# Japanese jujitsu vs jbrazilian jujitsu



## Manny

Diferences? as long as I understand Brazilian Jujitsu focos on taking the oponent to the mat to then focus on graping on the floor to get a submision and Japanese Jujitsu has hand techs even kicks and the fight is standing and can end to the ground.

Manny


----------



## Chris Parker

Manny, for crying out loud, you've asked this a number of times before. I suggest re-reading your own threads, starting with these two:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/93576-japanese-jujitsu-brazilian-jujitsu?highlight=

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/89688-can-anyone-tell-me?highlight=

If you have new questions, we'll be more than happy to answer, but you're just asking the same thing again.


----------



## Makalakumu

I've trained in Danzan Ryu Jujutus and BJJ and the biggest difference is the focus on groundwork.  BJJ pretty much uses all of the techniques on the DZR Shime no kata in every variation you can think of.  They also use many of the yawara no kata techniques, but rather then doing them standing up, they do them on the ground.  There aren't very many throws or takedowns and NO ONE pulls guard in DZR.  At high levels, BJJ strings sweeps, locks and escapes together very similarly to the DZR Oku no kata, but again, they do it on the ground.

One big difference is the focus on sparring and sport.  BJJ is sport dominant and DZR tends toward the esoteric.  I do not "roll" nearly as much as I did in BJJ and when we do it, we tend to have different objectives rather then just submitting the other guy.


----------



## Manny

Chris Parker said:


> Manny, for crying out loud, you've asked this a number of times before. I suggest re-reading your own threads, starting with these two:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/93576-japanese-jujitsu-brazilian-jujitsu?highlight=
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/89688-can-anyone-tell-me?highlight=
> 
> If you have new questions, we'll be more than happy to answer, but you're just asking the same thing again.



Sorry to bother, but I think a refresh of this thing will be good to have some activity here, in the other hand not everyone on this forum (martialtalk.com) know so much of jujitsu japanese or brazilian.

I am a martial art fan and would like to know the diferences beetwen these martial arts, the only thing I know about BJJ is waht I see in the UFC  and about JJJ is almost nothing.

Manny


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, the first thing is that it's spelt "Jujutsu" when talking about the Japanese art.... but really, Manny, I'm not buying the "I don't know anything about Japanese Jujutsu", as you've had it spelled out to you a number of times already. If you go to the links I gave, they all include links to other threads, all basically saying the same things over and over again in slightly different ways. Without getting into specific Ryu-ha (schools) and the individual traits of those, there's really not a lot more that can be explained to you, as the term by itself is quite a generic and wide-ranging one. Again, I'm going to suggest, if you want more insight, re-reading the linked threads, and the ones they link to themselves, and then, if you still have questions, ask.


----------



## punisher73

Short answer.  Many schools of JJJ in Japan.  Kano studied some and revamped the training and training methodology and created Judo.  Kano challenges lots of other schools and no one can beat them standing.  Kano comes across a JJJ school that specialized in ground fighting (ne-waza) and his students don't really know what to do when they flop down on the ground without being thrown.  Kano then studies and adds the ne-waza to Judo.  Fast forward and Maeda goes to Brazil and teaches Judo to a couple Gracie brothers, Maeda's specialty was to clinch/throw/submit in challenge matches.  One of the Gracie brothers is very small and can't do many of the techniques (Helio), he reworks them and starts teaching students.  The Gracies start with their own challenge matches and use the same formula (clinch/throw/takedown/submit).  Eventually it becomes GJJ with their twists/refinements and emphasis on the ne-waza.  It grows in popularity after the UFC and many others start learning and teaching and it evolves into BJJ with a strong emphasis on sport in many schools.

As time goes on, more and more techniques are created to add to the sport of BJJ that move away from the strong s-d component.  If you look at Royce's book on self-defense, you will see that pretty much every technique in there is also in JJJ and other TMA's.


----------



## Manny

punisher73 said:


> Short answer.  Many schools of JJJ in Japan.  Kano studied some and revamped the training and training methodology and created Judo.  Kano challenges lots of other schools and no one can beat them standing.  Kano comes across a JJJ school that specialized in ground fighting (ne-waza) and his students don't really know what to do when they flop down on the ground without being thrown.  Kano then studies and adds the ne-waza to Judo.  Fast forward and Maeda goes to Brazil and teaches Judo to a couple Gracie brothers, Maeda's specialty was to clinch/throw/submit in challenge matches.  One of the Gracie brothers is very small and can't do many of the techniques (Helio), he reworks them and starts teaching students.  The Gracies start with their own challenge matches and use the same formula (clinch/throw/takedown/submit).  Eventually it becomes GJJ with their twists/refinements and emphasis on the ne-waza.  It grows in popularity after the UFC and many others start learning and teaching and it evolves into BJJ with a strong emphasis on sport in many schools.
> 
> As time goes on, more and more techniques are created to add to the sport of BJJ that move away from the strong s-d component.  If you look at Royce's book on self-defense, you will see that pretty much every technique in there is also in JJJ and other TMA's.



Thank you, you are a gentelman. Now I KNOW why BJJ emphatizes on groud techs more than in standing techs and it's because of Maeda sensei.

Some time back I saw a Japenese Jujutsu and in the photos the book had I see trows, locks,submitions AND strikes (by hand) and kicks if this is right then JJJ is a more complete MA (for my untrained eyes) than BJJ that specialicies on groud work only, but then again, I have no training in BJJ or JJJ either so forgive me if I am wrong.

I am a striker who specializes on kicks (TKD) and have few techs borrowed from Hap Kido like some locks and sweeps for example, cero ground techs and submitions.

I would like to find in my area a more balanced martial art, a martial art that not only focos in one spot (like kicking) and learn a few techs that can be benefical in  the street.

The only MA I have near by is Shotokan Karate, TKD ( I am  a BB in TKD) only one old and beaten judo sensei and a couple of aikido senseis. I am not been unrespctful with the judo sensei when I wrote beaten, he is an old sick man and I respect him a lot.

Manny


----------



## Chris Parker

punisher73 said:


> Short answer.  Many schools of JJJ in Japan.  Kano studied some and revamped the training and training methodology and created Judo.  Kano challenges lots of other schools and no one can beat them standing.  Kano comes across a JJJ school that specialized in ground fighting (ne-waza) and his students don't really know what to do when they flop down on the ground without being thrown.  Kano then studies and adds the ne-waza to Judo.  Fast forward and Maeda goes to Brazil and teaches Judo to a couple Gracie brothers, Maeda's specialty was to clinch/throw/submit in challenge matches.  One of the Gracie brothers is very small and can't do many of the techniques (Helio), he reworks them and starts teaching students.  The Gracies start with their own challenge matches and use the same formula (clinch/throw/takedown/submit).  Eventually it becomes GJJ with their twists/refinements and emphasis on the ne-waza.  It grows in popularity after the UFC and many others start learning and teaching and it evolves into BJJ with a strong emphasis on sport in many schools.
> 
> As time goes on, more and more techniques are created to add to the sport of BJJ that move away from the strong s-d component.  If you look at Royce's book on self-defense, you will see that pretty much every technique in there is also in JJJ and other TMA's.



Hmm, that's not entirely accurate, really. Judo was primarily developed out of two dominant systems, Kito Ryu (which does feature a relatively fair amount of striking, more than a number of other Jujutsu ryu-ha), and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. His major "revamping" was based around creating a syllabus/method of study with the ideal of it being for the betterment of society, using the principles of efficiency and flexibility (of mind, spirit, and technique). Some aspects, such as the Koshiki no Kata, were pretty much imported wholesale from Kito Ryu.

When it comes to the idea of challenging other schools, it was more that the early Judo (Kodokan Jujutsu) tournaments were open to other schools, but they had to abide by the rules that Kano had decided to employ, which gave the Kodokan membership a decided advantage, due to things such as Kano's favour for randori (shared by two of his teachers). Rules were made to emphasise safety for a range of reasons, one of which was Kano's philosophy of using the art for self development, and the injuring of opponents didn't feature in that. Another was his courting of the education system, where he wanted Judo to be a part of all Japanese schools, although that was a later aim. The school that beat the Kodokan on the ground, though, was not a ground-specialist school, it just happened that that's how the Kodokan guys were beaten a couple of times. That school was Fusen Ryu, a relatively small school with only a very limited syllabus, very little of which is ne waza.

This isn't the greatest quality, but it's one of my favourite clips of Fusen Ryu:






The complete syllabus isn't much more than is shown here, for the record. 

On that note, it should be noted that there really aren't many Japanese systems that have much emphasis on ne-waza at all, especially when looking at the older systems, as it is generally a rather ill-advised plan of action. When looking at a system such as Kito Ryu (one of the base systems for Judo), it is supposed to dominantly be performed in armour... so rolling around on the ground wearing 20kgs of armour is just not advisable. What happened was that there was a greater emphasis put on ne-waza after the encounters with Fusen Ryu, but it was really more an exploration of the methods that already existed, rather than looking for more outside of their established methods.

With Maeda, he visited a number of places, including Europe, and was involved in quite a number of exhibition fights before coming to Brazil where he taught the Machados and Gracies. While there are quite a number of similarities between Kosen Judo and BJJ, Maeda left Japan before that development occurred (Kosen Judo is a sub-set of the rules for Judo which focuses on ground work. It pretty literally means "High School Judo", and the reason for the lack of throws, keeping things on the ground, is that it limits the risk of injury from the students landing badly from a throw). The emphasis on ground work seems to be equal parts Maeda's teaching and the preferences from the Brazilian practitioners.

All of which really just shows the development from some forms of Jujutsu, through Judo, to BJJ, rather than looking at the actual differences between them... which is fine, as it's not an easy question to answer. Firstly, you'd need to define what is meant by "Jujutsu", as there are a huge number of Ryu-ha that teach, or feature it, and the range of skills found are as broad as the number of systems themselves. For instance, we've already mentioned Kito Ryu, who focus on armoured combat, featuring striking, throwing, chokes, and joint locks, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu who have a large repetoire of throws, sacrifice throws, locks, and pins, as well as weapon defence, then there's Takenouchi Ryu, who include small weapons, such as daggers and short swords in their usage of Jujutsu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu who feature largely joint locks, commonly against the wrists, the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who began as striking forms, then developed grappling actions (stand-up, not ground fighting), and so on. Then you have the different approaches each have, so two systems that are seemingly very similar in content can have very different mentalities and approaches. From there you get the modern, typically Western systems, which are quite eclectic, and can range from good, solid approaches to random, haphazard messes. 

I also might note that all of this information is in the threads that I linked for Manny already, save perhaps the mention of the specific emphasis/approach of some of the classical ryu-ha.



Manny said:


> Thank you, you are a gentelman. Now I KNOW why BJJ emphatizes on groud techs more than in standing techs and it's because of Maeda sensei.



Not entirely, but really Manny, this is what I meant. You'd already asked this a year ago and more, and were already told all of this. As a result, you already had that information, so it's not like "NOW you know". You've already been told.



Manny said:


> Some time back I saw a Japenese Jujutsu and in the photos the book had I see trows, locks,submitions AND strikes (by hand) and kicks if this is right then JJJ is a more complete MA (for my untrained eyes) than BJJ that specialicies on groud work only, but then again, I have no training in BJJ or JJJ either so forgive me if I am wrong.



Again, it depends on the form of Jujutsu you're talking about.



Manny said:


> I am a striker who specializes on kicks (TKD) and have few techs borrowed from Hap Kido like some locks and sweeps for example, cero ground techs and submitions.



Okay. But keeping in mind the way you've described yourself, I don't know that groundwork is really the best for you.



Manny said:


> I would like to find in my area a more balanced martial art, a martial art that not only focos in one spot (like kicking) and learn a few techs that can be benefical in  the street.



There's nothing wrong with specialist arts, though. What it means is that you'll need to work on turning every situation into your preferred range, but you'll be better in that range than someone who isn't a specialist there. Frankly, this idea of learning specialist skills from a range of sources to become a generalist martial artist is flawed from the outset. And the idea of learning some techniques that would be applicable is really not the best idea. Learning an approach that can be adapted and applied is the way to go. If you're interested in different ranges, cool, go for it, but that's a different thing entirely.



Manny said:


> The only MA I have near by is Shotokan Karate, TKD ( I am  a BB in TKD) only one old and beaten judo sensei and a couple of aikido senseis. I am not been unrespctful with the judo sensei when I wrote beaten, he is an old sick man and I respect him a lot.
> 
> Manny



Hmm, so you're asking about arts that aren't available to you that you want to train in? If they're not available to you, why does knowing about the differences matter in this way?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Manny said:


> Some time back I saw a Japenese Jujutsu and in the photos the book had I see trows, locks,submitions AND strikes (by hand) and kicks if this is right then JJJ is a more complete MA (for my untrained eyes) than BJJ that specialicies on groud work only, but then again, I have no training in BJJ or JJJ either so forgive me if I am wrong.



Actually, the traditional self-defense curriculum for BJJ does include strikes.  They're fairly basic and are more often than not used to set up grappling techniques, but they are there.

Traditionally, BJJ has three main components:
1) Self-defense (defense against typical untrained opponents)
2) Vale Tudo (full contact "dueling" against other trained martial artists - anything from dojo challenges to the UFC)
3) Sport BJJ competition (grappling only)

Numbers 1 and 2 include striking.  However, many BJJ schools these days are focused on sport competition and don't teach the self-defense curriculum.  In those schools that are focused on Vale Tudo (MMA), practitioners these days generally train in the more sophisticated striking methods of boxing or muay thai.

BJJ also includes throws and takedowns from judo and wrestling, but in many schools they are trained way less often than they should be.  This may be a result of competition rules that allow pulling guard without penalty.


----------



## punisher73

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, that's not entirely accurate, really.



Pretty close for a "short answer" without getting into specifics. It was only meant to give a very rough timeline of how BJJ arrived where is was at.


----------



## Kframe

So do any of the Japanese Jujutsu schools have much in the way of ground fighting in them? You guys make it sound as if it is a rarity.  IM not sure which system of jjj im doing, as my instructor learned his grappling in the military and then at a school on the east coast.  We seam to have a near 50/50 mix of standing and ground grappling.  Honestly we don't have many submissions, we just apply them in every way possible.   So if ground fighting is a rare thing in Japanese JJ where did it come from? Were did the mounts and escapes, and guards and pass's come from? Was it more of a hey this stuff we do standing, lets try it on the ground at some point in the past, or did it all have a specific beginning?    God I feel stupid for not knowing more about my art lol.


----------



## Chris Parker

By and large, ground work (as seen in BJJ etc) is a modern thing, not a traditional or classical one. In short, what you're describing sounds like a modern, eclectic (probably Western) form, not a traditional Japanese form.

In terms of where it came from, there's a range of different influences, and they vary depending on who you're looking at. Some develop it as a result of personal preference, or physical traits (such as the head of Fusen Ryu, who was a smaller practitioner, and naturally gravitated to fighting from the ground, as it wasn't easy for him to compete based on strength standing up), or of competition (Judo, BJJ), or just because, well, people think it's what Jujutsu is, so they add it in (despite not always understanding it). Most traditional forms might include suwari waza (sometimes called idori waza, or iai waza, depending of the system), referring to seated techniques, or some arts, such as Enshin Ryu, might include fighting from a position where you have been knocked down already, or (as in the case of Bokuden Ryu) for when being attacked in bed, or asleep. But they are quite removed from the ideas of "mount, guard, passing" etc as seen in modern systems.


----------



## Kframe

So im assuming that Traditional JJJ ground work, for the most part, was focused on getting back up and to a standing position. Im assuming that by modern you mean 1800's up right? I have read some of the links in this thread and apparently Fighting on the ground, was systemized at around that point.  Prior to that it was survive and escape from the ground correct?    I can tell the western influences in my grappling system. From what I have read ground fighting and western grappling go way way back. 

I imagine that ground grappling was already in most of the JJJ systems, just not emphasized. Kinda like judo has them, but not regularly practiced.(at least at the commercial judu gym here in town, I avoided them)  I liken it to how as armor systems became more and more useless(thanks to guns) personal carry swords shrank in size. At the end of the personal carry sword era, you had rapiers and short swords for civilian carry, and smaller thrusting swords(tho heavier and thicker to better deal with what ever armor was there) for the military. 

Im honestly happy with grappling system, its not one thing or the other. My coach has techniques from western grappling and Judo/jujitsu.  All in all, a good system for me.


----------



## Chris Parker

I'll take this bit by bit, because most of it's actually backwards...



Kframe said:


> So im assuming that Traditional JJJ ground work, for the most part, was focused on getting back up and to a standing position.



No. There just wasn't anything like what is currently thought of as "ground work" in many/most traditional Japanese systems. It's not that their ground work had a different focus, it just didn't have it. And what little they did have focused on ending the fight, rather than getting up and away, as shown below.



Kframe said:


> Im assuming that by modern you mean 1800's up right?



Late 1800's, early 1900's, not really much before that.



Kframe said:


> I have read some of the links in this thread and apparently Fighting on the ground, was systemized at around that point.



No, not really. Suwari waza, sure... that'd been around (in Jujutsu terms) for a good two centuries or so... but not ground work (ne waza). Tanabe Mataemon (head of Fusen Ryu) was considered a specialist in this area, and was brought in to teach the early Kodokan guys ne waza, but his system (Fusen Ryu), although credited as supplying Judo with it's ne waza, actually contains none itself. The earliest "systematized" form is probably Judo itself, taken from what Tanabe taught... and even there, it wasn't particularly systematized, more a loose grouping of principles. When Kosen Judo (a subset of Judo competition rules, really, designed for High School students, with a scoring system based around ne waza, rather than the more dangerous, and risky nage waza, therefore safer for the kids to compete with) was being formulated, in about 1915 or so, would be the earliest I would consider a "systematized" approach to ne waza. Before that, the main usage for ne waza was as a finishing technique after a throw, or at the end of a suwari waza technique (ie both of you are seated, the opponent grabs you, you push them back to unbalance, then drop back and down onto your back, and apply a juji gatame arm-bar. Technically, that's a ne waza finish to a suwari waza technique).



Kframe said:


> Prior to that it was survive and escape from the ground correct?



No, not really. One thing that needs to be made clear here is that you can't generalize Jujutsu systems in this way... each is unique, and have their own set of principles, approaches, desired aims and outcomes, tactics, strategies, and so on. So while one system would look to defence, with the aim of getting back up, another would use it exclusively to finish an opponent off... and another would do both (depending on the context of the kata), while yet another would take things in a completely different direction. Some will only utilize it as a last-resort, some will deliberately take people into that area, and so on. I mean, no two Jujutsu systems are the same... some are almost nothing but throws, others have almost none, others in between... some have a large striking syllabus, others are almost completely joint locks, many involve weapons and weapon defence, some don't have any, and much, much more. In other words, there's no such single art or approach called "Jujutsu".



Kframe said:


> I can tell the western influences in my grappling system. From what I have read ground fighting and western grappling go way way back.



Ground work seems to be most prevalent when the art is developed in competition... Western systems that focus on ground work are competitive, Japanese are the same. BJJ is identical as well. But systems designed for combat? No, they'll typically eschew such positions as limiting and dangerous. So the real key to look at is, was the art developed for, or through, a competitive arena. If so, then ground work is great, and works a treat. If not, don't expect to see a lot of it.



Kframe said:


> I imagine that ground grappling was already in most of the JJJ systems, just not emphasized.



Uh... no. Not at all. Why would you think that? It really has little purpose in the context of these old systems.



Kframe said:


> Kinda like judo has them, but not regularly practiced.(at least at the commercial judu gym here in town, I avoided them)



Judo, again, focuses (mainly) on competition. And, to score in competition, throws are considered better. You can't Ippon someone with a choke, although you can win with one, so throws are emphasized. Again, it just comes down to the context of the art itself. And why is the fact that it's a "commercial" Judo dojo (whatever you mean by that) a reason to avoid them?



Kframe said:


> I liken it to how as armor systems became more and more useless(thanks to guns) personal carry swords shrank in size. At the end of the personal carry sword era, you had rapiers and short swords for civilian carry, and smaller thrusting swords(tho heavier and thicker to better deal with what ever armor was there) for the military.



Hmm. Nope, don't know that I'd agree that that was the reason for changing weapon sizing... nor do I agree with the analogy, as I think it was flawed at the outset.



Kframe said:


> Im honestly happy with grappling system, its not one thing or the other. My coach has techniques from western grappling and Judo/jujitsu.  All in all, a good system for me.



I'm happy it's something you're happy with. At the end of the day, that's the most important thing. But I wouldn't be expecting it to be something it's not. There's no problem with it being a modern, eclectic, Western system... there are some very nice ones around... but there is an issue thinking it's a form of Japanese Jujutsu.


----------



## Kframe

Chris,  Im kind of  confused.  You just spent a whole post basically telling me that Ground fighting did not exist prior to the modern era. How can fusen ryo teach judo its ne waza if it self contains none? How can one teach something they themselves do not know? 

Fighting since the dawn of time, fights have ended up on the ground. I understand and agree that in a battle situation you do not want to be on the ground. Your making it sound like these systems contained nothing for surviving and escaping if you happen to get drawn down into fight on the ground. That makes no sense.  You have to atleast be able to escape from the ground.  I find it hard to believe these old systems would just throw you to the wolves if you happened to get dragged down to the mud.  That they didn't teach a way to get the hell out of that situation is amazing.  

I remember the first time I rolled on the ground, I felt like a deer in the head lights. 

I disagree with ground fighting being only about competition. I was on the ARMA website, and they are recreating medieval  martial arts, and grappling at all ranges, including ground fighting both armed and unarmed  were taught at the time.  They have plenty of fight manuals and manuscripts detailing such things.
I don't think ground submission fighting is necessary, but being taught how to escape the mount or side mount or pin and how to either get on your feet or end the fight is paramount. How the heck could it not be? 

AS to the swords thing, sorry, but I feel you are mistaken.  Broad swords and large 2 handers did not even meet on the field of battle in the same era's as each other.  From a certain point on, people stopped wearing plate  and ring armor. No need for a heavy sword anymore.  Thanks to the efforts of Some Italian masters, the popularity of the thrusting sword rose. Its use as a Civilian personal carry sword  makes sense.


----------



## Chris Parker

Kframe said:


> Chris,  Im kind of  confused.



Ha, yeah, that happens... 



Kframe said:


> You just spent a whole post basically telling me that Ground fighting did not exist prior to the modern era. How can fusen ryo teach judo its ne waza if it self contains none? How can one teach something they themselves do not know?



Well, the first thing to understand is that Fusen Ryu didn't teach Judo it's ne waza... Tanabe Mataemon did. Now, yeah, he was the head of Fusen Ryu at the time, but that's not where the ne waza came from. It came from Tanabe Mataemon, who developed his through his randori with the other members of Fusen Ryu, due to his personal preference (which came about due to his smaller stature, as he naturally gravitated towards it, finding that he couldn't avoid being caught, so he'd fight back after the throw). So Tanabe was quite experienced in ne waza, but it wasn't Fusen Ryu. Yeah, it's something that takes a lot of people a while to get their heads around...



Kframe said:


> Fighting since the dawn of time, fights have ended up on the ground.



Uh... nope. The oft-repeated stat of percentages of fights that go to ground came from a Police survey, and was very artificially raised, due to the Police's need to tackle offenders and suspects to the ground in order to arrest them.... street assaults don't actually work that way. Additionally, you need to understand that there is no such thing as a martial art that is designed for everything... each art is designed around it's particular context... and battlefield contexts simply don't have a real need for ground fighting, by and large. It's too slow, leaves you too vulnerable, and is too limiting... as a result, when it's covered, it's very basic.



Kframe said:


> I understand and agree that in a battle situation you do not want to be on the ground. Your making it sound like these systems contained nothing for surviving and escaping if you happen to get drawn down into fight on the ground. That makes no sense.  You have to atleast be able to escape from the ground.  I find it hard to believe these old systems would just throw you to the wolves if you happened to get dragged down to the mud.  That they didn't teach a way to get the hell out of that situation is amazing.



Not exactly... but you really do need to look at the context of these systems.

I'll put it this way: The particular section of the particular old Jujutsu system I'm currently teaching is focused on suwari waza... and the technique last week involved the opponent grabbing your lapel. The response was to raise up on one knee, while barring their arm (to stop them escaping or continuing an attack), followed by a kick to the body, then diving forward (past the opponents shoulder), ending with them on their back, and you lying across them, as you applied a different arm-bar to break it, then disengaged and moved away. Now, the end part of that technique could be seen as being ne waza, but there isn't any formal ne waza in the Ryu... just suwari waza. But really, ne waza is just not anything that there was much need for... ground work on a battlefield isn't practical, nor is devoting a lot of time to it's study. If you did end up on the ground in a pitched battle, you were as likely to get trampled to death as anything else... combative techniques didn't have much place.



Kframe said:


> I remember the first time I rolled on the ground, I felt like a deer in the head lights.



Yeah, it's like that for most. But you really do need to understand the difference in the contexts between these traditional systems and the rolling you've done.



Kframe said:


> I disagree with ground fighting being only about competition. I was on the ARMA website, and they are recreating medieval  martial arts, and grappling at all ranges, including ground fighting both armed and unarmed  were taught at the time.  They have plenty of fight manuals and manuscripts detailing such things.



No, what I said was that it tended to be developed in competitive systems. Mainly as it's only in competitive systems that there really is the opportunity and freedom to develop the skill set, as well as the context to allow it. 

As to the ARMA side of things, I'm familiar with them, and their methods, but I think you'll find that the majority of ground work is the same as the Japanese traditional approach... in other words, dominantly as a finishing aspect to techniques that start standing.... or from more "competitive" training methods. In fact, going through their entire site, I found one picture (of free-sparring), and one mention in a single article that mentioned ground work. But the thing to remember with ARMA (and related groups) is that what they're doing is, realistically, their "best guess" at what things were like... supplemented by a range of other methods in many cases... and they don't always get it right. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for them, but I've seen enough clips with guesswork that simply doesn't pan out, even from some of the most well-regarded in their field, to take things as correct from them without checking it myself.



Kframe said:


> I don't think ground submission fighting is necessary, but being taught how to escape the mount or side mount or pin and how to either get on your feet or end the fight is paramount. How the heck could it not be?



Well, firstly because such positions (in armour, battlefield combat) wouldn't be encountered... it'd be too dangerous to try. Besides that, there just wasn't any call for it.

The problem is you're thinking that the way it is now is the way it's always been, and that's simply wrong. It's a common misunderstanding, but it's still wrong. Realistically, especially with the development of BJJ, and the way it's grown over the last few decades, I feel that ground work (as found there) is at it's highest development yet. Ground fighting now is more sophisticated than it has ever been, and is far more prominent than it's ever been, mainly as it has a much larger variety of contexts now than there has been before, which are, primarily, competitive, or borne from competitive sources. Modern eclectic systems that have a lot of ground work take their technical methods from competitive systems... it really is that simple.



Kframe said:


> AS to the swords thing, sorry, but I feel you are mistaken.  Broad swords and large 2 handers did not even meet on the field of battle in the same era's as each other.  From a certain point on, people stopped wearing plate  and ring armor. No need for a heavy sword anymore.  Thanks to the efforts of Some Italian masters, the popularity of the thrusting sword rose. Its use as a Civilian personal carry sword  makes sense.



I'm not disagreeing that the change in context (armour to no armour) changed the types of weapons, and design of swords, just that it made them smaller... the size of a full-length rapier is quite an impressive piece of metal... and considerably longer and larger than, say, a Roman Gladius....


----------



## Kframe

Chris, you and I both agree that prolonged fighting on the ground is not advisable in a battle.  What im asking is, and I don't know if im not communicating poorly or what, is in regards to what happens if your pulled to the ground and entangled with your opponent. Yes in armor your not going to be fighting on the ground, I agree, everyone does.  What im saying is, those 2 warriors in that battle are in close combat, one goes and throws the other but somehow the other pulls the thrower down with him. They will inevitably begin some kind of struggle on the ground.  In a battle they need to get back to there feet, but there now grabbing and othe wise struggling on the ground. Do any of the systems do anything for the situation of being on the ground when your not supposed to be there. 

Im not talking about trying to submit them. Im talking in context of the battle, not getting stabbed on the ground, and extracating  your self from the entanglement and back to your feet and weapons. 

I am having difficulty spelling out what im talking about. The concept in my mind is clear, but I cant find the words.  Im not talking about UFC on the ground im talking about I just got thrown down, and this guy is ontop of me trying to stab me.  that is the situation im talking about... Or others similar...


----------



## Makalakumu

I train in a system of Jujutsu called Danzan Ryu jujutsu.  One of the systems that Okazaki trained in as his base was Yoshin Ryu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yōshin-ryū



> This line of Y&#333;shin-ry&#363; is noted for a curriculum including _ky&#363;sho-jutsu atemi_ (vital points striking) and the development of internal energy, teachings most likely influenced by Chinese sources. It is believed that these teachings were eventually absorbed by many other jujutsu traditions.
> Only the Y&#333;shin-ry&#363; buki/naginata school in Hiroshima, Japan currently headed by Koyama Takako and attributed to Akiyama has been successfully transmitted and survives. The school was prolific, however, with its teachings surviving in many descendant ry&#363;.



The vital point striking is interesting.  My sensei says it's the same as they teach in Okinawan Karate and that they may have a shared connection through China, but that isn't really the point of my post.  

Our third list of techniques, a list students learn at green belt, is pretty much all ground fighting techniques.  I can't imagine that no system of jujutsu in Japan contained these arts.  Pinning, locking, and hold down techniques would be useful to samarai in many situations.  They would also be useful in certain unencumbered combat situations, which is what many samurai would have faced after the Tokugawa shogunate took over.  Anyway, we call the list Shime.  It's not as sophisticated as BJJ, but it's not designed to contain the fight to the ground.  The techniques describe grappling but they always have an escape hatch so tori can escape at any time with an ukemi.


----------



## Chris Parker

Kframe said:


> Chris, you and I both agree that prolonged fighting on the ground is not advisable in a battle.  What im asking is, and I don't know if im not communicating poorly or what, is in regards to what happens if your pulled to the ground and entangled with your opponent. Yes in armor your not going to be fighting on the ground, I agree, everyone does.  What im saying is, those 2 warriors in that battle are in close combat, one goes and throws the other but somehow the other pulls the thrower down with him. They will inevitably begin some kind of struggle on the ground.  In a battle they need to get back to there feet, but there now grabbing and othe wise struggling on the ground. Do any of the systems do anything for the situation of being on the ground when your not supposed to be there.
> 
> Im not talking about trying to submit them. Im talking in context of the battle, not getting stabbed on the ground, and extracating  your self from the entanglement and back to your feet and weapons.
> 
> I am having difficulty spelling out what im talking about. The concept in my mind is clear, but I cant find the words.  Im not talking about UFC on the ground im talking about I just got thrown down, and this guy is ontop of me trying to stab me.  that is the situation im talking about... Or others similar...



Here's the big issue here, though... it really doesn't matter what you think should be there, because, well, bluntly, it's not there. And it's not there for the reasons I've given. Battlefields weren't about close combat, nor was self defence anything to do with ground work (it still isn't). Any system designed with combative usage as a primary focus will simply not have a focus on ground work. It's only real usage is to finish a fight, not to engage there, so why would any of them focus on engaging on the ground?



Makalakumu said:


> I train in a system of Jujutsu called Danzan Ryu jujutsu.  One of the systems that Okazaki trained in as his base was Yoshin Ryu.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Dshin-ry%C5%AB



Hmm, I'm going to try to tread delicately here, because I'm quite fond of Danzan Ryu, on the whole, but some things need to be mentioned. Firstly, the Yoshin Ryu referred to in that link was a dead art before Okazaki was born, so no, that one was not part of the system. I'm not saying there wasn't a "Yoshin Ryu", but it wasn't from the line of Akiyama Shirobei. The only form left from his art is the Naginatajutsu. Additionally, there are a number of other arts listed that Okazaki said he learnt alongside this Yoshin Ryu (Iwaga Ryu, Kosogabe/Kosogabu Ryu, Namba-Shoshin Ryu etc) which don't seem to be listed anywhere other than in Okazaki's history... in other words, these arts don't seem to have existed. The primary basis of Danzan Ryu seems to be dominantly Judo, a number of traits (which separate them out from older Jujutsu forms) are present in the Danzan Ryu methods. In other words, Danzan Ryu is a modern system based on other modern systems. That's fine, there's no issue with that at all, in fact, it's a quite solid art, but it's not really representative of traditional arts, or traditional Japanese Jujutsu systems (there are a number of other reasons I have to doubt a range of the traditional claims, but I won't get into them here).



Makalakumu said:


> The vital point striking is interesting.  My sensei says it's the same as they teach in Okinawan Karate and that they may have a shared connection through China, but that isn't really the point of my post.



Possible, but most likely due to the fact that another major influence, particularly on the striking aspects, was the karate systems Okezaki was exposed to from the Ryukyu kingdom. There's also an amount of influence from Western wrestling, amongst other things. 



Makalakumu said:


> Our third list of techniques, a list students learn at green belt, is pretty much all ground fighting techniques.  I can't imagine that no system of jujutsu in Japan contained these arts.  Pinning, locking, and hold down techniques would be useful to samarai in many situations.  They would also be useful in certain unencumbered combat situations, which is what many samurai would have faced after the Tokugawa shogunate took over.  Anyway, we call the list Shime.  It's not as sophisticated as BJJ, but it's not designed to contain the fight to the ground.  The techniques describe grappling but they always have an escape hatch so tori can escape at any time with an ukemi.



Pinning (osae komi, osae waza) were well known, in a large range of systems, but that's not ground work (ne waza). You might also be surprised to learn that there was little occasion for samurai to face each other, or others, in unarmed, unarmoured combat, even after the Tokugawa took control, in fact, for a range of reasons, more so after that event. Shime waza, by the way, typically refer to choking techniques, but literally refer to "constricting" methods. Oh, and I don't quite follow what you mean in your last sentence... are you meaning grappling to only refer to ground work? That's really not any definition of grappling, other than an inaccurate and incomplete one...


----------



## Kframe

Stupid page, wont load what I wrote.. type later..    Chris, your not being clear. At some point, those guys got tossed, and your telling me, they were taught no way to get back to there feet. Wow.


----------



## Kframe

I don't want to be combative, so chriss, if came off that way, im sorry.     Ok. I have been working on my home and thinking about this. Ok. im armored up, got my weapons and I head out on to the battle field.  Im engaged with the opponent, what are my odds of either of us being pulled to the ground.. Secondly, I must rememeber this was a supplemental art, not a primary art, thusly its not  going to cover all areas..  Lastly, as you said before, some schools focused on different things. As you said there were schools in all points in between the training spectrum of techniques. I was surprised to learn of striking in Jujutsu. 

Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today. The question is, how technical it was or wasn't back then. Apparently this aspect of fighting was very informal, and more of a after thought if  it was even brought up at all.  I also feel that we don't know as much about the warriors back then. I doubt they only studied a few arts. I feel that perhaps in there own they may have explored that aspect. Maybe not, but honestly we will probably never know the whole truth. 

Thinking of my own past experiences, I have been in 2 real fights. In both cases, the altercation went to the ground, were I lost. Of course one anecdotal story does not prove anything. I just remember being totally lost in those situations and not liking it. Not knowing how to escape while that bullie had his way with me was not a good thing. While, as I stated in my fight response thread, I don't think I need to devote a massive amount of time, I just want to have some sort of a plan, or way to deal with being there should I end up there again. I feel it at least a little bit prudent to do so. My coach tells us, to avoid it all times, though he teaches us how to survive there, incase we do. Tho honestly our primary training  goal is to get back to our feet, only fighting on the ground if last resort. 

There is a Bujinkan budo taijitsu school in my area. Some of the arts that make it up, have a long line back including some samurai arts. Im hoping to drop by and ask him some questions as well. Maybe he can shed some light on it for me in some way. 


Chris what happens if you get into a altercation in real life and end up getting knocked or pulled to the ground, does your art prepare you to deal with that? If so, what is your arts plan? Im honestly curious, I would love to know what other arts  take on this is.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kframe said:


> Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today.



I'm not that qualified to comment on what was and wasn't included in historical battlefield arts, but I wanted to point out that not all "old" martial arts were battlefield arts in the first place.  (In fact, I suspect that most of the martial arts we are familiar with today are not directly derived from battlefield arts.  Some clues - the lack of practice on fighting in formation, small unit tactics, fighting on horseback, use of historical armor, use of common battlefield weapons such as spears and bows, etc, etc.)  Arts of personal combat/self-defense and martial sports such as wrestling have existed for centuries in just about every culture.  I suspect the origins of modern ground-fighting technique lie in those arts and sports rather than on the battlefield.


----------



## Chris Parker

Kframe said:


> Stupid page, wont load what I wrote.. type later..    Chris, your not being clear. At some point, those guys got tossed, and your telling me, they were taught no way to get back to there feet. Wow.



Right. First off, that's not what I'm saying. The ability to get back up is not indicative of a ground-fighting (ne waza) syllabus. Nor does the lack of a ne waza syllabus mean that the ability to recover from being thrown/taken down wasn't part of the system. And I think this is a big part of the issue here... frankly, I don't think you're understanding what ne waza actually refers to, nor understanding the context of these old traditions, or their curriculum.



Kframe said:


> I don't want to be combative, so chriss, if came off that way, im sorry.     Ok. I have been working on my home and thinking about this.



No, not combative, really... I might just say that you're not really listening to what's being said, and aren't really looking past what you think things should be like.



Kframe said:


> Ok. im armored up, got my weapons and I head out on to the battle field.  Im engaged with the opponent, what are my odds of either of us being pulled to the ground..



Very, very, very, very, very, very small. If that.



Kframe said:


> Secondly, I must rememeber this was a supplemental art, not a primary art,



In some systems, not in all... and more frequently it was a primary focus from the 17th Century onwards.



Kframe said:


> thusly its not  going to cover all areas..



No martial art does.



Kframe said:


> Lastly, as you said before, some schools focused on different things. As you said there were schools in all points in between the training spectrum of techniques. I was surprised to learn of striking in Jujutsu.



I could probably show you a whole range of things that you wouldn't expect in "jujutsu" systems... large weaponry syllabus', for instance... not to mention combative actions that go almost completely against what you'd picture when you hear "jujutsu"... like this:






Now, that's actually a training exercise....here's some of their kata:






How close to what you'd call Jujutsu did that look?

How about this one?








Kframe said:


> Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today.



Uh... why would you think that? 



Kframe said:


> The question is, how technical it was or wasn't back then.



No, the question is why you think it was there in any real form at all. Mainly as this started when you asked if the impression you were getting (that it really wasn't present in traditional Japanese systems) was correct, and you were told it was... since then, you've been arguing that you think it should have been, despite the fact (repeated a number of times now) that it just wasn't. Really. It wasn't there. What some (note here, SOME) systems had included methods of pinning (osae waza), but that was rarely involving both of you on the ground... more commonly, someone was held on the ground, and the performing partner was kneeling or standing above them... or a small range of "finishing" techniques applied on the ground... but not "ground fighting". That was more commonly from suwari waza (seated techniques), and would involve bringing someone down to finish them. Ne waza (ground techniques) are more about engaging someone on the ground... and that simply wasn't present in traditional Jujutsu arts. One more time here... it simply wasn't present there. Continually stating that you think it should have been, or asking something like "how technical it was or wasn't", with the assumption that you are in fact correct that it was there (despite being repeatedly told that you're not), is to firstly deny the reality, and secondly, to ignore the very answer you asked for.



Kframe said:


> Apparently this aspect of fighting was very informal, and more of a after thought if  it was even brought up at all.



Where on earth did you get that from?!?! 



Kframe said:


> I also feel that we don't know as much about the warriors back then. I doubt they only studied a few arts. I feel that perhaps in there own they may have explored that aspect. Maybe not, but honestly we will probably never know the whole truth.



Completely, thoroughly, totally wrong. Japanese society is one of the most complete with regard to documentation, and that goes triple for the official groupings, which, of course, included the samurai/warriors, who were the ruling group throughout most of Japan's history. Add to that the fact that many Daimyo (feudal rulers) would reward their samurai for attaining ranking in a variety of arts, and not documenting what they were training in would be the equivalent of not claiming working hours, so you don't get paid.

We have many, many records, from many, many domains, covering pretty much everything you might want. It could help to remember that, after the Tokugawa Shogunate began, the samurai were primarily administrative... and they wrote everything down.



Kframe said:


> Thinking of my own past experiences, I have been in 2 real fights. In both cases, the altercation went to the ground, were I lost. Of course one anecdotal story does not prove anything. I just remember being totally lost in those situations and not liking it. Not knowing how to escape while that bullie had his way with me was not a good thing.



Well, you're right in saying that two anecdotal stories don't really prove anything... I mean, I've been in four times as many fights, up to and including a five on one assault, and haven't had any of them go to the ground. But I will say that your use of the term "bullies" implies that these stories came from your youth... and, frankly, that doesn't really qualify to me as being representative of real violence (in terms of street assaults, or the contexts of martial arts), if that's the case. I can understand the feelings (and fear) that such a situation can generate, but it's really not indicative of the nature of violence, more representative of dominance play.



Kframe said:


> While, as I stated in my fight response thread, I don't think I need to devote a massive amount of time, I just want to have some sort of a plan, or way to deal with being there should I end up there again. I feel it at least a little bit prudent to do so. My coach tells us, to avoid it all times, though he teaches us how to survive there, incase we do. Tho honestly our primary training  goal is to get back to our feet, only fighting on the ground if last resort.



Right... none of which has any bearing on whether or not 500 year old Japanese systems focus on, or really even have ground fighting in them. Again, I'm going to suggest that you leave your personal beliefs behind here, as they're leading you away from hearing the actual reality.



Kframe said:


> There is a Bujinkan budo taijitsu school in my area. Some of the arts that make it up, have a long line back including some samurai arts. Im hoping to drop by and ask him some questions as well. Maybe he can shed some light on it for me in some way.



Uh... have you seen the signature on the bottom of my posts? My organisation was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, and, although we left them in 2001, we base our methods in the arts taught there. I know the methods of all the Ryu (traditional schools) contained there, and there is absolutely no ne waza in any of them... Koto Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Togakure Ryu, and Kukishinden Ryu don't even have any seated techniques. Shinden Fudo Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu have some seated, but no ground work (other than the occasional pinning method as mentioned earlier, with the defender kneeling or standing over the attacker, or, even more rarely, utilizing a finishing action, such as a break or a choke [Shinden Fudo Ryu, Koto Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, with the forms found in Koto and Takagi there being from a standing technique, not a ground method). That said, the Bujinkan is very free, and many instructors add to these traditional methods, so some include some ground work... but that doesn't mean it's traditional, or from any of the arts taught there.



Kframe said:


> Chris what happens if you get into a altercation in real life and end up getting knocked or pulled to the ground, does your art prepare you to deal with that? If so, what is your arts plan? Im honestly curious, I would love to know what other arts  take on this is.



Similar to the way you describe your coaches approach... but possibly with a different technical slant.

Look, I'm going to try to sum things up here for you. Traditional Japanese systems did not feature ground fighting. It would be a bad idea in the context of these arts. There was really no use for things such as the mount, as, combatively speaking, when in armour, it leaves you in a very immobile position, and would lead to the practitioners being killed. The only time it really becomes feasible is in a competitive arena, as there is not as much risk, and the time can be devoted to develop the skills. In fact, the better sources to look to for old, traditional ground work, are the Western ones... not for any combative applications, but for their tournament scene, where there were a large number of different competitive events, including grappling events, as well as competitive wrestling in many places throughout Europe. Japan just didn't really have that... Sumo would be the closest. And that has no ground work at all. Arguing that you think they should have them is, bluntly, pointless. They didn't. End of story.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Tony,



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not that qualified to comment on what was and wasn't included in historical battlefield arts, but I wanted to point out that not all "old" martial arts were battlefield arts in the first place.  (In fact, I suspect that most of the martial arts we are familiar with today are not directly derived from battlefield arts.  Some clues - the lack of practice on fighting in formation, small unit tactics, fighting on horseback, use of historical armor, use of common battlefield weapons such as spears and bows, etc, etc.)



Well, what should be understood (firstly) is exactly what is meant by a "battlefield" art... a number of the aspects you mention, such as the formation fighting and small unit tactics, are things that would be found in military (army) training, specifically for regular soldiers (although, I might point out that I do know of some arts that do cover such things as a regular part of their methods... such as Heki Ryu Kyujutsu), which is not the aim of even the old "battlefield" arts. Many of them are more concerned with what I would describe as "officer training"... and is more concerned with teaching strategies and tactics, through the medium of martial techniques. But, for the record, many arts (Japanese), especially prior to the 17th Century, included usage of armour, common battlefield weaponry, and, in a number of cases, combative horsemanship. All that said, yeah, threre really aren't martial arts that are designed for teaching regular soldiers... they'd just take far too long to get the soldiers ready.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Arts of personal combat/self-defense and martial sports such as wrestling have existed for centuries in just about every culture.  I suspect the origins of modern ground-fighting technique lie in those arts and sports rather than on the battlefield.



Yep. But the Japanese really didn't have much... there was Sumo, as mentioned, and some forms of what was referred to as "jacketed wrestling", but that was again, quite different. It involved starting from a seated position, and trying to put your partner on the ground... there wasn't anything on the ground itself.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> Well, what should be understood (firstly) is exactly what is meant by a "battlefield" art... a number of the aspects you mention, such as the formation fighting and small unit tactics, are things that would be found in military (army) training, specifically for regular soldiers (although, I might point out that I do know of some arts that do cover such things as a regular part of their methods... such as Heki Ryu Kyujutsu), which is not the aim of even the old "battlefield" arts. Many of them are more concerned with what I would describe as "officer training"... and is more concerned with teaching strategies and tactics, through the medium of martial techniques. But, for the record, many arts (Japanese), especially prior to the 17th Century, included usage of armour, common battlefield weaponry, and, in a number of cases, combative horsemanship. All that said, yeah, threre really aren't martial arts that are designed for teaching regular soldiers... they'd just take far too long to get the soldiers ready.



Just to clarify - are you saying that military training for regular soldiers of the period should not properly be considered a "martial art"?  Or are you saying that the surviving martial traditions of the period are just the ones aimed at "officer training."?

I am aware that some of the older Japanese arts do include use of armor and battlefield weaponry, although you'd have to admit they are a distinct minority compared to all the various martial arts widely practiced today.  I was wondering - do you know of any art that actually covers fighting in formation?  It really does require a different set of skills, tactics, and techniques from fighting one-on-one.



> Yep. But the Japanese really didn't have much... there was Sumo, as mentioned, and some forms of what was referred to as "jacketed wrestling", but that was again, quite different. It involved starting from a seated position, and trying to put your partner on the ground... there wasn't anything on the ground itself.



Do you think that the ne waza in judo was an entirely new creation without historical antecedents or was it derived from foreign influences?


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey, Tony,



Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to clarify - are you saying that military training for regular soldiers of the period should not properly be considered a "martial art"?  Or are you saying that the surviving martial traditions of the period are just the ones aimed at "officer training."?



Uh, yeah. Pretty much spot on.

Like today, the bulk of the "ordinary soldiers" would get, essentially, a form of basic training... and that was about it. Many were basically conscripted farmers and peasants, who would be outfitted with fairly minimalist armour (typically little more than a breast-plate, called a hara-ate, and a rudimentary helmet), given a spear (or, in larger armies, sometimes just a sharpened length of bamboo, when actual spears were scarce), and pretty much pointed at the enemy... What training they received really wouldn't be anywhere near the level of a martial art, which is realistically not so much about combative techniques, but about a military (and beyond) education.

I'll put it this way... the common time-frame to study a martial art, in order to have your training considered "complete", to the point where you can rely on the art the way it's designed, was 15-20 years (Menkyo Kaiden)... even during wartime, that length would shorten, but to between 7 and 10 years (typically). If you need to field an army, in response to aggressive actions made by your neighbours, you can't wait even another 5 years for your army, can you?

Bluntly, no martial art is, or was, designed for the regular soldiers. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> I am aware that some of the older Japanese arts do include use of armor and battlefield weaponry, although you'd have to admit they are a distinct minority compared to all the various martial arts widely practiced today.  I was wondering - do you know of any art that actually covers fighting in formation?  It really does require a different set of skills, tactics, and techniques from fighting one-on-one.



Well, the Satsuma Heki Ryu I mentioned earlier still maintain their practice of formation training, with advancing and retreating lines of archers, as seen in this old clip:






Other than that, I am aware of teachings that deal with how to manage groups of soldiers, how to form and maneuvre groups, as well as castle fortification, siege tactics (both pro- and anti-), and far more in a large number of systems. But it should be remembered that, by and large, the combative methods of samurai on a battlefield were geared around personal performance, rather than group tactics... that was left for the regular soldiers. So the commanders would need to know how to arrange and organize them, but it wouldn't fit (contextually) for most martial arts to contain them in their syllabus (as techniques). Archery would be the notable exception. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> Do you think that the ne waza in judo was an entirely new creation without historical antecedents or was it derived from foreign influences?



Judo's ne waza comes primarily from the explorations, experimentations, and skill of Tanabe Mataemon, of the Fusen Ryu (but the ne waza does not come from Fusen Ryu), combined with the explorations and developments of Kano and the early Kodokan guys (often working with what Tanabe showed them), which was influenced by locking and choking techniques taken primarily from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (and some others), and things like Western Wrestling, by Kano, all sorted through through the crucible of randori. So yeah, it was essentially a fairly new creation which naturally came out of randori, not combative experience or need, as well as foreign influence.


----------



## frank raud

Approximately what year did Tanabe Maetemon originally have contact with the Kodokan?


----------



## Kframe

Chris, I want to apologize for not listening, and not being clear when I spoke. I accept that ground fighting was not present. When I was referring to it past that point, I was actually trying to talk about "recovery" tactics. More like Rapid Ascension tactics incase you end up on the ground. Which if read your post correctly is different then ground fighting.  Honestly, i was using ground fighting to cover any and all things relating to the ground, including getting back to your feet. Which is not ground fighting at all.  

If you don't mind, do you know of any books, or books translated into English that i could read on this subject? The only martial arts i have any real knowledge of is, boxing only because i love it lol. ( to bad no one teaches the old bare knuckle boxing techniques, id be all over that.)

Man there is so much i don't know. Half the crap i do know is wrong...

Edit to add. 

Chris, I was watching the Second video, and on the first two, he did a spin to left and to the right. Now that spin combined with the big circular arm movements, was that a grip breaking technique or a off balancing technique? I ask because i looked to my, apparently modern grappling novice eyes, as to much movement, with no apparent effect on the Uke. I will watch it again, but i didn't see the grip break nor he off balance. Im missing something ill keep watching it..


----------



## Chris Parker

frank raud said:


> Approximately what year did Tanabe Maetemon originally have contact with the Kodokan?



Not quite sure where you're going with this, Frank, but... The earliest contact I've seen between Tanabe and the Kodokan was in a match (or series of matches) in 1899/1900. He was brought in as a teacher after that, and was recognized as a Judo teacher (Kyoshi, from memory) in 1906.



Kframe said:


> Chris, I want to apologize for not listening, and not being clear when I spoke.



Not a problem.



Kframe said:


> I accept that ground fighting was not present. When I was referring to it past that point, I was actually trying to talk about "recovery" tactics. More like Rapid Ascension tactics incase you end up on the ground. Which if read your post correctly is different then ground fighting.  Honestly, i was using ground fighting to cover any and all things relating to the ground, including getting back to your feet. Which is not ground fighting at all.



Yeah, that wasn't really there, either. As I said, you'd take someone to the ground to pin them, or to apply a finish (a break, or a choke), and that's about it. Occasionally there might be a reversal against such actions, but really nothing like a "rapid ascention"....



Kframe said:


> If you don't mind, do you know of any books, or books translated into English that i could read on this subject? The only martial arts i have any real knowledge of is, boxing only because i love it lol. ( to bad no one teaches the old bare knuckle boxing techniques, id be all over that.)



Look to BJJ, Judo, books on Catch Wrestling, that kind of thing. Not old traditional Japanese Jujutsu.



Kframe said:


> Man there is so much i don't know. Half the crap i do know is wrong...



Ha, yeah... that's not a problem, though. It only becomes a problem if you don't realize, and don't listen to the answers you get...



Kframe said:


> Edit to add.
> 
> Chris, I was watching the Second video, and on the first two, he did a spin to left and to the right. Now that spin combined with the big circular arm movements, was that a grip breaking technique or a off balancing technique? I ask because i looked to my, apparently modern grappling novice eyes, as to much movement, with no apparent effect on the Uke. I will watch it again, but i didn't see the grip break nor he off balance. Im missing something ill keep watching it..



Yeah, Yagyu Shingan Ryu is an interesting system... there's a lot hidden within the techniques, and really, is only for those trained in it. But, to give you a clue, the kata (in this system) are more a series of responses, rather than a single one... in other words, if the first action doesn't break the grip, you have the second, and so on. In training, the partner continues to hold to make the last action the "effective" one.


----------



## frank raud

If the first contact with Fusen-ryu is approximately 1899, how do you explain the Katame no kata, the first kata developed by Jigoro Kano, from the period 1884-1887?


----------



## Kframe

Chris, I do want to read up on Old Japanese jujutsu. I want to know the history and a some insight into there techniques. I honestly would love to meet someone in my neck of the woods that is skilled in one of the systems. I firmly believe each Art has something I can learn and apply to my situation.

What kind of defenses were taught? Watching the videos, I see some solid striking defense, but what about take down defense? I know what im taught, which is Sprawl, or get low and wide or the default of moving out of the way.   

Were they taught any thing in relation to "recovery" techniques. What I mean is, not grappling, or any thing combative relating to the ground but, how to quickly get back to your feet? 
Here is a video of someone demonstrating some techniques my coach teaches us. 



    Im guessing that a lot of the get back to your feet techniques are probably going to be used in conjunction with Breakfall techniques correct?  I would love to see some breakfall techniques.  

The more I watch videos on Real Japanese Jujutsu, the more I wish I had found  it earlier. The closest thing I have to it is The Bujinkan taijitsu place, and they are out of my price range, and I like were I am.  Oh well, I can always day dream about it.


----------



## Chris Parker

frank raud said:


> If the first contact with Fusen-ryu is approximately 1899, how do you explain the Katame no kata, the first kata developed by Jigoro Kano, from the period 1884-1887?



Ah, gotcha. 

Well, the first thing I'd say is that the Katame no Kata deals really with osae komi, and other finishing aspects, rather than true ne waza, although obviously much of it can (and is) incorporated into ne waza. Next, I'd say that, as that and the Nage no Kata combine to form the Randori no Kata, it shows that the forms are designed for, and came from, randori, rather than older systems. Many of the principles are taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, but the application (and a few other aspects) are fairly altered. But, mainly, that it deals more with suwari waza and sutemi waza (or, at least, the after-effects of such) than ne waza.

I think perhaps a clarification from my end might be in order, as that might clear up the distinction I'm making.

I suppose the biggest thing is the difference between ne waza and, say, osae komi waza. Really, the distinction I make is based on whether or not both practitioners are required to be on the ground from the beginning of the technique. If not, then it's not ne waza. Additionally, I'd say that ne waza is more about fighting back from the ground, rather than having one or both start from either seated or standing positions, or moving in to finish someone you've just thrown (for instance). As I said in my first response to Kframe's questions, in older arts, you just don't see "ground work (as seen in BJJ)". It's this idea of two people engaging on the ground that I've been discussing (and stating that it's not in the older systems).



Kframe said:


> Chris, I do want to read up on Old Japanese jujutsu. I want to know the history and a some insight into there techniques. I honestly would love to meet someone in my neck of the woods that is skilled in one of the systems. I firmly believe each Art has something I can learn and apply to my situation.



Cool. The first port of call is www.koryu.com, and to read the articles there... as, if you're interested in the old Jujutsu systems, it'll help a lot to get a sense of the context for them. But a word of caution... the mentality of koryu (old schools, almost literally) are quite different to what you're used to. You'll be very hard pressed to find much in the way of description of techniques, and, as a general rule, the application of the techniques (of a koryu) outside of the context of their system isn't something most are that interested in. I mean, when a particular kata from a system is based in the historical culture of that Ryu (school), including local cultural aspects unique to that system and weaponry that has little to no place in a modern context, why would they be interested in trying it against something that is that alien to it? There's really nothing in it for them.

The most basic thing to understand about koryu is that they are dominantly concerned only with preserving their art... not with contrasting it, or competing with any others. They need to be effective and powerful within their context... and only within their context.



Kframe said:


> What kind of defenses were taught? Watching the videos, I see some solid striking defense, but what about take down defense? I know what im taught, which is Sprawl, or get low and wide or the default of moving out of the way.


 
Yeah... again, the sprawl is a competitive application, and a fairly modern method, all things considered (it was in ancient wrestling competition, of course, but not really in any combative methods). Essentially, it's a response to a form of attack that is very rare outside of such competitive formats, so don't expect it in old Jujutsu systems. That said, there absolutely are throw defences... but they don't really look much like the sprawl... and they can range from striking the opponent when they come in, to moving around the thrower, to dropping with a sacrifice action (sutemi waza), to responding after the throw has been begun/applied. But what each art does is dependent on the context of the system itself... there's no single skill-set, let alone single universal approach across these systems. Oh, and the "strike defence" might not actually be against what you think it is...



Kframe said:


> Were they taught any thing in relation to "recovery" techniques. What I mean is, not grappling, or any thing combative relating to the ground but, how to quickly get back to your feet?



Hmm, in a way, but then again, no, not really. To understand that, you'd need to have an understanding of zanshin, and kata practice as it pertains to Japanese systems... and that's a very long conversation...



Kframe said:


> Here is a video of someone demonstrating some techniques my coach teaches us.


 
Look, being gentle here, I wouldn't advise any of that at all... most of the time the guys completely open to being kicked, controlled, entered against, and more. Add to that the wasted energy, and the habit in a couple of ending up coming up with the back to the opponent, and I'm really not fond of any of it. The best "get to your feet" method I've learnt was from BJJ, and involved posting with the opposite foot and hand (say, left hand and right foot), then swinging your lead leg (left, in the example) back underneath you to the ground. This ensures that you get up aware, balanced, facing the opponent, and backing away (not moving forward into a potential attack). During a seminar with Royce Gracie, he insisted that every time everyone got up, they had to use this method... whether in a technique, or from sitting down while watching a demonstration. The first person to not get up properly had to do 2 pushups... the second, 4... the third, 8, the fourth, 16, the fifth, 32, and so on...



Kframe said:


> Im guessing that a lot of the get back to your feet techniques are probably going to be used in conjunction with Breakfall techniques correct?



No, not really. The first thing you need to address is what the point of the breakfalls are... and are they really "breakfalls" at all...?



Kframe said:


> I would love to see some breakfall techniques.



Let's take this back to Yagyu Shingan Ryu, then...

There are two distinct groupings of methods used to counter throws and joint locks. They are referred to as ukemi and nigemi. Ukemi, as a term, is one that many people are familar with, and refers to receiving an attack. This is what most think of when they talk about breakfalls and rolling methods. But, when you really get down to it, that's not really what ukemi is about, at least in a classical, koryu sense. Nigemi is a rarer term, and is to do with, often more acrobatic, methods of escaping from locks and throws. The following clip is Yagyu Shingan Ryu, and showcases some of their nigemi (note - these guys also do this in full armour...):








Kframe said:


> The more I watch videos on Real Japanese Jujutsu, the more I wish I had found  it earlier. The closest thing I have to it is The Bujinkan taijitsu place, and they are out of my price range, and I like were I am.  Oh well, I can always day dream about it.



While it has a certain romantic appeal, you might find that it's not really what you're after... especially based on the assumptions and questions you've presented here. That's not a bad thing, or a criticism in the slightest, of course... if everyone liked the same stuff, the world would be rather boring! And the most important thing is that you enjoy what it is you do, so really, I'd say you're probably in the right place right now. At least, for now that is.


----------



## frank raud

Uyenishi had no connection that I am aware of either to the Kodokan or Fusen-ryu, yet was brought by Barton-Wright to England to battle the wrestlers in the music halls. In his Text book of Ju Jutsu, he writes"Another analogous system, known as tori in some parts of Japan and as shime in others. was an extension of ju-jutsu in the department of groundwork, and it is more than possible that many of the locks and holds of ju jutsu were originated by exponents of tori. The last-named system cannot, however be compared with the "soft art" as a method of self defense, as but slight importance was devoted to "throws", the modus operandi being mainly confined to falling to the ground yourself and then pulling your opponent down, there to struggle for the victorious lock." Later on, he writes"The Kata and ground work need such a full and careful explanation that I propose to leave this to a future volume in which they can be fully dealt with, and in which I shall have space also to go into advanced tricks of combat and display." Uyenishi trained in Osaka prior to moving to England, a fair distance from the Okayama prefecture where Fusen-ryu was based.


----------



## Kframe

Chriss, that Standing techinique you mentioned, posting with the hand and opposite leg, is the first and primary method I was taught. We do it as part of a defensive exercise. To tell you the truth tho, im still not very good at it. That will change as my fitness continues to improve. Im still a little bigger then I need to be.  

You  mention that strike defense, might not be a strike defense at all. I was watching the shingan ryu video number two you posted a while back, and they clearly deflected some punches.  Wonder what else those could be?

I think its great the Koyru want to preserve there arts. That is a noble goal.  At least someone is trying to preserve them, as opposed to changing and altering them to suit there needs..


----------



## Chris Parker

frank raud said:


> Uyenishi had no connection that I am aware of either to the Kodokan or Fusen-ryu, yet was brought by Barton-Wright to England to battle the wrestlers in the music halls. In his Text book of Ju Jutsu, he writes"Another analogous system, known as tori in some parts of Japan and as shime in others. was an extension of ju-jutsu in the department of groundwork, and it is more than possible that many of the locks and holds of ju jutsu were originated by exponents of tori. The last-named system cannot, however be compared with the "soft art" as a method of self defense, as but slight importance was devoted to "throws", the modus operandi being mainly confined to falling to the ground yourself and then pulling your opponent down, there to struggle for the victorious lock." Later on, he writes"The Kata and ground work need such a full and careful explanation that I propose to leave this to a future volume in which they can be fully dealt with, and in which I shall have space also to go into advanced tricks of combat and display." Uyenishi trained in Osaka prior to moving to England, a fair distance from the Okayama prefecture where Fusen-ryu was based.



Hi, Frank,

Uyenishi was believed to have trained at the Yataro Handa dojo in Osaka, along with Yukio Tani. Tani was also a Fusen Ryu practitioner (under Tanabe Mataemon), and it's sometimes thought that the Yataro Handa dojo was also associated with Tanabe's methods. There has never really been any definite account of what Ryu-ha was taught there, but it's said to have been closer in relation to Koryu than Judo (Gendai budo), which implies to me that it was more similar to a study group than a particular Ryu's official dojo.... more likely that the instructor there was a student (at least at one point) of Tanabe's. After all, the methods described there match Tanabe's personal approach to randori far more than the methodology of any Ryu-ha, and there has been more than a passing connection between the Handa dojo and Tanabe made. So I'm not sure that I'd say there's no connection... after all, Okayama and Osaka aren't really that far apart... and Osaka is pretty much halfway to Tokyo, where Tanabe and other members of his groups had travelled for competitions a number of times (as an aside, in checking my research on this, I came across an earlier account of Tanabe meeting Kodokan members.... in 1891 and 1892, both featuring Tanabe himself against a Judoka known as Tobari. Tobari, in the first match, attempted to remain standing, as Tanabe tried to take the fight down to the ground, eventually managing to succeed, and winning with a choke. Tobari then researched and focused on the ground for the next year [at the Kodokan], and in the second match, it was both competitors that went to ground... and Tanabe won again. Incidentally, this account mentions this as being the origin of Tanabe's fame, as well as the origin of Judo's belief that a Judoka needs to be well rounded on the ground, as well as stand-up, and is the origin of the famous "ne waza of Kansai"... which includes Osaka, but not Okayama).

All in all, this still supports my contention that groundwork is based in competitive methods, rather than combative ones, and that it (in Japanese art terms) is a modern event. It also supports the idea that much of what is seen today owes at least it's popularity, if not it's technical methods, to Tanabe, as well as Judo, rather than any Koryu methodology.



Kframe said:


> Chriss, that Standing techinique you mentioned, posting with the hand and opposite leg, is the first and primary method I was taught. We do it as part of a defensive exercise. To tell you the truth tho, im still not very good at it. That will change as my fitness continues to improve. Im still a little bigger then I need to be.


 
Good. I would have been shocked and dismayed if you weren't taught that as a primary method! As I said, it's the best I've come across, and is one that I insist my guys use as well. There are a number of good methods to develop the fitness and other attributes for it, if you ask your coach, hopefully he'll have some for you. 



Kframe said:


> You  mention that strike defense, might not be a strike defense at all. I was watching the shingan ryu video number two you posted a while back, and they clearly deflected some punches.  Wonder what else those could be?



Here's where it gets a little vaguer, so forgive that. I'm not saying that they aren't strike defences, but at the same time, I'm not saying they are. What they are exactly will come down to the Ryu itself, and how they interpret them... for example, many "strike defence" techniques are really teaching you about the mechanics for weapon defence, just in a safer method (for early training and beginners). Some are quite literally short blade defences with the short blade removed. Others are for using weapons. Yagyu Shingan Ryu, at least, the branch I've been picking clips from, are known for using their basic unarmed techniques as a basis for using a variety of weapons.

So the strike defences might be strike defences. Or they might not be. It depends on the Ryu.



Kframe said:


> I think its great the Koyru want to preserve there arts. That is a noble goal.  At least someone is trying to preserve them, as opposed to changing and altering them to suit there needs..



Sure... but you need to understand what that means.

To train a Koryu, you are training to adopt a particular mindset, a particular thought process, and a particular (specific) method of movement. As a result, the Ryu is not served by having people bring in other methods, other ways of thinking, other ways of moving etc, so a number of these Ryu don't allow cross-training (although even that is open to the Ryu itself, and the interpretation of the teachers in question). As a result, they really don't lend themselves to the ideas of "learning what you can from them", or taking aspects of their systems to "apply what you can". The Ryu are complete approaches, so to take a bit of this, and a bit of that is to completely miss what the Ryu teaches, and, to that end, completely pointless.


----------



## frank raud

I know of the Handa dojo connection, never heard of it being associated with Fusen-ryu. Uyenishi's statement about Tori doesn't state that groundwork is a contemporary thing, putatively developed by Tanabe, but is a subset of ju jutsu. Uyenishi is not the only one who writes about newaza, (this is a cut and paste from a similar thread I was involved in a few years back)
 EJ Harrison's description from the 1914 edition of Fighting Spirit of Japan is slightly different than in the more common 1955 edition(I have both of them near by) 1914 edition"with the help of the newspaper translator, I found out a local dojo, or school of jujutsu referred to elsewhere in these pages, its proprietor, a small Japanese named Hagiwara Ryoshinsai, being a disciple of the Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and a wonderful little man in his way. Although in stand-up wrestling, known technically as randori, he would have been no match for the black-belt brigades of the famous Kodokwan of Tokyo, yet in what foreign followers of the art have designated "groundwork" he possessed remarkable skill."

In the 1955 edition, the reference to foriegn followers is shortened to followers, and the following passage is included"I should add that my jujutsu activities were by no means confined to the Tenjin shinyo-ryu dojo.Reports of my very modest prowess in the"soft art" having reached the ears of the Yokohama police I was invited to practice with them.......There to I usually got the better of the rank and file without much difficulty but did not fare quite so well when trying conclusions with visiting police yudansha(black belt holders) from Tokyo some of whom no doubt graduated from the Kodokan Moreover the chief instructor of the Kagacho police station dojo, although not a disciple of the Kodokan but the product of another ryugi or school of jujutsu the name of which I cannot recall, was none the less a decidedly formidable customer and especially adept in Newaza, otherwise "ground work"

EJ Harrison trained in Tenshin Shinyo-ryu prior to joining the Kodokan, and was the first foriegner to be awarded a black belt by the Kodokan. In the original edition of his book, he references Maeda, comparing his skills to Yukio Tani(third rate), so is obviously familiar with at least some of the major players. Curious that he is able to compare the ground fighting skills of his Tenshin Shinyo sensei with that of the Kodokan and of a third school of jujutsu in a time frame (prior to 1897) when these skills apparently did not exist, or were only recently developed by one man.


----------



## frank raud

By the way, Chris, here is something you wrote about a year ago, what has changed your mind on the dominant influence of Fusen-ryu?

 As Frank said, the thrust of the newaza in Judo comes from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. The other primary influences are said to be Fusen Ryu (not that they contributed any methods, but the story goes that a Fusen Ryu practitioner was beating the Judo guys with newaza, so there was more of an emphasis put on newaza afterwards) and the development of Kosen Judo (essentially "High School Judo"), which had/has a higher emphasis on newaza over nagewaza due to the relative lower risk of injury (with kids not throwing each other headfirst into the ground).


----------



## Chris Parker

Interesting.



frank raud said:


> I know of the Handa dojo connection, never heard of it being associated with Fusen-ryu. Uyenishi's statement about Tori doesn't state that groundwork is a contemporary thing, putatively developed by Tanabe, but is a subset of ju jutsu. Uyenishi is not the only one who writes about newaza, (this is a cut and paste from a similar thread I was involved in a few years back)



Personally, I'd be a little wary of how much is read into the phrasing... For one thing, the reference to "tori" and "shime" seem a little odd... "Tori" means to "capture", and "shime" is "to constrict", but to state they're used interchangably I think is a little mistaken. For one thing, the term that seems to be meant is "torite" (capturing hands), rather than just "tori", and is sometimes used to refer to osae komi waza (pinning techniques), whereas shime often refer to chokes, or, sometimes, immobilizations (related to osae komi, but slightly different). Additionally, it reads (to me) that the second half of the passage you quoted refers to a direct contrast between a particular systems approach, and Judo's (the "soft art") for self defence, stating that it "couldn't be compared with (Judo) as it doesn't focus on throws; instead, it seeks to pull an opponent down, and defeat them there". None of that really states anything one way or another about how old that approach was, though. 



frank raud said:


> EJ Harrison's description from the 1914 edition of Fighting Spirit of Japan is slightly different than in the more common 1955 edition(I have both of them near by) 1914 edition"with the help of the newspaper translator, I found out a local dojo, or school of jujutsu referred to elsewhere in these pages, its proprietor, a small Japanese named Hagiwara Ryoshinsai, being a disciple of the Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and a wonderful little man in his way. Although in stand-up wrestling, known technically as randori, he would have been no match for the black-belt brigades of the famous Kodokwan of Tokyo, yet in what foreign followers of the art have designated "groundwork" he possessed remarkable skill."



I'd be very interested to know exactly what was meant by those comments... as randori doesn't refer to just stand-up methods (it'd be interesting to know if it did then), as well as knowing who Hagiwara's Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu instructor was... As I'm sure you're aware, Kano had two different Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu teachers himself, with the first being very keen on randori, and the second not so much (he left the instruction of randori to senior students, such as Kano, focusing on the kata himself). That said, I'm not aware of any real ne waza in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu either.... might double check that with some friends who are even more familiar with the system than I am.



frank raud said:


> In the 1955 edition, the reference to foriegn followers is shortened to followers, and the following passage is included"I should add that my jujutsu activities were by no means confined to the Tenjin shinyo-ryu dojo.Reports of my very modest prowess in the"soft art" having reached the ears of the Yokohama police I was invited to practice with them.......There to I usually got the better of the rank and file without much difficulty but did not fare quite so well when trying conclusions with visiting police yudansha(black belt holders) from Tokyo some of whom no doubt graduated from the Kodokan Moreover the chief instructor of the Kagacho police station dojo, although not a disciple of the Kodokan but the product of another ryugi or school of jujutsu the name of which I cannot recall, was none the less a decidedly formidable customer and especially adept in Newaza, otherwise "ground work"



Again, I'd be interested to know a lot more about the details here... such as what exactly was referred to as "ne waza"... was it just osae komi, or are we talking rolling around (as in BJJ)? And what was the other Ryu-ha? I'm not thinking we'll get answers, but I'm just pointing out that our current definition might not fit the way it was used then, which is why I clarified what I meant by "ground work" above.



frank raud said:


> EJ Harrison trained in Tenshin Shinyo-ryu prior to joining the Kodokan, and was the first foriegner to be awarded a black belt by the Kodokan. In the original edition of his book, he references Maeda, comparing his skills to Yukio Tani(third rate), so is obviously familiar with at least some of the major players. Curious that he is able to compare the ground fighting skills of his Tenshin Shinyo sensei with that of the Kodokan and of a third school of jujutsu in a time frame (prior to 1897) when these skills apparently did not exist, or were only recently developed by one man.



Again, I'd want to know exactly how the term was being used... as well as knowing where exactly the skills came from. At that point in time, inter-school competitions weren't uncommon, and randori was a fairly common training method in Jujutsu ryu-ha, as well as competition being part of demonstrations at various levels... so, honestly, I'd be surprised if Tanabe was the only person to have come up with anything. But he was still a pivotal figure in the development of Judo's, and Judo's popularity is where a lot of the expansion and popularity of ne waza comes from (most modern systems, particularly Western ones, all the way to BJJ, are, at the least, influenced, if not outrightly based on Judo).


----------



## Chris Parker

frank raud said:


> By the way, Chris, here is something you wrote about a year ago, what has changed your mind on the dominant influence of Fusen-ryu?
> 
> As Frank said, the thrust of the newaza in Judo comes from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. The other primary influences are said to be Fusen Ryu (not that they contributed any methods, but the story goes that a Fusen Ryu practitioner was beating the Judo guys with newaza, so there was more of an emphasis put on newaza afterwards) and the development of Kosen Judo (essentially "High School Judo"), which had/has a higher emphasis on newaza over nagewaza due to the relative lower risk of injury (with kids not throwing each other headfirst into the ground).



Ha, yeah, good find... 

Mainly, more research. I think the osae komi waza and kansetsu waza are primarily taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, mechanically speaking, although Tenjin Shin'yo doesn't employ them necessarily as ne waza methods. The methods of set-up for them, though, is not really Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu.


----------



## frank raud

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, yeah, good find...
> 
> Mainly, more research. I think the osae komi waza and kansetsu waza are primarily taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, mechanically speaking, although Tenjin Shin'yo doesn't employ them necessarily as ne waza methods. The methods of set-up for them, though, is not really Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu.



Here's my take on this, and Tanabe's contributions. With contemporary accounts making reference to groundwork, newaza, pulling opponents down, etc., we need to admit these techniques were in the common domain at the time. If they did not come from the battlefield arts, they may have come from the Edo perod arts. Descriptions of Tanabe resisting his opponents armbars and chokes to such an extent that he got the nickname newaza Tanabe, says to me, while others were doing newaza as part of their repetoire, he specialised in it. Countering a standing choke by dropping to the ground doesn't make much sense, and defeinitely haven't survived in the judo curriculum as such. Tanabe may have developed his newaza to a greater extent than others, and opened eyes to the possibilities of some combinations previously unseen, but he didn't develop it. It is curious that some reports have him defeating the Kodokan representatives by "butt scooting", yet that is not considered a judo technique, yet is seen in BJJ. If that is what he used to win, why was it not incorporated into the techniques the Kodokan amalgamated Fusen-ryu?  I don't believe we will ever get the answers to many of these questions, but I doubt one man can be pointed out as responsible for all the grappling techniques in Judo, not even Kano.


----------

