term for Chinese striking arts that may or not even be related to each other.
> 
> ...



True. However, the other side of this is Bjj’s perceived effectiveness over other forms of Jujitsu. This perceived effectiveness isn’t challenged, and is a driving force behind its popularity. As I said before, unlike other MA fads, BJJ’s  popularity rests mainly in its performance in self defense and various types of competition. This means that BJJ is more than likely going to continue to be popular for the foreseeable future.

In short, what happens when you have a readily available form of Jujitsu that is viewed as far more effective and practical than far more obscure (nearly impossible to find) Jujitsus? Will people continue to seek out those more obscure JJs if they’re perceived to be far less effective than the more readily available one?


----------



## dunc (Nov 2, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so one day I spent over an hour trying to find the one Japanese martial art called "jiu jitsu," from which all other styles of jiu jitsu descended... and I found nothing.
> 
> Unless someone here knows otherwise, this tells me that "jiu jitsu" is simply a generic term for grappling arts that originated in mainland Japan or offshoots thereof.  Much in the same way that "kung fu" is a generic term for Chinese striking arts that may or not even be related to each other.
> 
> ...



Jiu Jitsu is essentially a subsystem or principle within the older Japanese styles. The term jiu is used relatively frequently to communicate the principle in traditional styles, this could be in striking, weapons as well as grappling

Some styles that focus a lot (not exclusively) on Jiu Jitsu principles do use older terms such as Jutaijutsu in their names


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My view has long been that context training (in this case, training specifically for SD context) makes a difference, but not the huge difference often thought by SD folks. If you took a competition-only BJJ guy and had him focus for a while on SD context, maybe his edge in SD improves 10% (to throw out a number) if he has already been training for reasonable variety. If he has been uber-focused on what wins in BJJ competition (as opposed to wider competitions), the context shift probably has a bigger effect simply because it opens up more stuff to work on.
> 
> I think this difference becomes more obvious in the other direction. Because a given competition is (aside from a few notable exceptions) a narrow context, folks training only for that context will probably tend to have a large advantage in that context. They simply aren't spending any of their traininig time on other things, so have more time to focus on what wins that competition. Exceptions likely exist, but I'd expect that to be the general rule.
> 
> So, counter to some claims, I don't think sport training is generally so narrow it won't transfer to SD situations. Some of it won't, and may present obstacles to application in SD (like tap-point fighting), but most of it will - especially stuff like MMA-focused training.



The issue is essentially quality. SD is generally basically so terrible as to not really need an adjustment from the competition guy.

So even though technically you might be doing the wrong thing. Most have no ability to defend it and so the deficiencys of that move never come up.

Rhonda rousey is a good example. Couldn't strike to save herself. Kept doing one submission. Which isn't a great striking submission because you loose top control.

Still won a UFC title. Because nobody could defend it.


So while SD essentially claims this striking, grappling superiority, in a specific context of self defence. You have to be a competent striker or grappler for any striking or grappling to work.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2020)

So this is technically the wrong way to address ground and pound. But it works because the guys doing it are so good at it.

And this is common with traditional styles as well. To be successful you actually have to be good at what you do.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=265788471331133


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The issue is essentially quality. SD is generally basically so terrible as to not really need an adjustment from the competition guy.
> 
> So even though technically you might be doing the wrong thing. Most have no ability to defend it and so the deficiencys of that move never come up.
> 
> ...


I'm trying to figure out if you were disagreeing with something I said, or just quoting me while making a related statement.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 2, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So this is technically the wrong way to address ground and pound. But it works because the guys doing it are so good at it.
> 
> And this is common with traditional styles as well. To be successful you actually have to be good at what you do.
> 
> ...


This is part of why I advise people to find a martial art that they really love to train. Because if they don't, it doesn't matter how great the art is, they won't put the necessary work in to get really good. In general, someone who trains a 50% efficient art with 100% dedication will beat someone who trains a 100% efficient art with 10% dedication.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 2, 2020)

drop bear said:


>



Yeah, leg locks help that particular situation quite a bit. That style of Bjj opens up sweep opportunities  fairly effortlessly.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is part of why I advise people to find a martial art that they really love to train. Because if they don't, it doesn't matter how great the art is, they won't put the necessary work in to get really good. In general, someone who trains a 50% efficient art with 100% dedication will beat someone who trains a 100% efficient art with 10% dedication.



I think that is a much bigger conversation.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm trying to figure out if you were disagreeing with something I said, or just quoting me while making a related statement.



There are some important factors you missed out. 

The related information changes the what is correct in the original statement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There are some important factors you missed out.
> 
> The related information changes the what is correct in the original statement.


I'm not sure how, really. You talk about narrowness winning within competition and you talk about poor  quality in SD (which I assume is another shot at SD-oriented training). Neither of which actually seems to address anything I said.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is part of why I advise people to find a martial art that they really love to train. Because if they don't, it doesn't matter how great the art is, they won't put the necessary work in to get really good. In general, someone who trains a 50% efficient art with 100% dedication will beat someone who trains a 100% efficient art with 10% dedication.


I think this is not necessarily true.  10% dedication in a superior training program coupled with routine application is going to give you better, more reliable results than training alone, no matter how good the training.

Similarly 100% dedication to something that is fundamentally unsound is just wasted energy, like trying to cut a tree down with a hammer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think this is not necessarily true.  10% dedication in a superior training program coupled with routine application is going to give you better, more reliable results than training alone, no matter how good the training.
> 
> Similarly 100% dedication to something that is fundamentally unsound is just wasted energy, like trying to cut a tree down with a hammer.


That's why my example was 100% dedication to a 50% efficient program vs 10% dedication to a 100% efficient program. If the art/training program is essentially useless (let's say 5% efficient for an example), then the pseudo-math works out differently.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 3, 2020)

Honest question; Would classical JJ practitioners fare as well as the Bjj practitioners did in that ground and pound test with boxing gloves?

I’m forced to say “no”.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Honest question; Would classical JJ practitioners fare as well as the Bjj practitioners did in that ground and pound test with boxing gloves?
> 
> I’m forced to say “no”.


In my experience, that's much more school-dependent in classical JJ than for BJJ. I've met some who were surprisingly adept at their ground work who - so far as they tell their story - get that entirely from their JJ training. But those are the exceptions, and come from schools where they really work on ground work.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 3, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> In my experience, that's much more school-dependent in classical JJ than for BJJ. I've met some who were surprisingly adept at their ground work who - so far as they tell their story - get that entirely from their JJ training. But those are the exceptions, and come from schools where they really work on ground work.



I'm talking about in general, not just on the ground. I'd like to see some classical JJ guys paired up with guys in boxing gloves to see how they'd do.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how, really. You talk about narrowness winning within competition and you talk about poor  quality in SD (which I assume is another shot at SD-oriented training). Neither of which actually seems to address anything I said.



Good will generally beat applicable when it comes to self defence. At which point it becomes applicable. 

SD has no real way to determine good. And so no way to determine applicable. And with that extra information it changes how your statement kind of works.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about in general, not just on the ground. I'd like to see some classical JJ guys paired up with guys in boxing gloves to see how they'd do.



Sports jujitsu?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 3, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Sports jujitsu?



Nah, the classical JJ stuff. Classical JJ guys don't consider Sport JJ to be "real" Jujitsu.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Nah, the classical JJ stuff. Classical JJ guys don't consider Sport JJ to be "real" Jujitsu.



I thought there was a slap fighting JJJ version somewhere.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's why my example was 100% dedication to a 50% efficient program vs 10% dedication to a 100% efficient program. If the art/training program is essentially useless (let's say 5% efficient for an example), then the pseudo-math works out differently.


Tony, I think the point is that it’s all pseudo math, and also that you’re (imo) overvaluing effort/dedication and completely devaluing (through omission) simply using skills in context.

I’ll take a guy who trains half assed in a functional skill set that he actually uses regularly over someone who trains like a beast in a functional skill set that he never uses.  Nothing beats good old fashioned experience.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 3, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I thought there was a slap fighting JJJ version somewhere.



I think that’s Eddie Bravos thing.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I think that’s Eddie Bravos thing.



Yeah I tried to find it and that is all I got. But I remember it being a thing ten years ago because I had an instructor jump in one once without realising the difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about in general, not just on the ground. I'd like to see some classical JJ guys paired up with guys in boxing gloves to see how they'd do.


Same statement would hold. There are some who would show well, but I’d expect lower consistency than with BJJ.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Good will generally beat applicable when it comes to self defence. At which point it becomes applicable.
> 
> SD has no real way to determine good. And so no way to determine applicable. And with that extra information it changes how your statement kind of works.


 No, it really doesn’t.


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No, it really doesn’t.


compelling counterpoint.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is part of why I advise people to find a martial art that they really love to train. Because if they don't, it doesn't matter how great the art is, they won't put the necessary work in to get really good. In general, someone who trains a 50% efficient art with 100% dedication will beat someone who trains a 100% efficient art with 10% dedication.



It definitely helps momentum to have a regular training program that meshes with you. 

The issue a bit with likes and lothes is that it can sometimes come from a weird place. So I don't like arts I am not good at. Which for me is stand up wrestling. 

But the better I get at it the more I like it.

So now this is the opposite in that I don't get good because I love the art. I love the art because I am good. 

And theoretically the me who is good at wrestling is a better fighter than the me who isn't.

And being well rounded also means I can enjoy more martial arts opportunities. 

Especially in self defense because the basic concepts don't really change much. I am still trying to seek positional and mechanical advantage. I am still trying to use timing and mobility and technique to do that. 

And so learning those foundations is what makes the fun part fun.

I think.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> compelling counterpoint.



The thing is this is why we have some of the applicable SD stuff we see.

If I punch you in the crotch and you get off me. That is suddenly street specific. Not because it is statistically the best move. But because it works against the people I use it on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> compelling counterpoint.


I didn’t see a need for a counterpoint, given his post didn’t seem to be contrary to anything I said.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Honest question; Would classical JJ practitioners fare as well as the Bjj practitioners did in that ground and pound test with boxing gloves?
> 
> I’m forced to say “no”.



Are you freaking kidding me?

Seriously?!?!?!

Dude. I'm going to say this one more time.

WE
DO
NOT
CARE

YOUR
VALUES
MEAN
NOTHING
TO 
CLASSICAL
PRACTITIONERS

GET 
OVER
YOURSELF

Seriously. We don't care if we'd handle a "ground and pound" the same... or better... or worse... it's NOT WHY WE TRAIN IN THESE ARTS!!!!!!

You've been told this from the first goddamn page.

Understand this. Your values mean nothing. They aren't even close to the metrics we use. Stop trying to assume that everyone works with your ideas, as we don't. Stop assuming that everyone has the same aims, as we don't. Stop assuming that all arts have the same ideas and aims, as they don't.

The reason that BJJ isn't going to "replace" classical jujutsu is that they aren't even competing with each other. It's like saying the vegan restaurant is going to put the steak house down the road out of business... they don't even have the same customers.

I'm going to be about as blunt as I can be here. Basically no-one in this thread, with maybe two exceptions, have the first clue what they're talking about... and, more importantly, most don't seem able (or willing in some cases) to listen to people who do. This has been explained thoroughly in the first couple of pages... the last 20 are just ridiculous. BJJ is not "replacing" traditional jujutsu. That's it. If you can't grasp that by now, then you never will, and go on with your delusions and wilful ignorance.

Hell, if anything, classical schools are in a much better place than they were 30 years ago... there are more branch dojo around the world (outside of Japan) than there were. And it has nothing at all to do with BJJ, so don't try taking credit again... it's more to do with people like Donn Draeger, Meik Skoss and Diane Skoss, Dave Lowry, Wayne Muromoto, Alexander Bennett, Karl Friday, Hunter Armstrong, Phil Relnick, and the Japanese teachers, Otake Risuke, Imai Masayuki, Kubota Toshihiro, Shimazu Takauji, Nishioka Tsuneo, Yagyu Nobutoshi, Seki Humitake, and far more.

But the main take-away is this... stop applying your values to these arts. Asking what the "self defence" properties of a Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu embu is just shows how little you grasp of martial arts in general, and classical arts in particular (as well as self defence, for that matter... and, while I'm here, I'm going to address something else below regarding Steve's lunatic comments). Suggesting that handling "ground and pound" is even a relevant metric also just shows a complete lack of anything outside your tiny little box... and there's a whole world out there you will remain completely ignorant of so long as you think everything should match your small idea of martial arts.

With all that said, Steve.

Son.

Grow the hell up.

You want to again (and again and again) imply something about my education, background, knowledge, skills, etc? Then listen when you are given answers.

The last time we did this dance, I made observational comments on a ludicrous video, and you decided to insinuate that my background didn't apply... I then gave you (again) my background, including classical, modern, competitive, non-competitive, reality-based, armed, and unarmed arts. I mentioned fights I'd been in. I backed up my opinion with my background, which supports my information. You then said "so you've never been in a fight?" and ignored the relevant arts in my background. In short, you were given the answers, and acted like a child with your fingers in your ears.

Here, again, you decide to attack my credentials in understanding self defence?!?! Seriously? No, I do not describe myself as an expert... I say I have some expertise in the area, and point out that my organisation focused strongly on self defence (frankly in ways that you don't grasp) for the close to 30 years that I've been involved in it, and that all the information I give is completely in line with people who ARE acknowledged experts in the field.

You seem to have a problem with me, and go out of your way to show it (to the point where you "thank" people for seeming to validate your delusional ideas in unrelated threads if you think what they say supports your opinion). Again, complete bluntness here. 

You have, maybe, 10% of the martial arts background I do.
You have, maybe, 5% of the understanding of them.
You have, maybe, 2% of a clue about self defence, and what the topic actually entails.
Your ideas regarding this topic (and your bizarre "can you be an expert" idea which is where this comes from) are based in a deeply lacking understanding of all of this.

And I'm sick of it.

There is no support for your ideas. There is no support for your attacks and insinuations. Stop. Be an actual man. Or, if not, accept what you're being told... as you've been given all the answers you constantly ask for again and again. You don't deserve them again.


----------



## dunc (Nov 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Nah, the classical JJ stuff. Classical JJ guys don't consider Sport JJ to be "real" Jujitsu.



As someone with experience of both I’d say that anyone with a good understanding of the classical systems would look at say Roger Gracie, Marcelo Garcia etc and say that their movement embodies the principles within the concept of Ju

People on both sides would also make the distinction between sporting technique and martial technique

The classical guys would argue that these principles are more readily (or perhaps more purely) expressed in a martial context than in a sporting context

And of course for marketing or egocentric purposes people sometimes disrespect this obvious truth and talk in absolute terms


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you freaking kidding me?
> 
> Seriously?!?!?!
> 
> ...



Did anyone else notice the massive contradiction from those two responses?

Can you show some live sparring or drilling or a fight or anything at all to give an indication that you have produced anyone capable of defending themselves?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

dunc said:


> As someone with experience of both I’d say that anyone with a good understanding of the classical systems would look at say Roger Gracie, Marcelo Garcia etc and say that their movement embodies the principles within the concept of Ju
> 
> People on both sides would also make the distinction between sporting technique and martial technique
> 
> ...



Yeah but martial context is drills in a real practical sense. I mean it sort of tries to claim fight but we generally don't ever get in to fights. So the end result is drills or kata or board breaking, Mabye an essay or two. 

Martial arts is most correctly expressed through contest with another person. The greatest understanding of a technique is to be able to repeatedly do that technique to every in the room regardless if they want you to or not.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Did anyone else notice the massive contradiction from those two responses?
> 
> Can you show some live sparring or drilling or a fight or anything at all to give an indication that you have produced anyone capable of defending themselves?



Christ, you're kidding, right?

Learn to read. The first part is saying, quite loudly, that we don't have the same metrics you do, we don't have the same values you do, and what you think shows skill is not what we think shows skill. We have no footage of something that is just there to match your bizarre, off-base, uninformed, ill-educated, and incorrect expectations.

The second part is addressing a consistent issue with Steve and a problem he seems to have with me, indicated here in his posts 295 and 324... if it was just those, I wouldn't have bothered, but it's hardly unusual from him, and I'm fed up with it. The two are not related at all (which is the main point), at least not in the way you think it would be, and the self-defence focus of my organisation is distinct and separate from the traditional work... which itself is not my classical training, although it is related.



drop bear said:


> Yeah but martial context is drills in a real practical sense. I mean it sort of tries to claim fight but we generally don't ever get in to fights. So the end result is drills or kata or board breaking, Mabye an essay or two.



You don't have the first clue what classical arts "try to claim". Nor do you have the first clue about kata, it's structure, and the way they're designed, or their purpose and application... hell, you're not even thinking of what is meant by kata here, you're thinking of something else entirely (that you don't understand, bluntly).

But, say, here's a quote from someone... "3 years randori, 3 months kata"... that, by the way, was said by a student of Ueshiba Morihei, and of Kano Jigoro, as well as Shiina Ichizo... so he knew about randori, and kata, quite intimately. In fact, his dojo was originally a judojo, which added aikido later (actually the first Aikikai associated dojo outside of the hombu), then koryu later. And what it means, simply, is that, in order to install specific skills, it takes three years of randori (random application) to generate the same skills as you can develop in a targeted fashion through koryu.



drop bear said:


> Martial arts is most correctly expressed through contest with another person. The greatest understanding of a technique is to be able to repeatedly do that technique to every in the room regardless if they want you to or not.



And you think the idea of application regardless of opponent is something not in classical arts?

Please, both yourself and Hanzou... if you don't want to learn, that's okay... stop trying to ask questions in areas you don't want answers to, that's easy. But if you're going to ask these questions, please listen to the answers... as you will learn so much more if you just shut up and listen once in a while. What I will say, though, is "most correctly expressed through contest with another person" might be a good way to view some arts, and most particularly competitive ones, but it's hardly true across all martial arts... to assume it is is to again apply your values where they're simply not valid.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 4, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you freaking kidding me?
> 
> Seriously?!?!?!
> 
> ...



So you guys don't care about self defense? Someone on top of you trying to sock you in the face is a valid SD situation.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So you guys don't care about self defense? Someone on top of you trying to sock you in the face is a valid SD situation.



Firstly, it's not really a huge SD situation... but we're not getting into that.

Secondly, NO. We are concerned with the lessons that are culturally and contextually embedded in the kata and methods of the school, which are concerned with a particular context removed from a modern, Western self defence context.

Is it really that hard to come to terms with the fact that these arts are different, and the reasons for training in them, as well as the structure of them, is different?

Edit to add:

These arts are, more often than not, involving weapons... weapons that are culturally related to the country and time of their origin. This is what Brendan was getting at when he was asking how many of you guys trained with weapons... that absolutely none of you had a clue what he meant by, and went on some bizarre and irrelevant tangent involving knife defence and encounters... 

Which means this: what, exact, do you think the modern self defence appeal is of training with a naginata? Or a spear? Or kusarigama? Yes, we're talking jujutsu arts, but the vast majority of them include quite a degree of weapon methods as well... and the presence of weapons informs the jujutsu itself. As does the cultural forms of violence, which is removed from what would be seen in, say, a mugging in a Western developed country.

I really can't believe it's taken 25 pages for you to start to get what was said on page one....


----------



## lklawson (Nov 4, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> GET
> OVER
> YOURSELF


He can't.  He's a Religious Zealot and his religion is MMA.  You must either be Converted, Killed, or quieted & isolated from everyone else (while preferably paying your jizya).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## dunc (Nov 4, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but martial context is drills in a real practical sense. I mean it sort of tries to claim fight but we generally don't ever get in to fights. So the end result is drills or kata or board breaking, Mabye an essay or two.



I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight
And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)

As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria



drop bear said:


> Martial arts is most correctly expressed through contest with another person. The greatest understanding of a technique is to be able to repeatedly do that technique to every in the room regardless if they want you to or not.



There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset
Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches

For example I would say that for me (putting my classical hat on for a minute) martial arts are most correctly expressed by surviving a dangerous encounter
In this case the mindset (maybe strategy?) is far more important than the technique. Musashi's life story is a good example of this concept I feel


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you freaking kidding me?
> 
> Seriously?!?!?!
> 
> ...


I should "be an actual man?"  Really?  That's completely uncalled for, son.  It's rude, and it's also pretty sexist.  Look, all you have is your arrogant bluster, and the internal validation of your training.  Notable that your rant above reinforces that.  You seem to be stressed out about something, kiddo.  Take a deep breath and come back when you're ready to act like an adult.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> I should "be an actual man?"  Really?  That's completely uncalled for, son.  It's rude, and it's also pretty sexist.  Look, all you have is your arrogant bluster, and the internal validation of your training.  Notable that your rant above reinforces that.  You seem to be stressed out about something, kiddo.  Take a deep breath and come back when you're ready to act like an adult.


You know he was replying to Hanzou, not you, right?


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2020)

lklawson said:


> You know he was replying to Hanzou, not you, right?


Err... did you read his entire temper tantrum?  He cast a wide net.  Honestly, though, I don't blame you for not reading it carefully.  I think he's under a tremendous amount of stress or something.  Acting a bit hysterical.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2020)

dunc said:


> I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight.


I agree, but would put a finer point on it.  I think anyone who wishes to be a credible fighter should be able to fight.  It's really that simple.  Anyone who wishes to be credible in any complex skill set should be experienced within that skill set.  





> And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)


Really?  I'm intrigued.  Can you elaborate on this?


> As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria
> 
> There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset
> Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches


Personally, it's not about the differences of objective and context.  It's that the two are inextricably linked (context and training objectives).  Some martial arts styles have a consistent and obvious relationship between context and training objectives.  Others have conflict between the two.  Where there is conflict, the skills get muddled up and people start learning things that are inconsistent from what they think they're learning.  Styles that have a congruous objective and context build very reliable, predictable competency on a very consistent timeline.  Styles that are incongruous produce inconsistent proficiency, if at all, over a very unpredictable timeline.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 4, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, it's not really a huge SD situation... but we're not getting into that.
> 
> Secondly, NO. We are concerned with the lessons that are culturally and contextually embedded in the kata and methods of the school, which are concerned with a particular context removed from a modern, Western self defence context.



So you guys are more focused on situations that are more likely to happen in medieval Japan, than the modern world. Okay, but you're far more likely to be in a situation where someone is on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger than a guy trying to attack you with a katana.



> Is it really that hard to come to terms with the fact that these arts are different, and the reasons for training in them, as well as the structure of them, is different?



Aren't you offering JJJ as a method for self defense? The BJJ school I attended was also offered as self defense.



> Edit to add:
> 
> These arts are, more often than not, involving weapons... weapons that are culturally related to the country and time of their origin. This is what Brendan was getting at when he was asking how many of you guys trained with weapons... that absolutely none of you had a clue what he meant by, and went on some bizarre and irrelevant tangent involving knife defence and encounters...
> 
> ...



Actually, I got that in your first response. My question is why do you admit that that's what you do, and then get offended when someone says that what you're doing is no different than dressing up as a knight at a renaissance faire?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> Err... did you read his entire temper tantrum?  He cast a wide net.  Honestly, though, I don't blame you for not reading it carefully.  I think he's under a tremendous amount of stress or something.  Acting a bit hysterical.


'Bout what I expected.


----------



## dunc (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> I agree, but would put a finer point on it.  I think anyone who wishes to be a credible fighter should be able to fight.  It's really that simple.  Anyone who wishes to be credible in any complex skill set should be experienced within that skill set.  Really?  I'm intrigued.  Can you elaborate on this?
> Personally, it's not about the differences of objective and context.  It's that the two are inextricably linked (context and training objectives).  Some martial arts styles have a consistent and obvious relationship between context and training objectives.  Others have conflict between the two.  Where there is conflict, the skills get muddled up and people start learning things that are inconsistent from what they think they're learning.  Styles that have a congruous objective and context build very reliable, predictable competency on a very consistent timeline.  Styles that are incongruous produce inconsistent proficiency, if at all, over a very unpredictable timeline.



yeah probably we agree

You can develop and test pretty much any technique with specific sparring and safety gear
You do have to triangulate around it a bit for safety. eg spar the set up of a dangerous throw, but don’t complete it, then spar the situation when you’ve yet to stabilise the position after the throw, add counters and various adaptions to the exercise and so on

In principle this is the same way we train at my BJJ academy


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Christ, you're kidding, right?
> 
> Learn to read. The first part is saying, quite loudly, that we don't have the same metrics you do, we don't have the same values you do, and what you think shows skill is not what we think shows skill. We have no footage of something that is just there to match your bizarre, off-base, uninformed, ill-educated, and incorrect expectations.
> 
> ...



Well my values are valid they just are not shared by you. 

The value of practical application of martial arts being the ability to make someone do what they don't want to and prevent someone from doing that to you. Is a very common martial arts value. 

And so I want to learn stuff that ultimately works from people who are tried and tested making it work. 

This is self defence this is industry training this is sport or games. Anything really where you might want to use this skill in almost any context. 

Now there is no evidence of practical application in your system. And you are suggesting that you don't value practical application so therefore makes it comparable.

But if I can value what I want. Then I could be a traditional Japanese master of martial arts as well. Because I don't have to value tradition or Japanese culture  or martial arts. And now we sit on equal standing both of us masters of traditional martial arts according to our own values.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

dunc said:


> I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight
> And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)
> 
> As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria
> ...



The issue is people with no martial arts survive dangerous encounters. So is martial arts having an effect at all? or is this expression of martial arts purely luck? 

Many sports martial artists have a grounding in self defense. So the cross purposes there are not necessarily as crossed as people would like to believe. 

So for example we had a group from integrated martial arts in the Sunshine Coast come up for the weekend. Now they are sport guys. But one of those guys runs a security company, another trains all their bouncers, half those guys bounce and regularly fight people. I have bounced i have regularly fought people. 

I am going to a seminar this weekend and the guy who trains the Australian army in self defense will be there. 

So when we discuss context I do have a deep pool of practical experience in self defense to draw from. 

Otherwise what form of pressure testing do you feel is credible? And can you find a video?

Because for me fully resisted with intent is the best test. And MMA is about the best mechanic for that test.

So for example. Say I wanted to drill a handbag snatch. I could do that with the MMA mechanic. And I feel I would get more realistic feedback than any other method.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

lklawson said:


> He can't.  He's a Religious Zealot and his religion is MMA.  You must either be Converted, Killed, or quieted & isolated from everyone else (while preferably paying your jizya).
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Or an opinioned sceptic. Which kind of sound the same.






At the end of the day BJJ does work functionally better than a lot of systems. We don't have to like it. We don't have to participate in it but that is just the case. 

For MMA,  I do a different version which is colloquially known as wrestle jitsu. And I feel that tweek is more in tune with self defence because it prioritises stand ups and striking defence.

But I still can't beat or escape from a really good BJJ guy.

And we could do tests and find evidence. We could put other systems in to a cage with a top BJJ guy and see what happens. And most systems would come up short. 

So to suggest BJJ is some objectively better system isn't really wrong.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2020)

dunc said:


> yeah probably we agree
> 
> You can develop and test pretty much any technique with specific sparring and safety gear
> You do have to triangulate around it a bit for safety. eg spar the set up of a dangerous throw, but don’t complete it, then spar the situation when you’ve yet to stabilise the position after the throw, add counters and various adaptions to the exercise and so on
> ...


I think that you're describing good training.  But you'd still need to apply the skills somehow.  Look at it this way.  You train BJJ.  Right?  Not every BJJ practitioner is going to be able to fight effectively on the street.  But every BJJ practitioner will know how good they are at BJJ.  I mean, like the folks who are bad at it will know they're bad at it.  The ones who are good at it will know how good... and relative to whom.  The ones who compete are going to progress faster and get more (and more helpful) feedback.  The ones who compete in various competitive rule sets (IBJJF, Sub-only, MMA, etc), will be even more well rounded and skilled.  And at the end of the day, the ones who fight will know they can fight.  And equally as important, the ones who can't fight will know it.

Absent application, we have guys who think they're experts in things because they've trained in some other thing for a long time.  For example, 30 years of training in ninjutsu, even with a self defense "orientation" doesn't make you a self defense expert.  It makes you a ninjutsu expert who may or may not have any useful self defense skill at all.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> Absent application, we have guys who think they're experts in things because they've trained in some other thing for a long time. For example, 30 years of training in ninjutsu, even with a self defense "orientation" doesn't make you a self defense expert. It makes you a ninjutsu expert who may or may not have any useful self defense skill at all.



By my own set of values. I don't need 30 years. I am a ninjitsu expert now. And a self defense expert.

I mean there is no objective measurement. Just a subjective one.


----------



## dunc (Nov 4, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think that you're describing good training.  But you'd still need to apply the skills somehow.  Look at it this way.  You train BJJ.  Right?  Not every BJJ practitioner is going to be able to fight effectively on the street.  But every BJJ practitioner will know how good they are at BJJ.  I mean, like the folks who are bad at it will know they're bad at it.  The ones who are good at it will know how good... and relative to whom.  The ones who compete are going to progress faster and get more (and more helpful) feedback.  The ones who compete in various competitive rule sets (IBJJF, Sub-only, MMA, etc), will be even more well rounded and skilled.  And at the end of the day, the ones who fight will know they can fight.  And equally as important, the ones who can't fight will know it.
> 
> Absent application, we have guys who think they're experts in things because they've trained in some other thing for a long time.  For example, 30 years of training in ninjutsu, even with a self defense "orientation" doesn't make you a self defense expert.  It makes you a ninjutsu expert who may or may not have any useful self defense skill at all.



Yeah I think we agree
So I train in a BJJ academy that puts a lot of focus on specific sparring. ie training specific situations and techniques under pressure with people trying to make your life difficult. I believe this is where you develop skill at techniques
Free sparring isn’t the best way to learn specific skills, for me at least it’s an opportunity to learn how to bring people into my game and to get me exposed to different/new situations

So for martial arts that have techniques that are, by their nature, highly likely to break/injure your partners I find that it’s perfectly possible to develop practical skill with these techniques by training them with both drills and specific sparring

So at least a classical martial artist can, in my view, develop the practical skills to be able to fight using their system without having to rely purely on theory
That doesn’t necessarily make them, or any other martial artist, a self defence expert


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 4, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> So you guys are more focused on situations that are more likely to happen in medieval Japan, than the modern world. Okay, but you're far more likely to be in a situation where someone is on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger than a guy trying to attack you with a katana.



Not once in my life have I had someone on top of me trying to turn my face into hamburger.

I did have a guy wielding a hatchet try to break into my house at 3am a couple years ago.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 4, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Not once in my life have I had someone on top of me trying to turn my face into hamburger.
> 
> I did have a guy wielding a hatchet try to break into my house at 3am a couple years ago.



Cool. It happened to me. I was tackled by an overweight teenager with a hammer. I'm sure many female rape victims can attest to their attacker being on top of them in missionary position when they rape them. There's also ridiculous stuff like this;






So yes, it happens more often than you think.


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 4, 2020)

My point was not that it doesn't happen, but that other situations and contexts are equally relevant.  Training predominantly ground grappling in order to be comfortable dealing with the scenario you describe is a perfectly valid way to train, no one is disputing that.  Some people have pointed out though that training differently, for different circumstances cannot be done by rolling bjj style, beneficial as that is.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Not once in my life have I had someone on top of me trying to turn my face into hamburger.
> 
> I did have a guy wielding a hatchet try to break into my house at 3am a couple years ago.



Yeah. This dynamic is a weird one for me and rings back to Tony's idea of traditional archery.

Ultimately if you have your fundamentals right it shouldn't matter that much. If I am some sort of spear master of some ancient system. It should practically translate to say fending a hatchet welding home invader off with a broomstick or something.

But the validity of spear mastery kind of sits in the same place as everything else. In that you should be better at it than everyone else.

I think though there is a disconnect here. So someone is a master of an ancient spear system and looks confused at you when you ask if he can fight with it.

And that becomes the difference in values. And probably a really important difference to nut out before you spend ten years learning spear off the guy.

Eg fencing. Does being a master at fencing make you better than everyone else who just throws on a mask and grabs a sword?


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 4, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It should practically translate to say fending a hatchet welding home invader off with a broomstick or something.
> 
> But the validity of spear mastery kind of sits in the same place as everything else. In that you should be better at it than everyone else.
> 
> I think though there is a disconnect here. So someone is a master of an ancient spear system and looks confused at you when you ask if he can fight with it.



Why should it "practically translate to say fending off a hatchet wielding home invader off with a broomstick or something"?  Why do you think you get to say it 'should'?






Would you not look confused if someone asked you if you 'could fight with that'?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Why should it "practically translate to say fending off a hatchet wielding home invader off with a broomstick or something"?  Why do you think you get to say it 'should'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because there are basic concepts that translate to other activities. It is like saying if I can run fast then I should be able to run away from an attacker.

It is more of an observation rather than a requirement. 

And.

They are fighting with that. Hopefully they are better than any random who picks up a stick.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 5, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> My point was not that it doesn't happen, but that other situations and contexts are equally relevant.  Training predominantly ground grappling in order to be comfortable dealing with the scenario you describe is a perfectly valid way to train, no one is disputing that.  Some people have pointed out though that training differently, for different circumstances cannot be done by rolling bjj style, beneficial as that is.



Except BJJ deals with multiple circumstances, not just someone on top of you. The thing is (and Drop Bear discussed this) the training bleeds into multiple circumstances which actually makes your overall training more effective. For example, in the video showing the leg-lock style of BJJ, the leg lock entries that can be used for the ground were also used for sweeping a standing opponent, or an opponent on top. While standing, those leg lock entries were also used for multiple types of takedowns. What makes this all the more effective is that these were done against resisting opponents, some of whom were much larger than the Bjj practitioner.

Essentially what you end up with is a fighter who can snap your legs from multiple entry points and positions, and that is a very potent self defense. This is on top of their standard Bjj tool kit of chokes, upper body locks, throws, etc. Knowledge of positional dominance and control easily bleeds itself into multiple purposes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Knowledge of positional dominance and control easily bleeds itself into multiple purposes.


This.

IMO, this is the basic idea behind good MA training (where that training isn't meant to focus on a single context). You want to train principles that you can use in situations you haven't really worked on. Working those principles in a variety of situations helps. BJJ, from what I've seen and heard, tends to do a good job with that - it's part of the reason they can so easily bring in new techniques when they find them elsewhere.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 6, 2020)

Dear lord above...........

This will be for pretty much all of you. Again, there are literally only two people here who know what they're talking about. That goes for the entire thread. And this will probably repeat a few dozen times, as most of you are seemingly incapable of thinking outside of your own ideas... or completely unable to register when things are explained to you.



dunc said:


> I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight



Taiji.
Kyudo.
Iaido.
Capoeira.

 I can go on, but the point is that you really need to expand your idea of "credible martial artist", as well as "be able to fight".



dunc said:


> And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)



True, but how that's done is not the same as you imply later.



dunc said:


> As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria



And, I will say one more time, you need to apply the correct metrics to assess something. Hanzou and Drop Bear have no idea what that metric is... and honestly, Dunc, I don't think you do either.



dunc said:


> There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset



This is very true... the question of carts and horses comes up, but can be left for now.



dunc said:


> Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches



This I disagree with. It's not talking at crossed purposes... it's one side understanding both sides, and the other not... which would be okay, if the second group had the willingness to listen to the first one. They don't.



dunc said:


> For example I would say that for me (putting my classical hat on for a minute) martial arts are most correctly expressed by surviving a dangerous encounter



Sorry, Dunc, but to be blunt, you don't have a classical hat. The Bujinkan is not classical by a long stretch... it's barely close to traditional, to be honest. It's technical heritage has classical arts in there, but there is nothing resembling classical methodologies, pedagogy, principles, concepts, and so on... the closest is some reference to classical-concept contexts, but the understanding isn't there. It is, at the end of the day, a modern semi-traditional Japanese art (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu).

And, again, I'm going to direct you to the above small (and thoroughly incomplete) list.



dunc said:


> In this case the mindset (maybe strategy?) is far more important than the technique. Musashi's life story is a good example of this concept I feel



The technique is the least important aspect. The emphasis on techniques is a sports thing. As for Musashi's life being a "good example".... I think I see what you're meaning, but can you clarify?



Steve said:


> I should "be an actual man?"  Really?  That's completely uncalled for, son.  It's rude, and it's also pretty sexist.  Look, all you have is your arrogant bluster, and the internal validation of your training.  Notable that your rant above reinforces that.  You seem to be stressed out about something, kiddo.  Take a deep breath and come back when you're ready to act like an adult.



You're acting like a 5 year old who thinks he's being clever. So, no, telling you to be an "actual man" (ie an adult) isn't uncalled for... nor is calling you "son" for that reason. Your use of the term is just another case of you thinking you're being clever. You're not.



Steve said:


> Err... did you read his entire temper tantrum?  He cast a wide net.  Honestly, though, I don't blame you for not reading it carefully.  I think he's under a tremendous amount of stress or something.  Acting a bit hysterical.



No, I didn't cast a "wide net", I was aiming directly at you. Oh, and for the record, telling a man to act like one (and be an adult) isn't sexist... but the term "hysterical" is.

Of course, I don't know what you think your defence is, as we see you do exactly what I've told you to stop very shortly. Which is you demonstrating my point. Again.



Steve said:


> I agree, but would put a finer point on it.  I think anyone who wishes to be a credible fighter should be able to fight.



True, but you'd need to define "credible fighter".



Steve said:


> It's really that simple.  Anyone who wishes to be credible in any complex skill set should be experienced within that skill set.



See, now this is interesting... do you consider "fighting" a complex skill set? Or are you discussing complex skills sets that can be applied in "fighting"? And, if we're going down that path, have you the first idea how complex the skill sets are in classical arts? In other words, in the context of the thread (the realities of both BJJ and classical/traditional Japanese Jujutsu), do you actually know what you're talking about....?



Steve said:


> Really?  I'm intrigued.  Can you elaborate on this?



I could (and will with Dunc's reply), but I'm not sure you'd understand the words written down... you seem to have issues with that when I write them... 



Steve said:


> Personally, it's not about the differences of objective and context.  It's that the two are inextricably linked (context and training objectives).  Some martial arts styles have a consistent and obvious relationship between context and training objectives.  Others have conflict between the two.



Example, please? And, to be clear, you would have to be able to clearly enunciate what the context and objective is in both cases, as well as demonstrate the conflict you think is there...



Steve said:


> Where there is conflict, the skills get muddled up and people start learning things that are inconsistent from what they think they're learning.



I'm pretty sure I know what you think you're talking about (and, for the record, you don't know what you're talking about), but this pretty well describes the BJJ classes I attended, including the seminar with Royce Gracie... inconsistent, muddled, and people didn't know what they were learning... that was pretty much the end of my BJJ time.

By contrast, classical arts training is highly systematic, with each section building on previous levels, with the result of highly consistent skills and understanding. This goes from the curriculum of a school (and the way it's segmented into levels), through to the very teaching and training methodology, including how senior and junior students all interact with each other.



Steve said:


> Styles that have a congruous objective and context build very reliable, predictable competency on a very consistent timeline.



You know, that sounds pretty much like koryu (classical arts) training... 



Steve said:


> Styles that are incongruous produce inconsistent proficiency, if at all, over a very unpredictable timeline.



And, you know, that sounds exactly like BJJ to me... after all, as the saying goes, "three years randori, three months kata"....



Hanzou said:


> So you guys are more focused on situations that are more likely to happen in medieval Japan, than the modern world. Okay, but you're far more likely to be in a situation where someone is on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger than a guy trying to attack you with a katana.



Exactly what part of "We aren't concerned with modern self defence" are you not getting?!?!? I don't give a damn what I'm likely to encounter in a street fight if I'm training a cultural art from another country and four centuries ago. Is it really this difficult for you to understand that YOUR VALUES DON'T MATTER when it comes to these arts?

I'm running out of ways to get that through to you... even when it seems like you hear what you're being told, you struggle to accept and understand it... 



Hanzou said:


> Aren't you offering JJJ as a method for self defense?



No.

I teach jujutsu methods in a class. I also teach modern self defence. Note the separation.



Hanzou said:


> The BJJ school I attended was also offered as self defense.



The one I attended said the same thing... it was deeply lacking in many regards for that, by the way.



Hanzou said:


> Actually, I got that in your first response.



Did you? Cause... it really doesn't seem like you get it even now.



Hanzou said:


> My question is why do you admit that that's what you do, and then get offended when someone says that what you're doing is no different than dressing up as a knight at a renaissance faire?



My god, you really are unable to listen to what you're being told, aren't you? I get offended because that is precisely NOT what it is, your description is reductive and deeply inaccurate, it is used to imply a number of highly inaccurate stereotypes, and is the equivalent of saying that someone who joins the police force is the same as someone who dresses up as Batman for Halloween.

I heartily recommend you stop.



dunc said:


> yeah probably we agree



See, if you'd actually had classical training, you might see the issues with Steve's descriptions there... 



dunc said:


> You can develop and test pretty much any technique with specific sparring and safety gear



You can, but it's not the most common (or even a particularly common) method of testing classical techniques... more commonly, we break the kata... but for me to explain that, a proper understanding of kata would be required first (that's to everyone, Dunc, not you).



dunc said:


> You do have to triangulate around it a bit for safety. eg spar the set up of a dangerous throw, but don’t complete it, then spar the situation when you’ve yet to stabilise the position after the throw, add counters and various adaptions to the exercise and so on



Yeah... that's just drilling, really. To do that in sparring is... problematic, as you typically will almost never actually end up "sparring" it in any meaningful or accurate way... certainly not in any way that genuinely tests the technique. And that said, this is just a technique approach... which is kinda base level, honestly.



dunc said:


> In principle this is the same way we train at my BJJ academy



Oh, I know.... 



drop bear said:


> Well my values are valid they just are not shared by you.



Oh, for Frith's sake and the love of el Hah-Hrairhah... one more time?

YOUR VALUES ARE MEANINGLESS WHEN LOOKING AT A SYSTEM WHICH DOESN'T USE OR APPLY YOUR VALUES.

It's that simple. Yes, your values are valid. They may even be shared by me in certain ways. But that's not the point. The point is that applying your values to classical arts, where they are simply not a factor at all. Insisting that they be used to measure and adjudicate arts that don't have the first interest in such values and metrics is just being bloody-minded ignorant and arrogant. If your values and those of classical martial arts don't match, it's pretty simple. Don't train in classical martial arts. If your values match BJJ or MMA or tennis or whiffleboard or crochet or stamp collecting or whatever, do that! This is the point from the first page... BJJ is not replacing classical jujutsu, because it's a completely different set of values... both valid, and both good, but not the same. The values of a steak house and a vegan restaurant doesn't mean that one is better than the other, use that they suit different people with different values.

Please tell me you get this by now.



drop bear said:


> The value of practical application of martial arts being the ability to make someone do what they don't want to and prevent someone from doing that to you. Is a very common martial arts value.



But needs to be understood in context. The context of that ability in Aikido is very different to the way it's engendered in TKD, which is different to Olympic fencing or boxing or MMA or BJJ or classical swordsmanship.



drop bear said:


> And so I want to learn stuff that ultimately works from people who are tried and tested making it work.



Great. So?

The thing is that you're looking for what you believe works in what you believe is the context for application, which is incredibly far from the totality.



drop bear said:


> This is self defence this is industry training this is sport or games. Anything really where you might want to use this skill in almost any context.



Well, each of those are different contexts, and the application is not the same... there can be (and often is) some cross-over, but each of those are not the same thing... 



drop bear said:


> Now there is no evidence of practical application in your system.



No, there's plenty of evidence... just not the kind you are looking for. Nor, to be blunt, the kind you would understand or appreciate. And that's okay... unless you keep insisting that your idea of evidence is the only one that counts. It's not. It's barely evidence in most cases.



drop bear said:


> And you are suggesting that you don't value practical application so therefore makes it comparable.



No, we value practical application within the context of the skills and art... I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to "makes it comparable"... comparable to what?



drop bear said:


> But if I can value what I want.



Yes. You can. No-one is stopping you. All I'm saying is that your values aren't universal, they aren't the only ones that matter, and they aren't the only ones that should apply.



drop bear said:


> Then I could be a traditional Japanese master of martial arts as well. Because I don't have to value tradition or Japanese culture  or martial arts. And now we sit on equal standing both of us masters of traditional martial arts according to our own values.



Are you completely deranged? Seriously? 

No, you cannot be a "traditional Japanese master of martial arts" if you don't value anything even close to it... I am at a complete loss as to how on earth the misfiring synapses in your brain are even trying to say there.... 

And we are nowhere near on equal standing. On pretty much anything.



drop bear said:


> The issue is people with no martial arts survive dangerous encounters. So is martial arts having an effect at all? or is this expression of martial arts purely luck?



Or, to put it another way, is surviving dangerous encounters really the major reason for training martial arts?



drop bear said:


> Many sports martial artists have a grounding in self defense.



I would dispute that. In fact, I'd suggest that many self defence experts have groundings in sports arts... and often see past their limitations, which is why they move on beyond them.



drop bear said:


> So the cross purposes there are not necessarily as crossed as people would like to believe.



Here's the biggest problem with the way you post, DB... there's little to no context to what you're saying. This is a vague half-statement that, really, means nothing (admittedly, it's spurred by another largely context-deficient comment, but that's almost besides the point)... without defining what these "crossed purposes" are, we don't even have an argument being made here.



drop bear said:


> So for example we had a group from integrated martial arts in the Sunshine Coast come up for the weekend. Now they are sport guys. But one of those guys runs a security company, another trains all their bouncers, half those guys bounce and regularly fight people. I have bounced i have regularly fought people.
> 
> I am going to a seminar this weekend and the guy who trains the Australian army in self defense will be there.
> 
> So when we discuss context I do have a deep pool of practical experience in self defense to draw from.



No, you don't. You have a relative pool of fighting to draw from. These are not the same thing. And really, bouncing and fighting aren't the same thing either... unless you're not overly good at it...



drop bear said:


> Otherwise what form of pressure testing do you feel is credible? And can you find a video?



Are you incapable of recognising other forms of evidence?



drop bear said:


> Because for me fully resisted with intent is the best test. And MMA is about the best mechanic for that test.



Again, great. So? Means nothing in this context at all.



drop bear said:


> So for example. Say I wanted to drill a handbag snatch. I could do that with the MMA mechanic. And I feel I would get more realistic feedback than any other method.



You could, and you may feel that. It doesn't make it true in any sense other than it validates your beliefs... which could be at least in part because you're expecting it to. But again, this is meaningless. You like the methods of MMA? Great! Do MMA. You don't like (or appreciate or understand) the methods of classical arts? Who cares? Don't do them. 

Your values work for you, and you find things that match them. It doesn't mean that things that don't match your values are valueless.



drop bear said:


> Or an opinioned sceptic. Which kind of sound the same.



To be clear, you're not an "opinioned sceptic", you're an opinionated ignoramus. And, to be clear, I'm meaning that accurately... you are highly opinionated about things you are even more ignorant of. 



drop bear said:


> At the end of the day BJJ does work functionally better than a lot of systems.



Within it's context.



drop bear said:


> We don't have to like it. We don't have to participate in it but that is just the case.



Self-perpetuating beliefs and self-supporting case-studies aren't always the total story... in fact, they rarely are... 



drop bear said:


> For MMA,  I do a different version which is colloquially known as wrestle jitsu. And I feel that tweek is more in tune with self defence because it prioritises stand ups and striking defence.



How do you feel that makes it more "in tune with self defence" (whatever that means)?



drop bear said:


> But I still can't beat or escape from a really good BJJ guy.



Tried pulling a gun on him? Or a knife? When he doesn't know it's there? Getting in your car before he catches hold of you? Spitting in his eye? Asking him for the time and sucker punching him before anything starts? Having friends come along with baseball bats and crowbars?

Get the idea of different contexts yet?



drop bear said:


> And we could do tests and find evidence. We could put other systems in to a cage with a top BJJ guy and see what happens. And most systems would come up short.



That might defend on what you let that system bring into the cage with them...



drop bear said:


> So to suggest BJJ is some objectively better system isn't really wrong.



It is, however, the false argument to make.

I'm going to take this back to the first post. The question is if BJJ is "replacing" traditional/classical jujutsu. Not if it's better. Not if it suits MMA more. Not if it wins more tournaments. Not if its' the bestest of the bestest of all the most bestest of ground systems (there's virtually no ground work in classical jujutsu, by the way). Is it "replacing" classical jujutsu. And the answer is that it isn't. BJJ might be the more prevalent image in popular imagination, but that doesn't mean classical jujutsu has gone anywhere... it's never been the popular image anyway. There are lots of BJJ schools around, but that doesn't mean that classical jujutsu schools have gone... they've always been small, and largely private, with small memberships. In fact, today, there are more members of these old schools and more branch dojos in Japan and outside of it than there was 30 years ago. So is BJJ replacing Japanese jujutsu? Not in the slightest. They just aren't the same thing.



Steve said:


> I think that you're describing good training.  But you'd still need to apply the skills somehow.  Look at it this way.  You train BJJ.  Right?  Not every BJJ practitioner is going to be able to fight effectively on the street.  But every BJJ practitioner will know how good they are at BJJ.  I mean, like the folks who are bad at it will know they're bad at it.  The ones who are good at it will know how good... and relative to whom.  The ones who compete are going to progress faster and get more (and more helpful) feedback.  The ones who compete in various competitive rule sets (IBJJF, Sub-only, MMA, etc), will be even more well rounded and skilled.  And at the end of the day, the ones who fight will know they can fight.  And equally as important, the ones who can't fight will know it.



Absent the usage of competition for a form of feedback, what makes you think this is that different to other arts and approaches? Do you really think that "application" only means one thing? And do you really think that such a potentially haphazard approach to skill development is really "good training"? Or only for those who start to develop skills, due to some innate talent? Wouldn't it be better training if it could get everyone to a particular skill level consistently, so no-one had to know that they were "bad"?



Steve said:


> Absent application, we have guys who think they're experts in things because they've trained in some other thing for a long time.  For example, 30 years of training in ninjutsu, even with a self defense "orientation" doesn't make you a self defense expert.  It makes you a ninjutsu expert who may or may not have any useful self defense skill at all.



Yeah, that's you being a child again, Steve.

I'm going to say this one more time. You don't have the first clue what my training is, nor do you have the first clue what self defence actually entails, as a subject. Nor do you have the foggiest idea what methods are used to test and develop skill and understanding in the field. You have, in fact, admitted this multiple times.

You have insinuated again and again that my "ninjutsu" background, as it's a non-competitive one, is inferior to a sporting approach, with absolutely no idea what I do (for the record, Dunc is a Bujinkan guy... you know those videos you guys don't like? That's his group, not mine... but more to the point, you're insulting him at the same time). You have insinuated that I couldn't have developed anything close to usable skills by training in this art. Again, insulting to far more than just me.

I have pointed out that we test the skills, that we have methods of testing them, that we use forms of free-form training and scenario training (strategic and tactical based free-response training... think of it like sparring, but with both sides doing different things), and more. I have pointed out that my background also includes a number of sporting systems, including BJJ, boxing, karate, TKD, and Judo, as well as aikido, a variety of koryu arts (jujutsu and weapon systems), Wing Chun, and more, which you ignore. You insinuate that close to 30 years of study and training in RBSD methods (Reality Based Self Defence) doesn't make anyone any kind of expert, or grant any expertise, as you simply don't understand what any of those terms mean in this context.

You have tried to then belittle my education, training, and skills (that you have exactly no clue about, and ignore constantly) by saying that that there needs to be some kind of experience aspect. You ignore the way experience is gained in this field, as you don't understand it, and ignore my experience in sparring systems and competitive systems with no basis. You insist on "self defence experience", of which I have given examples of de-escalation, avoidance, awareness (these are really the primary skills of self defence, by the way), as well as physical encounters I have had, including straight out assaults, as well as a group assault. I have told you about my teacher's real life encounters, including ones with firearms, domestic violence situations, and so on. I have related cases of my students being successful in applying skills learnt with me in muggings, knife-encounters, and assaults. And still you ignore all of this, as it contradicts your narrative about me.

Consistently using 'hypotheticals" that match exactly what I've said shows that this is an issue you have with me, and are unable or unwilling to accept any facts that contradict your biased and delusional ideas. So I say again... grow the hell up. And recognise that you don't know what you're talking about.



drop bear said:


> By my own set of values. I don't need 30 years. I am a ninjitsu expert now. And a self defense expert.
> 
> I mean there is no objective measurement. Just a subjective one.



Are you just a complete idiot? Okay, I know that's kinda the line, but.... what the hell are you talking about? Your "values" are just you deciding your reality... literally all this says is that you don't know what values are, and think it means you can be utterly delusional.



dunc said:


> Yeah I think we agree
> So I train in a BJJ academy that puts a lot of focus on specific sparring. ie training specific situations and techniques under pressure with people trying to make your life difficult. I believe this is where you develop skill at techniques



What makes that different to graduated drilling? In other words, what makes that sparring instead?



dunc said:


> Free sparring isn’t the best way to learn specific skills, for me at least it’s an opportunity to learn how to bring people into my game and to get me exposed to different/new situations



That's a fair way to approach it, I'd say.



dunc said:


> So for martial arts that have techniques that are, by their nature, highly likely to break/injure your partners I find that it’s perfectly possible to develop practical skill with these techniques by training them with both drills and specific sparring



Yeah, from a classical perspective, or even from my modern one, I'd just class that as graduated drilling... not sparring.



dunc said:


> So at least a classical martial artist can, in my view, develop the practical skills to be able to fight using their system without having to rely purely on theory



Who says we rely purely on theory? 

I'm going to be as clear as I can be here. At no point whatsoever has any classical practitioner suggested that things are taken on face-value "because teacher said so". At no point whatsoever has any classical practitioner suggested we operate "purely on theory". At no point whatsoever has any classical practitioner suggested that we don't develop practical skills, or that we are not concerned with our skills being practical. All we have said and suggested is that the practicality is within the context of the art itself... and that means the idea of modern situations and contexts aren't really much of a concern.



dunc said:


> That doesn’t necessarily make them, or any other martial artist, a self defence expert



Let's be clear... this whole "self defence expert" thing is a rather sad bugbear of Steve's that dates back years, when he put up a thread arguing that there was no such things as a self defence expert, as no one could have experience in self defence, and was then told over and over that he was incorrect in pretty much all cases, and somehow he's latched it all onto me. No-one brought up the idea of "self defence experts" except Steve as another insinuation against myself (here and in numerous other threads), no-one claimed anything regarding being a "self defence expert" other than Steve attributing it baselessly. The only time I've said that I am one is in relation to his woeful lack of understanding of the topic. 

In other words, it's a non-topic for this thread (and pretty much every time Steve introduces it), please don't feed it. I'm sick of it, and he can't get past it.



drop bear said:


> Yeah. This dynamic is a weird one for me and rings back to Tony's idea of traditional archery.



Can you expand on that? What about his comment on traditional archery are you referring to?



drop bear said:


> Ultimately if you have your fundamentals right it shouldn't matter that much. If I am some sort of spear master of some ancient system. It should practically translate to say fending a hatchet welding home invader off with a broomstick or something.



You might not say that if you actually were trained in sojutsu.... jodo, sure... sojutsu? I'm not so confident that that's a huge benefit there... 



drop bear said:


> But the validity of spear mastery kind of sits in the same place as everything else. In that you should be better at it than everyone else.



And exactly what would make you think that that would not be the case? I'm really unsure what your argument is........



drop bear said:


> I think though there is a disconnect here. So someone is a master of an ancient spear system and looks confused at you when you ask if he can fight with it.



What? Who's looking at you confused? What we say is that we're not expecting or training to fight in the street with one... not that we can't fight with it... I really don't think you get what you're arguing about...



drop bear said:


> And that becomes the difference in values.



The difference in values is you're looking for something you think applies in one context, and we're looking for something that applies in another context. That's... page one stuff here. Are you just catching up now?



drop bear said:


> And probably a really important difference to nut out before you spend ten years learning spear off the guy.



What?!?!



drop bear said:


> Eg fencing. Does being a master at fencing make you better than everyone else who just throws on a mask and grabs a sword?



Are you really asking if training in fencing makes you a better fencer than someone who isn't a fencer?!?!? What??!?! Is training in the thing something that develops skill in the thing? Well... yes. Isn't that your argument for BJJ? That training in BJJ makes you better at BJJ?

Dude... what are you talking about?



drop bear said:


> Because there are basic concepts that translate to other activities.



And there are concepts that are contextual.



drop bear said:


> It is like saying if I can run fast then I should be able to run away from an attacker.



Not if your feet are tied. Or you panic and run into a wall. Or trip as you're not used to the adrenaline dump. Or you freeze. Or you're trapped in a dead-end alley. Or they're holding your friend hostage. Or you'd be abandoning your partner to danger. Or any of a hundred other reasons.

The point is that it's contextual as well... and would rely, in a number of cases, on properly training how to run away from an attack. Could you still manage to run away without that training? Sure. But it's not a given, and is dependent on a lot more than being able to run fast.



drop bear said:


> It is more of an observation rather than a requirement.



Except you don't know what you're observing, or what the requirements are.



drop bear said:


> And.
> 
> They are fighting with that. Hopefully they are better than any random who picks up a stick.



You think those are sticks....?



Hanzou said:


> Except BJJ deals with multiple circumstances, not just someone on top of you. The thing is (and Drop Bear discussed this) the training bleeds into multiple circumstances which actually makes your overall training more effective. For example, in the video showing the leg-lock style of BJJ, the leg lock entries that can be used for the ground were also used for sweeping a standing opponent, or an opponent on top. While standing, those leg lock entries were also used for multiple types of takedowns. What makes this all the more effective is that these were done against resisting opponents, some of whom were much larger than the Bjj practitioner.



Those aren't multiple circumstances, it's a variety of applications within the same context. And honestly, still quite limited. As well as being a bit lacking if that's a particular physical skill worked on before it's adapted to other areas, and before, as you say below, their "standard BJJ toolkit".... 

I'll put it this way. One very famous classical sword art (well, a sogobujutsu ryu-ha, really) can be looked at as essentially one cut. 

That's it. One cut. One single action. One movement of a sword.

And from that movement, you get all the various ways of using a sword in that system. As well as all the ways of using a short sword. And the ways of using a staff. And the ways of using two swords. And the ways of using a naginata. And a spear. And unarmed. And throwing spikes.

Another art, a classical jujutsu system, which in some forms has between 80 and 120-odd kata (techniques). And they can all be reduced to the basic movement of the system, which is to rotate your arms in a circle, inside to out, and outside to in (there's obviously more to it than that, but at it's heart, that's it). That art deals with grip escapes, locks, pins, throws, strikes, chokes, defences against short swords and long swords, seated techniques, standing techniques, and methods of using short sticks.

Another can be understood by extending the opponent's balance by forcing them to act on the outside of their arms reach. Again, some 130-plus techniques, dealing with an even wider variety of techniques than the above listed one.

This is how you have a basic principle that applies to different situations and circumstances. Not "oh, we can do leg locks from anywhere!". We don't concern ourselves with doing the same thing from anywhere, we work on one thing that can be done against anything.



Hanzou said:


> Essentially what you end up with is a fighter who can snap your legs from multiple entry points and positions, and that is a very potent self defense.



No, it's actually not.



Hanzou said:


> This is on top of their standard Bjj tool kit of chokes, upper body locks, throws, etc. Knowledge of positional dominance and control easily bleeds itself into multiple purposes.



Sigh.... and, one (hopefully) last time.... what on earth makes you think that's even close to unique to BJJ? I will say, though, that it seems not to bleed any further than the limited physical expressions...

Oh, and by the way, that's essentially a tactical approach... if you're saying "knowledge of", then you're doing it wrong.



gpseymour said:


> This.
> 
> IMO, this is the basic idea behind good MA training (where that training isn't meant to focus on a single context). You want to train principles that you can use in situations you haven't really worked on. Working those principles in a variety of situations helps. BJJ, from what I've seen and heard, tends to do a good job with that - it's part of the reason they can so easily bring in new techniques when they find them elsewhere.



Yep. Except that's not what Hanzou is describing... see my list of examples for more what you're discussing... which is, for the record, exactly how classical arts are designed, structured, and applied...

Okay, that was a bit long... this is why I didn't go back to cover the 20 pages of, honestly, pointless discussion of completely misunderstood ideas.


----------



## Steve (Nov 6, 2020)

@Chris Parker:  You're getting overtly hostile, son, and calling people idiots just isn't okay.  Calm down, read for comprehension, and try engaging in some friendly conversation with your peers.  Trying to bluster and bluff your way around just isn't working for you.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you completely deranged? Seriously?
> 
> No, you cannot be a "traditional Japanese master of martial arts" if you don't value anything even close to it... I am at a complete loss as to how on earth the misfiring synapses in your brain are even trying to say there....
> 
> And we are nowhere near on equal standing



I can be expert in Japanese systems according to my values you don't share using evidence you wouldn't understand. I mean we all have to respect whatever values we just make up as being important right?

When you devalue the idea of martial arts expertise for your own benefit you can't cry foul if everyone else does it. 

So as far as equal standing goes you are arguing mastery of the equivalent of healing crystals.

And there is apparently a right way and a wrong way to use healing crystals by the way I can legitimately pay money and do a course from an expert. 

But it is far cheaper and easier to just say I am an expert and grab rocks from the garden. Because just like a lot of martial arts systems it doesn't matter if I use them right or use them wrong. The effect is the same. 

I mean I don't have to share the made up values of someone else's system or some healing crystal guru. Because they are not even real values.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Not if your feet are tied. Or you panic and run into a wall. Or trip as you're not used to the adrenaline dump. Or you freeze. Or you're trapped in a dead-end alley. Or they're holding your friend hostage. Or you'd be abandoning your partner to danger. Or any of a hundred other reasons.
> 
> The point is that it's contextual as well... and would rely, in a number of cases, on properly training how to run away from an attack. Could you still manage to run away without that training? Sure. But it's not a given, and is dependent on a lot more than being able to run fast.



I have a friend who has had exactly zero self defence running experience and I would be quite confident to put the guy up against you in almost any contextual running race.

I put it to you being fast is going to out perform context. And he is legitimately elite level runner fast.

And this is the difference between systems that relies on individual values and evidence based systems.


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 6, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I have a friend who has had exactly zero self defence running experience and I would be quite confident to put the guy up against you in almost any contextual running race.
> 
> I put it to you being fast is going to out perform context. And he is legitimately elite level runner fast.
> 
> And this is the difference between systems that relies on individual values and evidence based systems.



That one had me scratching my head.  Running from danger is something that we're hardwired to be able to do; it's something that every species within the animal kingdom is hardwired to be able to do.  Seeking out training on how to run from danger "in certain contexts" is like seeking out training on how to eat, breathe, and sleep "in certain contexts."


----------



## Steve (Nov 6, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> That one had me scratching my head.  Running from danger is something that we're hardwired to be able to do; it's something that every species within the animal kingdom is hardwired to be able to do.  Seeking out training on how to run from danger "in certain contexts" is like seeking out training on how to eat, breathe, and sleep "in certain contexts."


True, but that's the weird path you have to take to buy into self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> That one had me scratching my head.  Running from danger is something that we're hardwired to be able to do; it's something that every species within the animal kingdom is hardwired to be able to do.  Seeking out training on how to run from danger "in certain contexts" is like seeking out training on how to eat, breathe, and sleep "in certain contexts."



There is a technical aspect to running fast at an elite level. So there could theoretically be a technical aspect to running from danger.

But what you generally get is some guy claiming to have an expertise in so that they never have to measure their ideas against anything.

Oh you run really fast but can you self defence run? Yes? Um well can you run according to ancient Japanese traditions?

This goes on until the values are so personally interpreted that it no longer reflects reality.

In BJJ there is a joke. When you get choked out by a white belt and then teach them how to do the sub properly.

By the way being able to be beaten by a white belt and to take it like a man is a very hard thing to do.


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 6, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There is a technical aspect to running fast at an elite level. So there could theoretically be a technical aspect to running from danger.
> 
> But what you generally get is some guy claiming to have an expertise in so that they never have to measure their ideas against anything.
> 
> ...



I'm just waiting to be enlightened as to how many different ways there are to put one foot in front of the other at a high pace, and when to use each specific method.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I'm just waiting to be enlightened as to how many different ways there are to put one foot in front of the other at a high pace, and when to use each specific method.








One example, and this was from my sprinter mate. They start hunched forwards and at some point open up their stance. And when to do that is apparently very important.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Or has it already happened?
> 
> I've noticed a lack of traditional JJ schools over the last 10 years. Most of the ones around these days seem to be a combination of Karate, Judo, Aikido and even Bjj instead of a traditional samurai fighting style. I've also heard that in Japan, if you mention that you're looking for "Jiujitsu", the Japanese will point you to a Bjj gym. Bjj taking over the moniker of "Jiujitsu" in Japan itself..... I find that to be the irony of ironies. Here's an article about a foreigner moving to Japan, seeking to study either Bjj or JJJ, and went with Bjj because he simply couldn't find a JJJ dojo;
> 
> ...



Japanese jujujtsu is and has always been a mixture of Karate, Judo, Aikido and BJJ techniques, although the tendency is that they can't do either one properly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Japanese jujujtsu is and has always been a mixture of Karate, Judo, Aikido and BJJ techniques, although the tendency is that they can't do either one properly.


I think you have lineage backwards on several of those.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think you have lineage backwards on several of those.



It was not a statement of lineage. If you kick and punch, you will inevitably overlap with Karate. And Japanese Ju Ju jutsu schools have always kicked and punched, but they are more Krav Maga esque..


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> It was not a statement of lineage. If you kick and punch, you will inevitably overlap with Karate. And Japanese Ju Ju jutsu schools have always kicked and punched, but they are more Krav Maga esque..


Yeah, you might want to read back through the discussion a bit. Your understanding of actual JJJ is misinformed.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, you might want to read back through the discussion a bit. Your understanding of actual JJJ is misinformed.



Mere assertions won't further this discussion. JJJ has always had striking, contrary to what the OP seems to think.

"This included the development of various striking techniques in jujutsu which expanded upon the limited striking previously found in jujutsu which targeted vital areas above the shoulders such as the eyes, throat, and back of the neck. However towards the 18th century the number of striking techniques was severely reduced as they were considered less effective and exert too much energy; instead striking in jujutsu primarily became used as a way to distract the opponent or to unbalance him in the lead up to a joint lock, strangle or throw."


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Mere assertions won't further this discussion. JJJ has always had striking, contrary to what the OP seems to think.
> 
> "This included the development of various striking techniques in jujutsu which expanded upon the limited striking previously found in jujutsu which targeted vital areas above the shoulders such as the eyes, throat, and back of the neck. However towards the 18th century the number of striking techniques was severely reduced as they were considered less effective and exert too much energy; instead striking in jujutsu primarily became used as a way to distract the opponent or to unbalance him in the lead up to a joint lock, strangle or throw."


I'm quite aware that traditional Japanese Jujutsu includes strikes. So is the OP, Hanzou, as he made clear in his original post. My response was to your post stating the following:


Acronym said:


> Japanese jujujtsu is and has always been a mixture of Karate, Judo, Aikido and BJJ techniques, although the tendency is that they can't do either one properly.


Firstly, Jujutsu predates the introduction of Karate to Japan, so it can't have always been a mixture of Karate with other arts. Your assertion that 


Acronym said:


> If you kick and punch, you will inevitably overlap with Karate.


as justification for your claim is rather silly. By that logic, Muay Thai, Wing Chun, Silat, Savate, and countless other unrelated arts are all based on Karate.

As far as Judo, Aikido, and BJJ go, they were derived from Japanese Jujutsu, not the other way around. (Indeed, as has been stated previously, Judo and Aikido are arguably modern forms of Japanese Jujutsu which don't happen to currently use the name, while BJJ is a non-Japanese art originally derived from Judo.) Also, as has been previously stated, traditional JJJ is a diverse family of arts. Most of them did not include the newaza which is central to BJJ and an important aspect of Judo. Many of them also include techniques which are not found in BJJ, Judo, or Aikido.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm quite aware that traditional Japanese Jujutsu includes strikes. So is the OP, Hanzou, as he made clear in his original post. My response was to your post stating the following:
> 
> Firstly, Jujutsu predates the introduction of Karate to Japan, so it can't have always been a mixture of Karate with other arts. Your assertion that
> 
> ...



I didn't use the word "based".


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

I will also add that the OP was the one using the term Karate originally, which is perfectly fine with me. 

I have been to japanese Ju ju jutsu clubs, and they are no more Karate than TaeKwondo clubs are judo in self defense training... Things overlap.


----------



## dunc (Nov 7, 2020)

With respect I suspect that you have been to schools that combine judo, aikido, karate etc and call themselves Japanese jujutsu


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

dunc said:


> With respect I suspect that you have been to schools that combine judo, aikido, karate etc and call themselves Japanese jujutsu



The threadmaker?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I will also add that the OP was the one using the term Karate originally, which is perfectly fine with me.
> 
> I have been to japanese Ju ju jutsu clubs, and they are no more Karate than TaeKwondo clubs are judo in self defense training... Things overlap.



I was talking about the "American" jujitsu styles, not the classical Japanese Jujitsu styles. Danzen Ryu or Small Circle would be an example of an American style of Jujitsu, while Tenjin Shinyo Ryu or Kito Ryu would be examples of the classical JJ systems. Brazilian Jujitsu would be an example of an American jujitsu style, since it combines Judo, Wrestling, and other grappling systems.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I was talking about the "American" jujitsu styles, not the classical Japanese Jujitsu styles. Danzen Ryu or Small Circle would be an example of an American style of Jujitsu, while Tenjin Shinyo Ryu or Kito Ryu would be examples of the classical JJ systems. Brazilian Jujitsu would be an example of an American jujitsu style, since it combines Judo, Wrestling, and other grappling systems.



I don't see how BJJ is supposed to replace it when they don't allow strikes in their competitions.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 7, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Those aren't multiple circumstances, it's a variety of applications within the same context. And honestly, still quite limited. As well as being a bit lacking if that's a particular physical skill worked on before it's adapted to other areas, and before, as you say below, their "standard BJJ toolkit"....



Someone is throwing a punch at you, you duck under the punch and take them down. You use positional control to remain on top and submit them.

Someone is on top of you throwing punches. You put them in your Guard, deflect the attack, sweep, and use positional control to remain on top and submit them.

Someone attempts to tackle you. You put their head in the guillotine while their momentum makes you fall backwards. You put them in your Guard, utilizing positional dominance, and finish the choke.

Conversely if you can't maintain the choke, you sweep to top position and again use positional control to stay on top and submit from there.

Multiple circumstances, same basic principle.



> No, it's actually not.



So you're saying the ability to stop the mobility of an attacker (and actually works extremely well against larger, stronger attackers) isn't viable for self defense?



> Sigh.... and, one (hopefully) last time.... what on earth makes you think that's even close to unique to BJJ? I will say, though, that it seems not to bleed any further than the limited physical expressions...



I'm sure there's plenty of arts that contain those things. The question is can those techniques be performed under duress or against a resisting opponent? Bjj practitioners have shown that they can employ their techniques in a bad situation. I've seen practitioners of other systems not being able to employ their art when someone is resisting or attacking them.



> Yep. Except that's not what Hanzou is describing... see my list of examples for more what you're discussing...



Actually that's exactly what I was describing.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I don't see how BJJ is supposed to replace it when they don't allow strikes in their competitions.



I don't see how allowing strikes in competition means much to anything. In Gracie JJ striking is almost always implied in practice. For example, I was trained to force a RNC from back mount by punching/elbowing my attacker on either side of his head.

As I said, what gives Bjj influence is its perceived effectiveness. People want to train in a style that works, not fairy dust BS where you spend decades training and the only thing you've learned is a medieval Japanese dance complete with a dress (Hakama).


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I don't see how allowing strikes in competition means much to anything. In Gracie JJ striking is almost always implied in practice. For example, I was trained to force a RNC from back mount by punching/elbowing my attacker on either side of his head.
> 
> As I said, what gives Bjj influence is its perceived effectiveness. People want to train in a style that works, not fairy dust BS where you spend decades training and the only thing you've learned is a medieval Japanese dance complete with a dress (Hakama).



You clearly know litte about it.

 Sport Ju Jutsu has sparring and submission


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> You clearly know litte about it.
> 
> Sport Ju Jutsu has sparring and submission



Sport Ju Jutsu isn't the type of Jujitsu I'm talking about. In fact, I rather like the general direction Sport Jujutsu is heading in.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I'm sure there's plenty of arts that contain those things. The question is can those techniques be performed under duress or against a resisting opponent? Bjj practitioners have shown that they can employ their techniques in a bad situation. I've seen practitioners of other systems not being able to employ their art when someone is resisting or attacking them.



Kron Gracie was a SW world champion who lost to a middle of the road UFC fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Sport Ju Jutsu isn't the type of Jujitsu I'm talking about. In fact, I rather like the general direction Sport Jujutsu is heading in.



See. Told you it exists.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Kron Gracie was a SW world champion who lost to a middle of the road UFC fighter.



Yes in decision. He's still 5-1, and he's 5-1 because he is quite capable of utilizing BJJ against a highly trained resisting opponent. Heck, no one wants to fight Ryan Hall because they're afraid of his leg locks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2020)

Acronym said:


> It was not a statement of lineage. If you kick and punch, you will inevitably overlap with Karate. And Japanese Ju Ju jutsu schools have always kicked and punched, but they are more Krav Maga esque..


You said JJJ had bits of Judi and BJJ. That’s backwards. Both are descended from JJJ.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 7, 2020)

Found this article talking about the BJJ self defense video that was posted earlier:

The BJJ Self Defense Experiment

I especially liked this part:

*The Heel Hook for Self Defense*
The Heel Hook, this one single submission, accounted for just under half of ALL submissions applied during the experiment…





Why did this one submission show up again and again and again?

In part it was because all three experts are really, really skilled at the Heel Hook (Garry Tonon, in particular, is feared for his relentless lower body attacks in competition).

But these guys are good at all aspects of jiu-jitsu, so that fact doesn’t completely explain why this one particular leglock was so powerful…

It seems like once the gi comes off that submissions tend to gravitate towards the legs and the neck. Take a look at modern no-gi competition, old-school catch wrestling, and Brazilian Luta Livre back in the day: they all are no gi grappling arts and all had great chokes and great leglocks!

Another aspect of the Heel Hook that makes it so powerful for self defense is that it doesn’t require much strength.  In this submission you’re attacking the relatively small ligaments in his knee and ankle, and he can’t really use strength to muscle out of the submission.

If you have to apply this submission in anger you use the relatively big muscles of your torso against the much smaller ligaments, which is usually accompanied by a loud popping sound and your unfortunate opponent dry heaving on the floor.

(That makes the Heel Hook one of the biggest equalisers you can use if you’re fighting someone much bigger than you.)

Also it keeps you safer from strikes.  An opponent who knows that you’re hunting for a Heel Hook is usually going to be pre-occupied with defending this submission.  Unless he’s an idiot he knows that he’s close to tapping out; he’ll be trying to escape and won’t be concentrating on breaking your nose.

In addition to him being distracted your legs are also in a great position to disrupt his base.  If he’s on his butt and you’re entangling his legs correctly then it’s hard for him to stand up.

I definitely agree that if you're fighting someone a lot bigger and stronger than you, and you're in a position to use it, those types of locks can be a very viable option.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 8, 2020)

This'll be a bit.



Steve said:


> @Chris Parker:  You're getting overtly hostile, son, and calling people idiots just isn't okay.  Calm down, read for comprehension, and try engaging in some friendly conversation with your peers.  Trying to bluster and bluff your way around just isn't working for you.



Steve, you have exactly no leg to stand on to suggest I "read for comprehension", nor any moral authority in anything here at all. This is neither bluff (I'm backing everything up, and not promising things I'm not showing), nor bluster. It's frustration at both the painfully ill-informed posters and their unwillingness to look past their own heads, and an over-flow of frustration at your frankly trolling, practically libellous behaviour. I'm sick of it, and have little interest in hiding that frustration... gentler comments have not gotten any response other than pig-headed stupidity, honestly.

As far as the "idiot" comment, you know, I acknowledged at the time that that was right on the line... and would possibly pull it back... except it's completely supported as an accurate observation of drop bear's behaviour... which continued here:



drop bear said:


> I can be expert in Japanese systems according to my values you don't share using evidence you wouldn't understand. I mean we all have to respect whatever values we just make up as being important right?



Are you kidding? Do you even know what a value is?!?! It's not a delusional belief, just saying you are something cause you say you are... that's just... stupidity. A value is something that has a relative/scaled worth to you... you, for example, value what you get out of BJJ... that value doesn't make you a Gracie... or Brazilian.. or a Black Belt... or anything else. It just means that aspects and the approach of BJJ appeals to you and has worth to you.

Get it?



drop bear said:


> When you devalue the idea of martial arts expertise for your own benefit you can't cry foul if everyone else does it.



What on earth are you talking about?!?! What martial arts expertise did I devalue (for the record, that's exactly what Steve has done with my own background and experience for years)? The only thing I have had issues with is when people make statements about arts they clearly have no understanding of... that's not "devaluing (the idea of) martial arts expertise", it's recognising that a complete lack of knowledge has little to no value in a discussion of a topic.



drop bear said:


> So as far as equal standing goes you are arguing mastery of the equivalent of healing crystals.



What?!??!!?!? You're not making any sense. You say that a fantasy belief equals a value (which is completely wrong), therefore you, with no experience, knowledge, understanding, insight, or anything relevant at all, puts you on "equal standing" with myself in regards to Classical Japanese martial arts... I say that we are not on equal standing... as I know what I'm talking about, and you can't put a sentence together... and you say it's the equivalent of healing crystals?!?!

Are you just trying to get me to call you an idiot again?



drop bear said:


> And there is apparently a right way and a wrong way to use healing crystals by the way I can legitimately pay money and do a course from an expert.
> 
> But it is far cheaper and easier to just say I am an expert and grab rocks from the garden. Because just like a lot of martial arts systems it doesn't matter if I use them right or use them wrong. The effect is the same.
> 
> I mean I don't have to share the made up values of someone else's system or some healing crystal guru. Because they are not even real values.



You have no clue what "values" mean, do you?

Look, I'm going to dumb it down for you. That seems like it's apparently necessary.

You have values. They are things that you find worth in. You value time with your family. You value the reward of doing a good job. You value the immediate gratification of eating a whole cake at once. You value attributes in your partner and friends. None of these are "made up values". They can't be. They're just values.

When it comes to martial arts, everyone will have different sets of values. Valuing competition is one. Valuing skills is one, but it's not that simple... typically, you would value skills in particular contexts, or even particular skills. You might value rank. You might value fitness. You might value history. Depth of study. Reputation. Marketing. Personalities. You might value grappling, or you might value kicking skills, or weapon skills. Or combinations. Or none of them in particular. 

What your values are will draw you towards specific martial arts, or types of martial arts. None of that makes any of this close to just delusionally deciding to think you're something you're not... it's purely about what aspects of a martial art you will be drawn to.

Of course, this doesn't just apply to people. Martial arts themselves have their own set of values. They value skill development in certain areas. They value a particular tactical approach. They value a particular training methodology. They value a particular range, or weapon set (or group of weapon sets). These all add up to inform and structure the art itself. This is the same, whether it's BJJ, MMA, Karate, Judo, Wing Chun, Taiji, Hung Gar, Kali, Silat, boxing, wrestling, or Classical Japanese arts from the Sengoku and Tokugawa periods. Of course, having different values from art to art means that they have different structures, approaches, training methodologies, metrics of measurement, and so on... and, depending on your personal values, you will either appreciate them, or you'll appreciate something else...

Do you get this now?



drop bear said:


> I have a friend who has had exactly zero self defence running experience and I would be quite confident to put the guy up against you in almost any contextual running race.



Then you'd lose. Mainly as you have failed to understand, or set, the context to be applied... and if you're leaving that to me, you're gonna lose.



drop bear said:


> I put it to you being fast is going to out perform context. And he is legitimately elite level runner fast.



Then you don't understand context.



drop bear said:


> And this is the difference between systems that relies on individual values and evidence based systems.



No, it's the difference between understanding the effect of context, and thinking a particular skill in a vacuum performs equally in all scenarios, as well as thinking that such skills will be able to be applied in all scenarios.

In other words, your friend will likely not run faster than me if I break both his legs first. Or he gets hit by a car and damages his spine. Or if he can't run for other reasons. But that's not the main thing...



Rusty B said:


> That one had me scratching my head.  Running from danger is something that we're hardwired to be able to do; it's something that every species within the animal kingdom is hardwired to be able to do.  Seeking out training on how to run from danger "in certain contexts" is like seeking out training on how to eat, breathe, and sleep "in certain contexts."



Actually, it's not.

We are hardwired for a couple of basic responses... most commonly referred to as "flight or fight"... although there is a third one, which is "freeze". What people seem to think, though, is that it's a choice. It's not. At least, it's not without some very serious and effective training in each area. After all, "fight" is just as hardwired as "flight"... are you suggesting that training in that isn't advantageous?

There's an old joke about two guys out camping... one day, they see a huge grizzly coming towards them. The bear spots them, stops, and studies them, then rears up and roars, before dropping down to start to charge at the two men. The first looks over at his friend, and sees him kneeling over to put on his shoes... "What are you doing, Joe?!?! That bears coming!!!! We don't have time, we gotta run fast!!!! NOW!!!!!!" Joe looks up and says "I don't gotta run fast, Mack, I just gotta run faster than you...."

Fun joke, and an old one... but it's far from accurate or a complete story. Mack could manage to hide. Joe could take so long tying his laces (with adrenaline the finer motor skills disappear) that the bear catches up to him first... or he never gets to start running at all. Running might get the bear to give chase, whereas another action might not have the same behaviour in the bear... what I'm saying is that running is not the only part of it, and "fast" isn't the whole story.

Another example? A real one? Sure.

A friend of my old instructors was in a bad relationship... domestic violence is never a good thing, and not always obvious from the outside. One night, she managed to get away from the guy. She ran. No shoes, just ran. Left the house and ran. As fast as she could. She thought he was going to go too far and really hurt her that night or worse. So she ran. Fast.

Straight down the centre of the street.

He came out onto the street, looked, and saw her immediately, then ran after her. She was caught, and it was only people in the houses coming out (and calling the police) that actually saved her then. Running fast was not the answer. Escape was... but she didn't do that. Now, if she'd trained in tactical escape methods, and concealment methods, she could have escaped.

In other words, there's a lot more to this than most think.



drop bear said:


> There is a technical aspect to running fast at an elite level. So there could theoretically be a technical aspect to running from danger.



More tactical than technical... which is really a good way to describe self defence training as a whole. Yes, there is some technicality, but that's not the way it actually works.



drop bear said:


> But what you generally get is some guy claiming to have an expertise in so that they never have to measure their ideas against anything.



No, you get some guy arguing against accurate information because they don't understand how such things are measured.



drop bear said:


> Oh you run really fast but can you self defence run? Yes? Um well can you run according to ancient Japanese traditions?



I get you think that's a joke, but, well... yeah. "Self defence running" is a thing... and "fast" isn't a part of it. "Fast" helps. But it's not what is relied upon... as we understand that there's a good chance the other guy could be faster... or there could be more of them... or the environment might not let you get far enough away... or weapons could be involved... and adrenaline will affect the other guy as much as you, making them stronger, faster, etc. And as far as "run(ning) according to ancient Japanese traditions", well, if you're studying those traditions, then that will be a very valid question... after all, if you can't, then you're not really doing that tradition. 

But this is your biggest disconnect, and I genuinely can't believe this has to be repeated again.... modern self defence and Classical Japanese martial arts are NOT THE SAME THING. They are not trained for the same reasons, for the same context, in the same way, and more. Why you continually try to imply that it's even a factor, especially after 28 pages of being told this, I have no idea... well, I do, but it's not flattering....

I will say something else on the "run(ning) according to ancient Japanese traditions" though... pretty much all classical arts have their own approach to footwork... which can be very alien, or unusual, for modern Westerners to do... very different methods of shifting weight, transferring it across different parts of your feet, using different muscles than you "normally" do, and so on. Believe it or not, walking is as much cultural as it is biomechanically universal to humans. And even then, different systems have very different methods of walking. Those different methods of footwork (literally teaching you how to walk) then form the basis of the mechanics of the art you're learning... and influence the way any weapons are used, the distancing applied, power generation, speed, how you structure your body, and far more. So yeah... the question of whether you can do it according to the tradition becomes quite important. 



drop bear said:


> This goes on until the values are so personally interpreted that it no longer reflects reality.



Dude, you don't reflect reality. That is nothing like "values", and values are always personal, so are not "personally interpreted". I mean.... should be buy you a dictionary for Christmas? Words seem to confuse you... 



drop bear said:


> In BJJ there is a joke. When you get choked out by a white belt and then teach them how to do the sub properly.
> 
> By the way being able to be beaten by a white belt and to take it like a man is a very hard thing to do.



Er... okay... is there any relevance to this? Other than yet another demonstration that you can't follow a basic idea?



Acronym said:


> Japanese jujujtsu is and has always been a mixture of Karate, Judo, Aikido and BJJ techniques, although the tendency is that they can't do either one properly.



No.



Acronym said:


> It was not a statement of lineage. If you kick and punch, you will inevitably overlap with Karate. And Japanese Ju Ju jutsu schools have always kicked and punched, but they are more Krav Maga esque..



Completely wrong.



Acronym said:


> Mere assertions won't further this discussion.



Except yours? 

Look, jujutsu is a term that originated in the Edo period in Japan (mid-17th Century onwards)... although arts identified as jujutsu (even though other terms are used, such as hade, kogusoku, koshi no mawari, taijutsu, yawara,yawaragei, te, gei, wa, wajutsu, koshi, torite, and far more) go back a lot further, with the oldest recognised jujutsu-centric art being Takenouchi Ryu from around 1532.

Karate originated in Okinawa, combining methods from China and the Ryukyu kingdom from the 17th century onwards, but only came to Japan in 1912 when Kano Jigoro was instrumental in getting Funakoshi Gichin to Japan to put on a demonstration. The first classes were in universities in 1918, and the modern name "karate" (empty hand) was officially adopted in 1936.

Judo was founded in 1888 by Kano Jigoro, who held licence in two classical Jujutsu systems, the relatively new Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (itself an off-shoot of the older Akiyama Yoshin Ryu line of Jujutsu, dating from around 1630), and Kito Ryu, an even older system that involved methods of fighting in armour among others.

Aikido was created by Ueshiba Morihei, based largely in Daito Ryu Aikijutsu (itself founded/formulated by Takeda Sokaku at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th Century), but also influenced by Yagyu Shingan Ryu Taijutsu, Shinkage Ryu kenjutsu, Kukishin Ryu, and so on, beginning in the 1920's. Originally Ueshiba was teaching (and ranking his students in) Daito Ryu, but soon started to develop his own method, being recognised as a new art, named Aikido in the 30's.

BJJ's origin in in the early 20th Century when Kano JIgoro began sending dan-ranked students around the world to help promote Japanese culture through his Kodokan judo, including Maeda Mitsuyo. Maeda taught a number of people, including members of a family named Gracie (note there are also other lineages, such as the Fadda lineage that are not related to the Gracies) over the course of a few years. The Gracies then continued to refine the techniques, focused on ground work, and developed through an approach of competitive bouts, both internally and with other arts/approaches. It rose to prominence in the 1990's with UFC.

So... you still want to tell us that Japanese jujutsu "has always been a mixture of karate, judo, aikido, and BJJ techniques"?



Acronym said:


> JJJ has always had striking, contrary to what the OP seems to think.
> 
> "This included the development of various striking techniques in jujutsu which expanded upon the limited striking previously found in jujutsu which targeted vital areas above the shoulders such as the eyes, throat, and back of the neck. However towards the 18th century the number of striking techniques was severely reduced as they were considered less effective and exert too much energy; instead striking in jujutsu primarily became used as a way to distract the opponent or to unbalance him in the lead up to a joint lock, strangle or throw."



First off, a source for your quote would be helpful.

Secondly, I don't think you have any idea what Japanese jujutsu is... particularly when it comes to classical arts (koryu). A good rule of thumb is that it's a general term, so trying to be specific, without applying it to a specific school, gets you into inaccurate territory pretty quickly... after all, does jujutsu include chokes? Yes? Hmm... Asayama Ichiden Ryu doesn't have any... is it an unarmed system? Yes? Well, that rules out Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, Shingetsu Muso Yanagi Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Iga Ryu-ha Katsushin Ryu, Kiraku Ryu, and many more... I can go on, but the point is, such general statements are always going to be wrong in a large number of situations... reality is far more nuanced.



Acronym said:


> I will also add that the OP was the one using the term Karate originally, which is perfectly fine with me.
> 
> I have been to japanese Ju ju jutsu clubs, and they are no more Karate than TaeKwondo clubs are judo in self defense training... Things overlap.



Then you haven't been to actual Japanese jujutsu clubs.



dunc said:


> With respect I suspect that you have been to schools that combine judo, aikido, karate etc and call themselves Japanese jujutsu
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you. 



Acronym said:


> I don't see how BJJ is supposed to replace it when they don't allow strikes in their competitions.



What does competition have to do with it? Classical Japanese arts don't do competition in the first place... 



Hanzou said:


> Someone is throwing a punch at you, you duck under the punch and take them down. You use positional control to remain on top and submit them.
> 
> Someone is on top of you throwing punches. You put them in your Guard, deflect the attack, sweep, and use positional control to remain on top and submit them.
> 
> ...



No, those are different applications of a tactic. It's a bit wider than the "break your legs from anywhere" technique approach I responded to initially, but still not the same thing as I'm talking about.



Hanzou said:


> So you're saying the ability to stop the mobility of an attacker (and actually works extremely well against larger, stronger attackers) isn't viable for self defense?



HAOV.

What I'm saying is that what you describe is far more likely in a sporting competitive format and context, and, from a self-defence perspective (again, that has no relevance to the thread, and is purely a lack of understanding of classical arts on your end) is such a low likelihood situation, and such a limited and specialist response, that it goes against what would be expected of a self defence approach.



Hanzou said:


> I'm sure there's plenty of arts that contain those things. The question is can those techniques be performed under duress or against a resisting opponent? Bjj practitioners have shown that they can employ their techniques in a bad situation. I've seen practitioners of other systems not being able to employ their art when someone is resisting or attacking them.



Yes, they can. They are. The problem is you aren't aware of what that means in the context of classical arts. 



Hanzou said:


> Actually that's exactly what I was describing.



Either your misunderstanding what principles and differences in circumstances are, or your describing exactly not what you're meaning. Either way, no, it's not what you're describing.



Hanzou said:


> I don't see how allowing strikes in competition means much to anything.



Competition itself means nothing in this... 



Hanzou said:


> In Gracie JJ striking is almost always implied in practice. For example, I was trained to force a RNC from back mount by punching/elbowing my attacker on either side of his head.



Yeah... I'm starting to think you misunderstand most of your lessons... you weren't trained to "force" a RNC, you were taught a way to open someone up for a RNC using strikes... the difference between a technical and a tactical mentality.



Hanzou said:


> As I said, what gives Bjj influence is its perceived effectiveness.



And, as I've said, that's marketing.



Hanzou said:


> People want to train in a style that works, not fairy dust BS where you spend decades training and the only thing you've learned is a medieval Japanese dance complete with a dress (Hakama).



Dude. Enough. You've been told that your characterisation is inaccurate, and offensive. You've also been told that the reasons for training are different, so to insist that you apply your metrics is to completely miss the point.

What we do is not "fairy dust BS". You don't understand it, nor have any experience in it, and have no way to comprehend what "practical" is. It is not "medieval Japanese dance". To be blunt here, it's far more martial than anything you've ever done. Plus a lot more realistic. It's just a completely different context. 

But enough with your comments. You'e been told this over and over again. Don't make us say it again.



Acronym said:


> You clearly know litte about it.



Oh, I love irony....



Acronym said:


> Sport Ju Jutsu has sparring and submission



So what? What has that to do with anything here?



Hanzou said:


> Found this article talking about the BJJ self defense video that was posted earlier:
> 
> The BJJ Self Defense Experiment
> 
> ...



And all that shows is a complete lack of understanding about self defence at all... on pretty much every single level. But again, that's got nothing to do with the topic as you presented it... BJJ's rep is based in it's marketing, which is itself based in it's competitive record... Classical Japanese arts don't do competition, and also aren't about modern self defence, being, you know, classical arts. Self defence is on the outside of each of these... the only relevance is BJJ sometimes thinking it's got something to do with it (yeah... no), or people having a largely uninformed concept of martial arts (ie thinking they're all about self defence) when looking initially. In both cases, it has nothing to do with the idea of BJJ schools "replacing" classical ones... because, for the last time, they aren't.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it's the difference between understanding the effect of context, and thinking a particular skill in a vacuum performs equally in all scenarios, as well as thinking that such skills will be able to be applied in all scenarios.
> 
> In other words, your friend will likely not run faster than me if I break both his legs first. Or he gets hit by a car and damages his spine. Or if he can't run for other reasons. But that's not the main thing...



Sigh.......

This gets thrown around a bit and it is an excuse not context. It is kind of tragic to suggest your expertise is being able to out run someone with broken legs. 

People use this also with weapons. So if they train with a sword and then say but if I have a sword and they don't I would win so my training is superior.

I mean it isn't. I can beat a guy if I have all the advantages without needing any training in it. That doesn't really make me an expert in anything.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 8, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yes in decision. He's still 5-1, and he's 5-1 because he is quite capable of utilizing BJJ against a highly trained resisting opponent. Heck, no one wants to fight Ryan Hall because they're afraid of his leg locks.



Ryan Hall is the one who pussies out of MMA because he knows he will lose. Just Like Marcelo did against a bum.


----------



## Steve (Nov 8, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> This'll be a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, you have exactly no leg to stand on to suggest I "read for comprehension", nor any moral authority in anything here at all. This is neither bluff (I'm backing everything up, and not promising things I'm not showing), nor bluster. It's frustration at both the painfully ill-informed posters and their unwillingness to look past their own heads, and an over-flow of frustration at your frankly trolling, practically libellous behaviour. I'm sick of it, and have little interest in hiding that frustration... gentler comments have not gotten any response other than pig-headed stupidity, honestly.


true statements are not libel. You have in the past acknowledged zero real world experience with self defense, and I am pretty sure you have no real world experience with violence of any kind.   You are, as I’ve said in the past, like a college professor.  I enjoy your history lessons.  I just understand the difference between skill and knowledge, and you seem not to.  Having the latter doesn’t magically confer the former; experience is what bridges the two.  Son.  Frankly, your behavior just makes it more clear.

but, you know, yesterday America broke up with a fascist, and not even your pompous arrogance and bloviation can ruin my good mood.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 8, 2020)

I actually visited one of these American Ju Jutsu classes and it was 100% choreography, and at Low pace. Complete waste of time and money. You don't learn anything about self defense and you barely get a work-out from it.

And believe it nor not, Aikido classes had more intensity and effectiveness.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> No, you get some guy arguing against accurate information because they don't understand how such things are measured.



I measure things differently. I objectively test my methods against other methods by using  competition, sparring, resistance. And exposure to other systems and people who train in them. 

By using this measurement method I ascribe value. 

Now I am not exactly a  boring percentage fighter. I definitely do things that are fun but don't work very well. But because I value an honest measurement I at least know the difference. 

Changing that measurement doesn't really make anything more accurate. It just creates a logic or rhetoric that makes people feel good. So healing crystals will not be measured in the same way medicine is because it would of course fail. It will get measured in some way according to individual values that justifies them for people who like that kind of thing.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you kidding? Do you even know what a value is?!?! It's not a delusional belief, just saying you are something cause you say you are... that's just... stupidity. A value is something that has a relative/scaled worth to you... you, for example, value what you get out of BJJ... that value doesn't make you a Gracie... or Brazilian.. or a Black Belt... or anything else. It just means that aspects and the approach of BJJ appeals to you and has worth to you.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?!?! What martial arts expertise did I devalue (for the record, that's exactly what Steve has done with my own background and experience for years)? The only thing I have had issues with is when people make statements about arts they clearly have no understanding of... that's not "devaluing (the idea of) martial arts expertise", it's recognising that a complete lack of knowledge has little to no value in a discussion of a topic.



Ok. If I ascribe my own values to martial arts say in the terms of Japanese systems. Which you have said is cool for everyone to do.

Basically your argument is have your values. I have my values you don't understand the system of merit I am using so therefore you cannot really make an assessment of my systems because you don't understand the measurements.

Trying to test length by using kilograms.

But then I don't really have to value Japanese history or its authenticity or value time spent in training effectiveness of technique. I can value whatever I want which is for now is the magical made up value of midichlorians.

Because I have a massively high midichlorian count that is tested by a method you don't understand i have the ability to teach traditional Japanese systems that far surpasses yours.

As I can test your midichlorians in a manner you wouldn't understand. Unfortunately due to your low midichlorians you can never properly teach those systems.

This concept devalues martial arts instruction. Because now anyone can do it.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Ryan Hall is the one who pussies out of MMA because he knows he will lose. Just Like Marcelo did against a bum.



Yeah, no. It’s well documented that fighters have been purposely avoiding fights with Hall because his style is a terrible match up for theirs, and they fear getting their legs destroyed.




Acronym said:


> I actually visited one of these American Ju Jutsu classes and it was 100% choreography, and at Low pace. Complete waste of time and money. You don't learn anything about self defense and you barely get a work-out from it.
> 
> And believe it nor not, Aikido classes had more intensity and effectiveness.



I could have told you that.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 8, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, no. It’s well documented that fighters have been purposely avoiding fights with Hall because his style is a terrible match up for theirs, and they fear getting their legs destroyed.



He said that he was venturing into the UFC, then backed out.


----------



## Acronym (Nov 8, 2020)

If you were referring to American Ju Jutsu, then why not say so? It says Japanese Ju Jutsu in the topic


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2020)

Acronym said:


> He said that he was venturing into the UFC, then backed out.



Ryan Hall has about 6-7 UFC fights on his record.

You must be talking about Gordan Ryan.



Acronym said:


> If you were referring to American Ju Jutsu, then why not say so? It says Japanese Ju Jutsu in the topic



Because we're discussing all forms of Jujutsu. The point of this thread is to discuss if Brazilian JJ will continue on its path towards becoming the dominant form of Jujitsu due to its popularity and penetration in various countries around the world, including Japan.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> HAOV.
> 
> What I'm saying is that what you describe is far more likely in a sporting competitive format and context, and, from a self-defence perspective (again, that has no relevance to the thread, and is purely a lack of understanding of classical arts on your end) is such a low likelihood situation, and such a limited and specialist response, that it goes against what would be expected of a self defence approach.



I find it unbelievable that you think that someone on top of another person, or someone being wrestled or struck to the ground is a low likelihood self defense situation. How do you think the majority of women are sexually assaulted? Standing up? Maybe that was the case in medieval Japan, but it isn't the case in the modern world.



> Yes, they can. They are. The problem is you aren't aware of what that means in the context of classical arts.



Their ability has never been objectively demonstrated in the modern era. You hear stories about it, and you see them do pretty demonstrations, but that's about it. The closest modern MA that utilizes that type of training model is Aikido, and by and large Aikidoka's ability to perform those techniques on a resisting opponent has been suspect.



> Either your misunderstanding what principles and differences in circumstances are, or your describing exactly not what you're meaning. Either way, no, it's not what you're describing.



Again, the principle is controlling position, and using that ability to control a violent outcome.



> Yeah... I'm starting to think you misunderstand most of your lessons... you weren't trained to "force" a RNC, you were taught a way to open someone up for a RNC using strikes... the difference between a technical and a tactical mentality.



Semantics.



> And, as I've said, that's marketing.



Marketing backed by multiple forms of evidence.



> Dude. Enough. You've been told that your characterisation is inaccurate, and offensive. You've also been told that the reasons for training are different, so to insist that you apply your metrics is to completely miss the point.



How is it inaccurate? You said yourself that your training revolves around medieval Japanese situations, weapons, tactics, and concepts. You even go so far as culturally appropriate language, norms, and dress.



> What we do is not "fairy dust BS". You don't understand it, nor have any experience in it, and have no way to comprehend what "practical" is. It is not "medieval Japanese dance". To be blunt here, it's far more martial than anything you've ever done. Plus a lot more realistic. It's just a completely different context.



So if a woman wanted to learn how to defend herself you would seriously tell her to learn a medieval Japanese martial art that would teach her how to twirl a spear, learn a kata about a person getting attacked with a sword by a samurai, and how to properly bow during a tea ceremony....

.....versus a BJJ or MMA school where she'll constantly have a burly hairy man on top her  imposing his will on her, and that woman having to learn through skill and practice how to escape that situation and submit her attacker?

I consider that quite irresponsible.


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 8, 2020)

Strangely, for someone who champions bjj and Ryan Hall in every second post, you don't seem to be too familiar with _his_ take on martial arts and self defense.  He seems to have a level head about it:


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 9, 2020)

BrendanF said:


> Strangely, for someone who champions bjj and Ryan Hall in every second post, you don't seem to be too familiar with _his_ take on martial arts and self defense.  He seems to have a level head about it:



Was there something specific in that video that contradicted anything I’ve said? He says at the end of that video that if he had to choose one art for self defense, he would choose Bjj.

I should also point out that he refers to Bjj as simply “Jiujitsu”, which further illustrates my point that the term Jiujitsu is slowly but surely being linked to one particular style only (Bjj) in popular vernacular.


----------



## O'Malley (Nov 9, 2020)

> A professional BJJer means BJJ when he says "jiujitsu" = jiujitsu means BJJ in popular vernacular.



I think this sums up the biases and agenda underpinning this thread.

BTW "jiujitsu" or "jits" cannot refer to Japanese jujutsu, as the convention is to use the correct transcription to refer to JJJ.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 9, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> I think this sums up the biases and agenda underpinning this thread.
> 
> BTW "jiujitsu" or "jits" cannot refer to Japanese jujutsu, as the convention is to use the correct transcription to refer to JJJ.



What biases or underpinnings?

Also it’s not just professional Bjj practitioners using that vernacular.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 9, 2020)




----------



## Hanzou (Nov 9, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> BTW "jiujitsu" or "jits" cannot refer to Japanese jujutsu, as the convention is to use the correct transcription to refer to JJJ.



Speaking of which, I think a good question is BJJ's penetration of the Japanese market, and what long term effects that may have if it maintains or expands upon its current level of popularity in that country. No other American form of jujitsu has ever penetrated the Japanese market on the level that BJJ has. There could be a point that even in Japan, "Jiujitsu" simply means BJJ. 

I think we're rapidly approaching that reality quite quickly.


----------



## Steve (Nov 9, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Speaking of which, I think a good question is BJJ's penetration of the Japanese market, and what long term effects that may have if it maintains or expands upon its current level of popularity in that country. No other American form of jujitsu has ever penetrated the Japanese market on the level that BJJ has. There could be a point that even in Japan, "Jiujitsu" simply means BJJ.
> 
> I think we're rapidly approaching that reality quite quickly.


BJJ is American?  Do you mean in that in the continental sense?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 9, 2020)

Steve said:


> BJJ is American?  Do you mean in that in the continental sense?



Yeah. North Americans and South Americans. People are called Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc. Folks in the US sort of robbed the term "American" from other people in the western hemisphere.

Interestingly, only US citizens being commonly considered "American" in popular vernacular is similar to what we're talking about with Jujutsu.


----------



## Steve (Nov 9, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah. North Americans and South Americans. People are called Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc. Folks in the US sort of robbed the term "American" from other people in the western hemisphere.
> 
> Interestingly, only US citizens being commonly considered "American" in popular vernacular is similar to what we're talking about with Jujutsu.


Alright. I'm with you.  I live close enough to Canada to have heard them whining when we call ourselves Americans.  "We're Americans, too."   I just generally ignore them.


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 10, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Another example? A real one? Sure.
> 
> A friend of my old instructors was in a bad relationship... domestic violence is never a good thing, and not always obvious from the outside. One night, she managed to get away from the guy. She ran. No shoes, just ran. Left the house and ran. As fast as she could. She thought he was going to go too far and really hurt her that night or worse. So she ran. Fast.
> 
> ...



This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read here.  And it has "McDojo" written all over it.

I'm retired military, so I definitely would have heard of this if it was a thing.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 10, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read here.  And it has "McDojo" written all over it.
> 
> I'm retired military, so I definitely would have heard of this if it was a thing.



But there's photographic evidence!


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> BJJ is American?  Do you mean in that in the continental sense?



There's 10th Planet...


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 10, 2020)

Steve said:


> Alright. I'm with you.  I live close enough to Canada to have heard them whining when we call ourselves Americans.  "We're Americans, too."   I just generally ignore them.



They're NORTH Americans.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 10, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> They're NORTH Americans.


So are Mexicans but you know what they call people from the U.S.?
"Norte Americanos"


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 10, 2020)

elder999 said:


> So are Mexicans but you know what they call people from the U.S.?
> "Norte Americanos"



Americans call them many things I won't repeat here, but that doesn't change the official demonyms.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Sigh.......
> 
> This gets thrown around a bit and it is an excuse not context. It is kind of tragic to suggest your expertise is being able to out run someone with broken legs.
> People use this also with weapons. So if they train with a sword and then say but if I have a sword and they don't I would win so my training is superior.
> I mean it isn't. I can beat a guy if I have all the advantages without needing any training in it. That doesn't really make me an expert in anything.



Yeah... you missed the point entirely. Again. Firstly, again, "being an expert" is not claimed... you stated that your friend could run away faster than I could, regardless of context or circumstances... as you'd failed to grasp the first set of examples I gave, I went a bit further... but the point is not the idea of running faster than someone with broken legs, it's that there can be any number of reasons that make running away a bad plan... or an impossibility. And to think that having this one skill set is all it takes is, well, failing at understanding what is being discussed.

One more thing.... it's not about "beating" someone... that, again, is a failure to understand the situation... which comes from only having one frame of reference.



Steve said:


> true statements are not libel.



No, but knowingly, and continually, denying the evidence presented in order to insinuate (or outright claim) a false description of one in order to damage their reputation really, really, really is. The only thing preventing it is the lack of impact on a professional level... if we're going to get technical.



Steve said:


> You have in the past acknowledged zero real world experience with self defense, and I am pretty sure you have no real world experience with violence of any kind.



That, Steve, is complete and utter garbage. I have, continually, consistently, and often (when in these discussions with you) cited multiple examples and occurrences of myself having "real world experience" with self defence usage (in fact, when asked, I stated that I use my self defence training constantly, all day, every day... but you don't grasp what that means, and think it only refers to physical confrontation). You insisted that "no-one can teach self defence, as no-one has experience with it", and failed entirely to quantify what you meant by that... myself, and others, recounted their encounters, and you ignored them. You were asked how many violent encounters were required, and you said "more than none", so we recounted them again. You said that learning it needed to be from someone who had "done it", I recounted violent encounters my teacher had had, that I had had, and that my students had had... giving you three generations of experience (my teachers, who taught me, and my students who I taught). You, again, have ignored that entirely.

I have recounted them, yet again, in this very thread. You are, again, stating (falsely) that I have claimed no experience with violence, and claiming that I have no experience with real violence. Steve, let me be very clear.

I have dealt with real world violence. I have employed the teachings of my school in situations ranging from escorting friends from danger, to applying non-violent restraint techniques on both friends and strangers, through to handling sudden assaults, and a five on one assault. I have dealt with drunk people, I have dealt with people on drugs, and I have dealt with a (at that point undiagnosed) schizophrenic having a psychotic violent episode. I have not yet (and hope not to) dealt with an opponent armed with a weapon, however my teacher and my students have. They have also dealt with muggings. They have dealt with drunk fools at parties who decide to start a fight. And all of this is the lowest level of self defence.

I say again. You have been told this repeatedly. Stop with the false insinuations. Now. You have no idea what you're talking about.



Steve said:


> You are, as I’ve said in the past, like a college professor.  I enjoy your history lessons.



Genuinely, based on your responses, even in a thread based in historical matters, as you continue to attack and troll as listed above, I doubt that. You have done this for years, and it's time you were called on your behaviour.



Steve said:


> I just understand the difference between skill and knowledge, and you seem not to.



Please. I'd say you have no idea of my skills, except you've had them detailed to you multiple times over. The real problem is you have no idea what is either skill or knowledge in this field.



Steve said:


> Having the latter doesn’t magically confer the former; experience is what bridges the two.



I will say again... when it comes to self defence, you, despite being told multiple times by many, many people, don't grasp what entails "experience" in this topic. It is largely an academic concept and construct (well, actually a legal one), with a minor physical aspect. You only seem to have any grasp on the physical (and not from your own experience), with no willingness to expand from there. And that is far from my failing, as I've certainly provided you with the knowledge over the years.



Steve said:


> Son.



Yeah... just echoing the term to me doesn't work when you don't see why it was applied in the first place... that's just a childish attempts to "one-up".



Steve said:


> Frankly, your behavior just makes it more clear.



For years, you have slighted me. You have derided my experience, you have denied my experience, you have ignored every time you have been corrected, you have refused to acknowledge anything you've been told, and you have derailed multiple threads where I am involved in order to further this lunatic agenda you seem to have against me.

If we're discussing a concept of defending against attack, what precisely do you think my behaviour should be?



Steve said:


> but, you know, yesterday America broke up with a fascist, and not even your pompous arrogance and bloviation can ruin my good mood.



Honestly, I'm celebrating alongside you there... so I'm going to let those last digs slide. This time.



drop bear said:


> I measure things differently. I objectively test my methods against other methods by using  competition, sparring, resistance. And exposure to other systems and people who train in them.



I get that. That's your value. And, for the 19,000th time... that's fine. Great, even. But expecting all martial arts to share the same value is where you get it completely wrong.

That's the point.

You value a particular approach to martial arts... which will have you drawn to a particular type of martial art (competitive)... that is how you decide what you want to train in. If another martial art appeals to someone else who doesn't share your values, what skin off your nose is that? It's the reason there are other martial arts. The problem is you want all martial arts to be the same... they're not. It's time you came to terms with that.



drop bear said:


> By using this measurement method I ascribe value.



Yes, but that's not the values we're discussing here. That would get you to value certain techniques/tactics/attacks etc. What we're discussing is the first thing you said... it's you valuing the competition as a testing method in the first place.



drop bear said:


> Now I am not exactly a  boring percentage fighter. I definitely do things that are fun but don't work very well. But because I value an honest measurement I at least know the difference.
> 
> Changing that measurement doesn't really make anything more accurate. It just creates a logic or rhetoric that makes people feel good. So healing crystals will not be measured in the same way medicine is because it would of course fail. It will get measured in some way according to individual values that justifies them for people who like that kind of thing.



You're really not getting it.

What I mean when I talk about metrics is that, while competition is used as a way to measure performance in a competitive system, it's not used to measure a non-competitive one. Using a framework of "self defence" is pointless when looking at a school that doesn't deal in it at all.

You seem to be unable to process the idea that people train martial arts for different reasons... and keep trying to insist on asking how a school not designed for, trained for, or applied as a self defence system works in self defence. It's not meant to. 

Your "healing crystal vs medicine" analogy is not apt. 



drop bear said:


> Ok. If I ascribe my own values to martial arts say in the terms of Japanese systems. Which you have said is cool for everyone to do.



No.

What I have said is that you have your own set of values, which then guides you towards a particular approach to martial arts. And that's great, as that's what your values are meant to do. What they aren't meant to do, though, is to be falsely applied to an alien context with no regard for that context itself.

Look, there's an old quote often attributed to Einstein on the nature of intelligence... if you judge a fish by it's ability to ride a bicycle, it will spend it's life believing that it is stupid. And that is obviously just a bad way to apply a metric that's not appropriate. Which is exactly what you're doing.



drop bear said:


> Basically your argument is have your values. I have my values you don't understand the system of merit I am using so therefore you cannot really make an assessment of my systems because you don't understand the measurements.



No, I understand it perfectly. Your values are fine, they just don't apply in this case.



drop bear said:


> Trying to test length by using kilograms.



That's not testing, that's measuring.



drop bear said:


> But then I don't really have to value Japanese history or its authenticity or value time spent in training effectiveness of technique. I can value whatever I want which is for now is the magical made up value of midichlorians.



To break this up, you're correct, then you're just... wrong. Not even wrong, really. Not even in the ballpark.

Yes, you have no requirement to value Japanese history or authenticity of classical arts or anything similar.... unless that is what you are studying. Yes, you can value what you want, but applying it where it doesn't apply is just, well, stupid. Like a fish trying to ride a bicycle. And the argumentum ad absurdum is simply another indication that you are failing badly at just grasping what is being said.



drop bear said:


> Because I have a massively high midichlorian count that is tested by a method you don't understand i have the ability to teach traditional Japanese systems that far surpasses yours.
> 
> As I can test your midichlorians in a manner you wouldn't understand. Unfortunately due to your low midichlorians you can never properly teach those systems.



Please stop trying to apply reducto ad absurdum, as you simply can't do it.

No, values are not made up beliefs. I've told you that before. Understand it.

Values are what you find worth in. For you, it's competitive training and what you gain out of that. That's fine. It has nothing at all to do with non-competitive systems. 

It's this simple. If you're training in a Classical Japanese system, you will obviously value the way that system operates, which is different to the way a modern art does. It makes neither "better" or "worse" than the other... just different. I really don't get why this is hard for you to understand.



drop bear said:


> This concept devalues martial arts instruction. Because now anyone can do it.



What are you talking about? You don't understand classical arts, as you've never done them and they are completely alien to you, so it's a matter of made up fantasy beliefs?!?!? No. 

Classical martial arts instruction is far more detailed, precise, efficient, focused, directed, and effective than most modern systems. It is really not a case of "anyone can do it".... in fact, the criteria of being a respected teacher are significantly higher than you have any idea of.



Hanzou said:


> Because we're discussing all forms of Jujutsu. The point of this thread is to discuss if Brazilian JJ will continue on its path towards becoming the dominant form of Jujitsu due to its popularity and penetration in various countries around the world, including Japan.



Here's the real problem with your initial thesis... there's no such thing as "jujutsu". Really. There's not.

There are many, many, many systems who have curriculums (or parts of their curriculums) that can be identified as jujutsu in one way or another... but are so distinct from each other that there really can never be a "dominant form". Just many different (in many cases, unrelated) arts who share some basic commonality of terminology (although even that is nowhere near what you might think it is).

At the end of the day, BJJ really is not jujutsu... so how can it be the "dominant form"? It can only be so in the minds of people who are largely ignorant of jujutsu itself. You may as well as if muay Thai or TKD is the dominant form of kung fu... or of boxing. They're all striking dominant forms of martial arts, but they share very little beyond that. It's the same here.

Do most people imagine BJJ when you say "ju jitsu"? Sure. Does that mean it's dominant? Only in popular imagination. But then again, those people who think of BJJ, are they actually thinking of BJJ? Or are they just thinking of any kind of ground fighting seen in MMA, and wouldn't know the difference between it, Catch-as-catch-can wrestling, Greco-Roman wrestling, Shui Chao, Chin-na, Freestyle Wrestling, or Professional Wrestling? Okay, today, hopefully they'd be able to identify the last... but still, I wouldn't be shocked.

After all, can you recognise the different strains of karate? Or is it all just "karate"? Before you started martial arts, could you spot the difference between that and TKD? Could you tell what was Japanese and what was Okinawan? Or American? Or was it all "karate", regardless?

The point is that popular imagination is not everything... it's just that. Imagination. It's an image, not necessarily, or even likely based in knowledge or reality... just an image that kinda stuck. It doesn't mean that other jujutsu systems are going anywhere. There's still an audience/market for them as well. Hell, there's a market for all the low-level, McDojo, fraudulent, delusional fools of "teachers" out there as well. Those, in particular, seem to do really well... especially as all they have to do is kinda look like the popular image... and not worry about accuracy or authenticity or skill... just put on a show, and cash the cheque. Are they going anywhere thanks to BJJ? Nope.

And that's the last point. BJJ's popularity doesn't come at the expense of other arts. More people training in BJJ means just that. More people training in BJJ. It doesn't mean less people training in other things. More people playing guitar doesn't mean less people playing drums. It just means more musicians.



Hanzou said:


> I find it unbelievable that you think that someone on top of another person, or someone being wrestled or struck to the ground is a low likelihood self defense situation.



You can find it unbelievable, but it's accurate. Firstly, as mentioned, physical violence (and dealing with it) is the lowest level of "self defence". Second, the only study that suggested a relatively high likelihood of it came from a study of police engagements, where they wrestled the suspect to the ground in order to control and arrest them... which is not self defence, nor is it an accurate view of violence outside that context.



Hanzou said:


> How do you think the majority of women are sexually assaulted? Standing up?



Actually, yeah. A lot of sexual assaults are far from the "pin a woman down and rape her". Many/most are standing. I don't want to start listing them, as I don't want to inadvertently trigger anyone who may be reading this, but yes. The fact you are unaware of this just further supports my comment about HAOV being the first step to understanding this topic.



Hanzou said:


> Maybe that was the case in medieval Japan, but it isn't the case in the modern world.



Have you seriously not read a word that's been written?



Hanzou said:


> Their ability has never been objectively demonstrated in the modern era. You hear stories about it, and you see them do pretty demonstrations, but that's about it. The closest modern MA that utilizes that type of training model is Aikido, and by and large Aikidoka's ability to perform those techniques on a resisting opponent has been suspect.



Okay, I suppose you haven't.... 

For the last time... classical martial arts aren't concerned with demonstrating ability outside of their art. We don't care about the "cage". We don't care about competition. We don't care about anything you think is important. We don't need to demonstrate anything to your satisfaction, as we aren't even in the same arena. For that matter, BJJ hasn't ever been objectively demonstrated in our context. Which is because that's not where it works.

Stop trying to apply the way you think things are supposed to work, and you might start to learn how they actually do.



Hanzou said:


> Again, the principle is controlling position, and using that ability to control a violent outcome.



Oh, I understand completely what the essential tactical methodology of BJJ is. But you haven't been describing the concept of principles (as that's a tactic, not a principle), and have not given different contexts, just different applications of a basic technical approach.



Hanzou said:


> Semantics.



Sure... but the point is more that the semantics are indicative of a larger issue.



Hanzou said:


> Marketing backed by multiple forms of evidence.



HA!!!!

No. Really, minimalist "forms" of evidence, when it comes down to it... and largely self-supportive. But that's okay as well. It's how the marketing works for BJJ, and really, more power to it in that regard. But the fact is, it's still marketing.



Hanzou said:


> How is it inaccurate? You said yourself that your training revolves around medieval Japanese situations, weapons, tactics, and concepts. You even go so far as culturally appropriate language, norms, and dress.



Are you genuinely unable to get this?

No, we do not "culturally appropriate" anything. We use the proper (appropriate) terminology and methodology to the practice. Are ballet dancers "culturally appropriating" being French when they describe doing a pass-de-deux? Is anyone "culturally appropriating" America when saying they're practicing "lay-ups" in basketball?



Hanzou said:


> So if a woman wanted to learn how to defend herself you would seriously tell her to learn a medieval Japanese martial art that would teach her how to twirl a spear, learn a kata about a person getting attacked with a sword by a samurai, and how to properly bow during a tea ceremony....
> 
> .....versus a BJJ or MMA school where she'll constantly have a burly hairy man on top her  imposing his will on her, and that woman having to learn through skill and practice how to escape that situation and submit her attacker?
> 
> I consider that quite irresponsible.



Oh, for god's sake.....

Point out once, just once, where I have said that, for self defence, the best choice is classical jujutsu. Seriously. I have, instead, said repeatedly that we do not train for self defence, particularly in a modern context. Are you truly unable to read what is written?

I consider that quite... yeah, look, the words aren't approved of here... but pompous, arrogant, bull-headed, foolish, unwilling to learn, unwilling to read... that's getting closer... 



Hanzou said:


> I should also point out that he refers to Bjj as simply “Jiujitsu”, which further illustrates my point that the term Jiujitsu is slowly but surely being linked to one particular style only (Bjj) in popular vernacular.



No, it says that the audience he was talking to considers BJJ as "jujitsu" and "jujitsu" as BJJ, using the terms interchangeably.



Hanzou said:


> Speaking of which, I think a good question is BJJ's penetration of the Japanese market, and what long term effects that may have if it maintains or expands upon its current level of popularity in that country. No other American form of jujitsu has ever penetrated the Japanese market on the level that BJJ has. There could be a point that even in Japan, "Jiujitsu" simply means BJJ.
> 
> I think we're rapidly approaching that reality quite quickly.



It's a rather interesting thing, but not for the reason you think... it's the bizarre case of a loanword being altered, then brought back to the country of origin in it's altered state as a secondary loanword... so, yeah... they'd probably think of BJJ if you asked about "jujitsu" in Japan... accompanied by a slightly quizzical look... of course, this is assuming the person you spoke to had any reference at all.



Rusty B said:


> This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read here.  And it has "McDojo" written all over it.
> 
> I'm retired military, so I definitely would have heard of this if it was a thing.



Well, Rusty, I don't know what to tell you.... perhaps your military background failed you if it didn't teach civilian defensive and protective methods, such as escape?

But with a bit less of a quip, are you seriously suggesting that the idea of learning how to hide effectively, rather than having no tactic at all and getting run down by a larger, faster aggressor, is a bad thing? And you equate it to a "McDojo"? You may have a bit to learn about how RBSD methods work, then...


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 12, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, Rusty, I don't know what to tell you.... perhaps your military background failed you if it didn't teach civilian defensive and protective methods, such as escape?



Or perhaps you're running your mouth about things you know nothing about, if you're going to talk out of your *** about things the military "should be" teaching if you yourself have never served.



> But with a bit less of a quip, are you seriously suggesting that the idea of learning how to hide effectively, rather than having no tactic at all and getting run down by a larger, faster aggressor, is a bad thing? And you equate it to a "McDojo"? You may have a bit to learn about how RBSD methods work, then...



I'm seriously suggesting this is all a bunch of crap you made up on your own.

I just spent some time on both Google and DuckDuckGo, trying to find what you're talking about.  If you look up "tactical escape," all you'll find is websites and references to escape rooms.  I even modified the search to eliminate the word "room," and all it did was weed out the escape room sites that use the word "room."  If you try "tactical running," all you get are combat boots and hiking shoes.

Here's a chance to prove you're not full of ****:  I need to see some videos, taking place in a martial arts club, showing training on this.  I also need to see martial arts club websites, showing running - specifically the for the purpose of training on how to run away from danger (i.e., not for the purpose of physical conditional) - as part of the curriculum.

I also need to see enough of these, so we can establish that's it's not a few fringe McDojo's selling BS.

The ball is in your court.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... you missed the point entirely. Again. Firstly, again, "being an expert" is not claimed... you stated that your friend could run away faster than I could, regardless of context or circumstances... as you'd failed to grasp the first set of examples I gave, I went a bit further... but the point is not the idea of running faster than someone with broken legs, it's that there can be any number of reasons that make running away a bad plan... or an impossibility. And to think that having this one skill set is all it takes is, well, failing at understanding what is being discussed.
> 
> One more thing.... it's not about "beating" someone... that, again, is a failure to understand the situation... which comes from only having one frame of reference.
> 
> ...


Okay, well, shoot.  If working with folks who are mentally ill and/or chemically impaired is the measure of experience, than I probably have more real world experience than you by orders of magnitude.  I worked for about a decade 40 plus hours each week with people who are homeless, physically and mentally disabled, and often struggling with addiction to both illicit and prescription drugs.  I've been physically threatened hundreds of times.  Heck, I've had to give them bad news from time to time.  And for the last 2 dozen years I've taught people how to do that job.  So, I mean, if dealing with folks is all you've got, I think you're padding your resume.  But, I guess you do make the point that you don't have any experience, which is what you've led us all to believe in the past.  Still, though, I'm entirely unimpressed by your resume.  

The point you've missed over the years is that, if you're talking about the soft skills side of self defense, your experience is superficial (at best), based even on your padded summary above.  And if you're talking about being able to fight, the odds are against you there, as well.   Which, as I've said many times, is fine if you're just plunking around and having a good time.  But you're teaching other people things which may or may not even work.  I think that's very irresponsible.  





> I say again. You have been told this repeatedly. Stop with the false insinuations. Now. You have no idea what you're talking about.


To the best of my knowledge, it's all true, and everything you say just reinforces that.  You lack the experience to see that you are inexperienced.  But you do know a whole heck of a lot about ancient Japanese martial arts.  Or at least, I guess you do.  I don't have the experience to evaluate your claims in that area.   

I say again.  You've been told this repeatedly.  Stop alleging to be an expert in something you've never done.  Son.  You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 12, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Here's the real problem with your initial thesis... there's no such thing as "jujutsu". Really. There's not.



Oh look, more semantics...



> There are many, many, many systems who have curriculums (or parts of their curriculums) that can be identified as jujutsu in one way or another... but are so distinct from each other that there really can never be a "dominant form". Just many different (in many cases, unrelated) arts who share some basic commonality of terminology (although even that is nowhere near what you might think it is).



I'm well aware of that. The point is that if there was a martial art called "American Kung Fu", and it was extremely popular, had a reputation of being highly effective, and was penetrating markets around the world including China, then eventually when people think "Kung Fu" they'll immediately think of American Kung Fu and not the other forms of Kung Fu.



> At the end of the day, BJJ really is not jujutsu... so how can it be the "dominant form"? It can only be so in the minds of people who are largely ignorant of jujutsu itself. You may as well as if muay Thai or TKD is the dominant form of kung fu... or of boxing. They're all striking dominant forms of martial arts, but they share very little beyond that. It's the same here.



Considering that BJJ came directly from Kano Jiujitsu, I would say it's a bit closer to Japanese Jujutsu than TKD or Muay Thai is to Kung Fu.



> And that's the last point. BJJ's popularity doesn't come at the expense of other arts. More people training in BJJ means just that. More people training in BJJ. It doesn't mean less people training in other things. More people playing guitar doesn't mean less people playing drums. It just means more musicians.



Except the more people training in BJJ means less people training in other martial arts. That's simply a fact.



> You can find it unbelievable, but it's accurate. Firstly, as mentioned, physical violence (and dealing with it) is the lowest level of "self defence". Second, the only study that suggested a relatively high likelihood of it came from a study of police engagements, where they wrestled the suspect to the ground in order to control and arrest them... which is not self defence, nor is it an accurate view of violence outside that context.



Yes, we know that de-escalation and avoidance is important in self defense, and no one said anything differently. I was talking about the physical violence, because that is the aspect that drives people into martial arts schools in the first place. Secondly, we can simply go to youtube to see multiple incidents where someone is physically attacked and then dragged to the ground to be brutalized further. The idea that only cops need to worry about being on their back while someone is either on top or standing over them looking to attack them further is utter nonsense.



> Actually, yeah. A lot of sexual assaults are far from the "pin a woman down and rape her". Many/most are standing. I don't want to start listing them, as I don't want to inadvertently trigger anyone who may be reading this, but yes. The fact you are unaware of this just further supports my comment about HAOV being the first step to understanding this topic.



Oh? Please provide the source of your statistics.



> Have you seriously not read a word that's been written?
> Okay, I suppose you haven't....
> 
> For the last time... classical martial arts aren't concerned with demonstrating ability outside of their art. We don't care about the "cage". We don't care about competition. We don't care about anything you think is important. We don't need to demonstrate anything to your satisfaction, as we aren't even in the same arena. For that matter, BJJ hasn't ever been objectively demonstrated in our context. Which is because that's not where it works.



Do you care about self defense training?



> HA!!!!
> 
> No. Really, minimalist "forms" of evidence, when it comes down to it... and largely self-supportive. But that's okay as well. It's how the marketing works for BJJ, and really, more power to it in that regard. But the fact is, it's still marketing.



You believing it's minimalist is completely your opinion, which you're welcome to expressing. However, the fact remains that we have evidence to back the belief that BJJ is effective, and that supports its marketing. We have no evidence, minimalist or otherwise of what you're doing is effective in comparison.



> Point out once, just once, where I have said that, for self defence, the best choice is classical jujutsu. Seriously. I have, instead, said repeatedly that we do not train for self defence, particularly in a modern context. Are you truly unable to read what is written?
> 
> I consider that quite... yeah, look, the words aren't approved of here... but pompous, arrogant, bull-headed, foolish, unwilling to learn, unwilling to read... that's getting closer...



I never said that. *I* said that you would instruct a woman to go to a classical JJ school over a BJJ school, which would hinder her ability to defend herself, since she'd be learning about how to properly do a medieval tea ceremony instead of how to deal with an attacker bigger and stronger than she is.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 12, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... you missed the point entirely. Again. Firstly, again, "being an expert" is not claimed... you stated that your friend could run away faster than I could, regardless of context or circumstances... as you'd failed to grasp the first set of examples I gave, I went a bit further... but the point is not the idea of running faster than someone with broken legs, it's that there can be any number of reasons that make running away a bad plan... or an impossibility. And to think that having this one skill set is all it takes is, well, failing at understanding what is being discussed.
> 
> One more thing.... it's not about "beating" someone... that, again, is a failure to understand the situation... which comes from only having one frame of reference.



You are suggesting there is a specialist system to running away that has worth over just being fast And I assume you are some sort of expert in this system. 

And it relies on the other guy being unable to run. 

Rather than this guy out running you regardless of your system, regardless of your expertise in any environment you want to put him. And that you would have to break his legs to practically beat him. 

And that these systems are low percentage niche systems when compared to this high percentage broad concept of being just really fast. 

So if we tested your escape and evasion system that you trained and advocate against this guy who has no escape and evasion system. You will fail that test. 

So if you tried to mug this guy and he ran away. He would be un mugged. If the roles were reversed he would catch you. 

If you were both being chased by a lion. You would be the one eaten. 

If he is faster than you he has the advantage under almost any condition over a specialised knowledge of self defence running.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 12, 2020)

Chris Parker said:


> You're really not getting it.
> 
> What I mean when I talk about metrics is that, while competition is used as a way to measure performance in a competitive system, it's not used to measure a non-competitive one. Using a framework of "self defence" is pointless when looking at a school that doesn't deal in it at all.
> 
> ...



Self defence is a competitive dynamic though. 

If you don't deal with a competitive dynamic you are not addressing self defence very well. 

So exactly like healing crystals. Which also don't deal with the fundamental concepts of how to heal people.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 12, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I'm seriously suggesting this is all a bunch of crap you made up on your own.
> 
> I just spent some time on both Google and DuckDuckGo, trying to find what you're talking about. If you look up "tactical escape," all you'll find is websites and references to escape rooms. I even modified the search to eliminate the word "room," and all it did was weed out the escape room sites that use the word "room." If you try "tactical running," all you get are combat boots and hiking shoes.
> 
> ...



Ok. Because this is not all about ragging on Chris. I assume the comparison would be sere training.






But it would still need to be outcome based.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 12, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I'm seriously suggesting this is all a bunch of crap you made up on your own.
> 
> I just spent some time on both Google and DuckDuckGo, trying to find what you're talking about. If you look up "tactical escape," all you'll find is websites and references to escape rooms. I even modified the search to eliminate the word "room," and all it did was weed out the escape room sites that use the word "room." If you try "tactical running," all you get are combat boots and hiking shoes.
> 
> ...



Wait. Here we go.






I have no idea if this would be good or larptastic.


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Because this is not all about ragging on Chris. I assume the comparison would be sere training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not quite.

SERE training is about long-term survival when escaping enemy captors.  Where and how to hide, how to signal friendly forces, how to find food, etc.

It's not about the 101 ways to run away from a guy who wants to kick your ***.


----------



## Buka (Nov 13, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> But there's photographic evidence!



Man, I'd look the berries wearing that outfit out in my yard. Sans the handgun and wearing a mask, I'd wave at tourists all afternoon.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Not quite.
> 
> SERE training is about long-term survival when escaping enemy captors.  Where and how to hide, how to signal friendly forces, how to find food, etc.
> 
> It's not about the 101 ways to run away from a guy who wants to kick your ***.



I get the impression that to a certain degree ninjitsu is considered by themselves as a civilian version of special forces.


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Wait. Here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I mean, in one day, you can learn all of the following:

Survival Mindset
lockpicking
restraint escape
social engineering
cache
use of disguise
urban evasion
navigating using the sun and moon
meeting contacts
street craft
And then on day 2, you participate  in a "live exercise through the city using your techniques while being chased by captors."  They have people who will pretend to be friendly sympathizers, and also people who will pretend to be bad guys, and if they capture you, they take you to a location that is further away from your objective.

I mean, that is literally Live Action Role Play.


----------



## Rusty B (Nov 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I get the impression that to a certain degree ninjitsu is considered by themselves as a civilian version of special forces.



They consider themselves to be "ninjas" too, so I don't put much weight on that.

I've entered "ninjutsu vs" and "bujinkan vs" and everything else I could think of on YouTube, and of all the fights I've seen - both real and sparring - they're like, 0 and 50+.  And in the comments section of every one these videos, there are ninjutsu apologists claiming that what was in the video was either a poor representation of ninjutsu, or not "real" ninjutsu at all.  Funny as hell to read.

Seems to me that ninjutsu SHOULD be training on how to run from fights!


----------



## dunc (Nov 14, 2020)

Without getting into the whole ninja rat hole 
The principle idea in the traditional styles’ approach to escape is to cause an injury then run. The areas targeted are chosen because they will slow down your attacker
The lesson is that if you simply run then as soon as you hit an obstacle your opponent will likely catch up with you and you have your back turned. A fair amount of fatal stabbings in the UK fit this pattern (I guess like a rout)
It’s not rocket science & doesn’t need a whole lot of study, but I do think it’s a valid, simple concept that might make a key difference to your SD training


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2020)

dunc said:


> Without getting into the whole ninja rat hole
> The principle idea in the traditional styles’ approach to escape is to cause an injury then run. The areas targeted are chosen because they will slow down your attacker
> The lesson is that if you simply run then as soon as you hit an obstacle your opponent will likely catch up with you and you have your back turned. A fair amount of fatal stabbings in the UK fit this pattern (I guess like a rout)
> It’s not rocket science & doesn’t need a whole lot of study, but I do think it’s a valid, simple concept that might make a key difference to your SD training



It’s the same philosophy in Bjj. You choke or immobilize and then you escape. The immobilization factor is one big reason why their use in leg locks intrigues me.


----------



## dunc (Nov 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It’s the same philosophy in Bjj. You choke or immobilize and then you escape. The immobilization factor is one big reason why their use in leg locks intrigues me.



Yeah I think the logic holds particularly with leg locks
Bear in mind this is a situation where you feel the risk is so high that you need to escape (as opposed getting an opponent under your control and waiting for help)
The trade off with chokes is the risk you’re taking during the time it takes to set them up and finish. Leg locks are quicker and pretty surprising to people, but often rely on you being on the floor for a period of time, which also is a trade off
If you can take someone down and control them there may be other options available to you that have less downside risk
Obviously there are also options that don’t require a take down


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2020)

dunc said:


> Without getting into the whole ninja rat hole
> The principle idea in the traditional styles’ approach to escape is to cause an injury then run. The areas targeted are chosen because they will slow down your attacker
> The lesson is that if you simply run then as soon as you hit an obstacle your opponent will likely catch up with you and you have your back turned. A fair amount of fatal stabbings in the UK fit this pattern (I guess like a rout)
> It’s not rocket science & doesn’t need a whole lot of study, but I do think it’s a valid, simple concept that might make a key difference to your SD training



Ok. But let's specifically get in to this rat hole. 

Who has tested this to know it works? Because we have three options. 

Just run and don't engage. 

Engage with a stunning move and run.

Engage, cripple the guy and walk. 

I think I could find an example where all three options have worked. But I couldn't tell you which one works best under what conditions.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> It’s the same philosophy in Bjj. You choke or immobilize and then you escape. The immobilization factor is one big reason why their use in leg locks intrigues me.



Man. Start being the guy who promotes imanari rolls for sd.

You would make SDers heads explode.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Man. Start being the guy who promotes imanari rolls for sd.
> 
> You would make SDers heads explode.



All day! Love the Imanari Roll.

Also Ryan Hall did it better


----------



## dunc (Nov 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. But let's specifically get in to this rat hole.
> 
> Who has tested this to know it works? Because we have three options.
> 
> ...



I’d say they are all viable approaches depending on the situation
There’s a good amount of evidence from London stabbings that just running isn’t without its risks
And I think it’s self evident that the time taken in the dangerous situation clearly increases as you go down your list


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. But let's specifically get in to this rat hole.
> 
> Who has tested this to know it works? Because we have three options.
> 
> ...


Agreed. We can apply a bit of logic to get some notions (if you're not a fast runner, #1 only works if they don't chase), but I don't know we could really test it reliably.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 17, 2020)

I really like what I'm seeing out of this gym;






They appear to be combining wrestling, Judo, Gracie JJ standup, and whatever the heck Cobra Kai JJ was/is and creating a nice little fighting system with BJJ as their base. I do hope that American/Western JJ moves in the general direction this group is going in.


----------



## dunc (Nov 17, 2020)

It's OK, but not sure how this fits with your criteria of tried and tested technique?
For example, in my experience, some of what he shows is really hard to pull off against resisting partners (especially ones who use both arms in their chokes and don't let go...)


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 17, 2020)

dunc said:


> It's OK, but not sure how this fits with your criteria of tried and tested technique?
> For example, in my experience, some of what he shows is really hard to pull off against resisting partners (especially ones who use both arms in their chokes and don't let go...)



Which are you talking about? If you're talking about the video above, that series comes from Gracie JJ, so yeah its been tested. Rickson Gracie explains the principles behind that throw in this video at the 9 minute mark;






Btw, that entire video is good.


----------



## O'Malley (Nov 17, 2020)

Do you have videos of that technique against a resisting opponent? I'm curious as how you train rear attacks against full resistance.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 17, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Do you have videos of that technique against a resisting opponent? I'm curious as how you train rear attacks against full resistance.



No, but if you have guys like Rickson Gracie, Dean Lister, John Danaher, and Stephan Kesting all vouching for the technique, I'd consider it legit.


----------



## O'Malley (Nov 17, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> No, but if you have guys like Rickson Gracie, Dean Lister, John Danaher, and Stephan Kesting all vouching for the technique, I'd consider it legit.



That's the same reasoning as TMA people who say "if guys like X and Y in ancient Japan vouched for it, then I'd consider it legit". Then why question the effectiveness of classical JJ, which has been tested in actual combat over decades, if not centuries?


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> That's the same reasoning as TMA people who say "if guys like X and Y in ancient Japan vouched for it, then I'd consider it legit". Then why question the effectiveness of classical JJ, which has been tested in actual combat over decades, if not centuries?


When you look at a plane that was made by Airbus, do you question whether it can fly?  What if it was a plane made by your neighbor in his garage?  Credibility matters.

If credible sources can demonstrate that a technique or skill is effective, then you can be pretty confident the technique or skill is useful, even if you can't execute the technique reliably or well, or apply the skill under pressure.  And, it's still up to you to learn how to do it well enough for it to be useful.


----------



## O'Malley (Nov 17, 2020)

I don't disagree but that does not answer my question, as the analogy is off the mark here.

Lots of classical jujutsu styles have a long history of effectiveness in real combat and the environment that shaped their evolution would not allow otherwise (sparring and friendly competition existed, but the stakes could also be much higher than now, as losing a duel could mean losing your life or livelihood). There may be some kahō ("flowery") methods that developed in peacetime but lots of classical Japanese arts have undergone a lot of battle-testing in the context they were meant for and were refined over decades, if not centuries.

Heck, the "competion/sparring is superior to kata" debate is very, very old and you can literally read it in medieval Japanese texts. Really nothing new under the sun.

There are also modern koryu masters who have participated in competitive matches against exponents of other schools. They just don't brag about it.

See: Taryū Shiai & Other Oppositional Matches Within Japanese Martial Traditions – 古現武道

Really, the crux of this thread is not the effectiveness of classical jujutsu, but people's ignorance about it.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 17, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> That's the same reasoning as TMA people who say "if guys like X and Y in ancient Japan vouched for it, then I'd consider it legit". Then why question the effectiveness of classical JJ, which has been tested in actual combat over decades, if not centuries?



Because there's no way to verify those stories are true. We have multiple examples of Martial Art folktales that are completely baseless and made up. The stories of Choki Motobu and Hou Yuanjai immediately come to mind.

Even Rickson Gracie embellished his record to make himself look better than he actually was. However, unlike Motobu and Yuanjai, Rickson Gracie actually won some tournaments against some very good fighters. Also he comes from a family of fighters who all pretty much say he's the best in the family.

We should also remember that in the case of classical Japanese JJ, you had almost three hundred years (from 1603 to before the start of Meiji period in the 1860s) where no major battles or conflicts took place in Japan, and the JJJ that developed in that period wasn't really cultivated in any sort of battlefield environment. A good portion (if not the majority) of classical JJ practiced today comes from that period.

Back to the point; Gracie, Lister, Kesting, and Danaher have a well earned reputation. Lister and Gracie earned it in the ring, Kesting and Danaher earned it on the teaching side of things. If all those guys agree that a technique is worth learning and is legit, I would be hard pressed to disagree.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 18, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Do you have videos of that technique against a resisting opponent? I'm curious as how you train rear attacks against full resistance.



It is a weird one because it is a position rarely gone for. 

We do a fair bit of resisted back defence but the attacks are normally things like throws. In other words a young buck get there he will generally try to suplex me, not choke me.

There should be some video of that.

Here is a back take. But straight to a takedown. 
Login • Instagram


----------



## dunc (Nov 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Back to the point; Gracie, Lister, Kesting, and Danaher have a well earned reputation. Lister and Gracie earned it in the ring, Kesting and Danaher earned it on the teaching side of things. If all those guys agree that a technique is worth learning and is legit, I would be hard pressed to disagree.



Curious what level of competence do you feel qualifies someone to determine if a technique is valid without pressure testing it?

BJJ Purple, BJJ Black?
Judo 1st Dan?
etc


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 18, 2020)

dunc said:


> Curious what level of competence do you feel qualifies someone to determine if a technique is valid without pressure testing it?
> 
> BJJ Purple, BJJ Black?
> Judo 1st Dan?
> etc



Way beyond that, and from multiple masters with fighting and/or instructional experience.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 18, 2020)

BTW, just to further the point of the "old master" stories, here's a vid of those infamous Hong Kong rooftop fights;






I would say martial arts has improved a great deal in the last 60 years.


----------



## dunc (Nov 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> Way beyond that, and from multiple masters with fighting and/or instructional experience.



OK then, why not just test them for yourself?

For example, in my experience:
A couple of the escapes shown rely 100% on the attacker not engaging their left hand, I think that's pretty obvious if you watch them, but it's also very easy to test (although please don't throw someone if they are clamped onto your neck)

In the older traditions, where I assume Kano got the idea from, one has to set up the escapes by dealing with the connection of the attackers hands/arms whilst gaining a structural advantage
This requires a bit of work and is very hard to do without strikes etc, which is why I assume they got simplified by Kano-sensei

So my take on several of the judo goshinjutsu techniques taught in BJJ is that they've lost something in translation and are being preserved in the same way that they were taught by earlier generations (sounds familiar?)

In my view they would benefit from a) looking back in time to the earlier versions of the techniques that are more practical and b) pressure testing them


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 18, 2020)

dunc said:


> OK then, why not just test them for yourself?



What makes you think I haven't?



> For example, in my experience:
> A couple of the escapes shown rely 100% on the attacker not engaging their left hand, I think that's pretty obvious if you watch them, but it's also very easy to test (although please don't throw someone if they are clamped onto your neck)



The one shown by Rickson and the Tritach guys is based on the concept that you're performing the counter before the second arm is engaged. In other words, as soon as someone wraps their initial arm around your neck, you counter. That isn't necessarily a counter to the RNC, its more along the lines of someone wrapping their arm around your neck and pulling you backwards.

Stephan Kesting and the Submission 101 (mainly 10th planet) folks deal more with the RNC variation of the counter. Kesting even explains why you're probably not going to do the throw if both arms are engaged. The same general principles apply though.












> In the older traditions, where I assume Kano got the idea from, one has to set up the escapes by dealing with the connection of the attackers hands/arms whilst gaining a structural advantage
> This requires a bit of work and is very hard to do without strikes etc, which is why I assume they got simplified by Kano-sensei
> 
> So my take on several of the judo goshinjutsu techniques taught in BJJ is that they've lost something in translation and are being preserved in the same way that they were taught by earlier generations (sounds familiar?)
> ...



I disagree. Being older or traditional doesn't always equate to "better". Modern Bjj is integrating MMA-based wrestling these days and slowly moving away from Judo and even the older Gracie JJ standing grappling concepts for standing grappling entries. Let's put it this way; Rickson Gracie, Dean Lister, Bernardo Faria, and Bas Rutten would maul classical Japanese JJ masters from hundreds of years ago. That being the case, if Dean Lister or Bas Rutten puts out an instructional on a technique, it's hard to make the argument for not going with the superior martial artists over the inferior ones.

I gotta say though that Rutten's instructional on how to escape the standing RNC is absolutely crazy..... Which is pretty much Bas Rutten in a nutshell.


----------



## dunc (Nov 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> What makes you think I haven't?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah Kesting's approach is better I think & almost the same as the traditional ones
I also agree that older doesn't always mean better
However, and with respect, I think you're being a little closed minded to the possibility of there being valuable techniques to be found outside of your bubble


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 18, 2020)

dunc said:


> Yeah Kesting's approach is better I think & almost the same as the traditional ones
> I also agree that older doesn't always mean better
> However, and with respect, I think you're being a little closed minded to the possibility of there being valuable techniques to be found outside of your bubble



 I have no issue with the possibility of valuable techniques being found outside of my bubble, I simply feel that the traditional methodology doesn't have a good track record. Overall, Martial Arts are better off now than they've ever been, and unfortunately a lot of stories about past martial prowess were simply made up.


----------



## dunc (Nov 18, 2020)

Hanzou said:


> I have no issue with the possibility of valuable techniques being found outside of my bubble, I simply feel that the traditional methodology doesn't have a good track record. Overall, Martial Arts are better off now than they've ever been, and unfortunately a lot of stories about past martial prowess were simply made up.



I agree with this
And have found that there are a lot of very useful techniques and principles from old JJJ that work really well alongside the more contemporary stuff


----------

