# The "Jitsu" Foundation Lineage



## Razor (Feb 27, 2015)

Hello guys, 

Apologies if this is one of those topics that has already been discussed at length, but I had a search through the site and could only find one old post on this organisation, so don't think there is much on it. 

I recently starting training in the UK with TJF and was curious what Jujutsu school they actually train in or follow, and was surprised when a 2nd dan told me there basically isn't one and that TJF started from some people training in Judo and other bits and pieces and just sort of put together a system that works. I find this very odd as it seems like quite a comprehensive and effective system, not like something that has just been thrown together from bits and pieces. Also, some techniques are very similar to Bujinkan (and I assume other Jujutsu related systems) like many of the wrist locks and some of the throws. 

Can anyone shed any light on how this organisation started and what the advantages/disadvantages of not following any particular lineage might be? 

Personally I don't mind that much as it seems effective and the instructors seem very knowledgeable, but I am mainly just curious about how it started and why there is no specific lineage that they follow, if indeed that is the case.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 27, 2015)

Well, in short, there's no specific lineage because, well, it's a cobbled together collection of methods drawn from a range of sources, mostly Judo… as such, it's not really from any classical system of jujutsu. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to the individual, I suppose.


----------



## Razor (Feb 27, 2015)

Thanks Chris, so basically what I've been told is correct, that it is just patched together? 

Do they practice wrist and arm locks (especially standing up) in Judo? I'm thinking of things like Ura Gyaku and Oni Kudaki, that TJF seem to have very similar locks to that I was not aware really featured in Judo - not that I've ever done more than a couple of Judo sessions.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 27, 2015)

Well, they exist in Judo, but as they're not really "scoring" methods in shiai, they're often relegated to things like the Kime no Kata. So they're there, but many dojo don't focus on them at all. You have to bear in mind, of course, that these types of locks are fairly common to most grappling systems… what we call Oni Kudaki is called Ude Garami in other places… or a "Figure 4 Lock"… or a Key Lock… or a Kimura (more of a Gyaku Oni Kudaki, but in the same family). So it's hardly surprising to see them in other places… or course, I'd be a little surprised if they used the name "Oni Kudaki"… that's not so common.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2015)

It shouldn't be surprising that a new system is well-designed. Remember that every art and system was, at some point, brand new. Someone saw something they wanted to do differently than they'd been taught. In many cases, they'd had exposure to more than one source, and wanted to teach the combination of techniques they felt worked best. Thus a new style, art, or system is born. If the person developing it is good at it and is a good teacher, you end up with an effective new art.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 6, 2015)

gpseymour said:


> It shouldn't be surprising that a new system is well-designed.



Hmm… that presupposes that it is well designed in the first place… 



gpseymour said:


> Remember that every art and system was, at some point, brand new.



Yeah… 



gpseymour said:


> Someone saw something they wanted to do differently than they'd been taught. In many cases, they'd had exposure to more than one source, and wanted to teach the combination of techniques they felt worked best.



Uh… less so. I mean, the "exposure to more than one source" is correct, the rest, less so. Could happen, but that's not a good way to go about things… techniques aren't the answer, nor the distinction between systems.



gpseymour said:


> Thus a new style, art, or system is born.



If just by cobbling together mechanical techniques, it's rarely a good (or long-lived) one… and not something I'd be classifying as an actual "system", for the record.



gpseymour said:


> If the person developing it is good at it and is a good teacher, you end up with an effective new art.



Again, that's not by any stretch of the imagination true… on a number of levels.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… that presupposes that it is well designed in the first place…



I was basing that comment on the OP's statement that it was an effective art. If it doesn't feel like a patchwork, then likely it was put together with an effective design.



> Uh… less so. I mean, the "exposure to more than one source" is correct, the rest, less so. Could happen, but that's not a good way to go about things… techniques aren't the answer, nor the distinction between systems.



You are, of course, correct that techniques aren't the answer. I was using that more as a poorly-worded shorthand. More often, I'd suspect there are few actual technique changes. It's more likely to be a different emphasis on how the information is taught, a re-ordering of the curriculum (if it is structured), a focus on different principles (sometimes gleaned from another source), or some other distinction. In some cases, it's merely a renaming of the art/style/system because of a break with an organization or instructor, and that's not really anything new except a name.



> If just by cobbling together mechanical techniques, it's rarely a good (or long-lived) one… and not something I'd be classifying as an actual "system", for the record.



Well, that's pretty obvious. It's that "cobbling together" that breaks it. If it's an effective blending of principles and techniques from multiple sources (note the use of the word "effective"), then it can survive. If it's just someone using their favorite bits from what they've studied, it's likely too disjointed to survive long.



> Again, that's not by any stretch of the imagination true… on a number of levels.



Perhaps it's the "it" that's the issue here? When I said "the person developing it is good at it" I meant if they are good at blending together what they've learned to synthesize a complete whole (regardless of whether the predecessors were complete or not, and regardless of whether they were even meant to be whole or not). This is, in concept what people have done to create effective systems (Judo, Shotokan, Ueshiba's Aikido, etc.). Unless we get stuck in semantics (we'd have to closely define "system", for instance), I'd think we can find some agreement here.

For instance, if I just reached out and grabbed techniques (and even principles) from the various arts I've been exposed to, I'd probably end up with a jumbled bunch of stuff that's hard to transfer, even though those are the pieces I'm most likely to reach for in my own practice. If I were inclined to dig deeper and find unifying principles among them, I might be able to construct a whole that made sense and (by being well-suited to the way I use the techniques) might be easier for me to transmit.

Mind you, that would require far more attention and diligence than I'm likely to give to the effort, so mine would more likely end up "cobbled together", so I stick to the art I was taught.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 9, 2015)

gpseymour said:


> I was basing that comment on the OP's statement that it was an effective art. If it doesn't feel like a patchwork, then likely it was put together with an effective design.



It was the OP's perception, based on minimal exposure to the system and some semi-similar arts, not a definitive comment… and one that I'd challenge, honestly.



gpseymour said:


> You are, of course, correct that techniques aren't the answer. I was using that more as a poorly-worded shorthand. More often, I'd suspect there are few actual technique changes. It's more likely to be a different emphasis on how the information is taught, a re-ordering of the curriculum (if it is structured), a focus on different principles (sometimes gleaned from another source), or some other distinction. In some cases, it's merely a renaming of the art/style/system because of a break with an organization or instructor, and that's not really anything new except a name.



Depending on the art, any of the above, in any mix, or none of them. There's really not a single way things go down in this sense… but my point was that it was more often (at least, in the successful systems, to use that term) an overall change to methodology (congruent and coherent).



gpseymour said:


> Well, that's pretty obvious. It's that "cobbling together" that breaks it. If it's an effective blending of principles and techniques from multiple sources (note the use of the word "effective"), then it can survive. If it's just someone using their favorite bits from what they've studied, it's likely too disjointed to survive long.



Hmm… even the blending of principles isn't too often a recipe for success… it really is most commonly a new methodology, which might draw from other approaches, but makes them consistent and coherent in the new.



gpseymour said:


> Perhaps it's the "it" that's the issue here? When I said "the person developing it is good at it" I meant if they are good at blending together what they've learned to synthesize a complete whole (regardless of whether the predecessors were complete or not, and regardless of whether they were even meant to be whole or not). This is, in concept what people have done to create effective systems (Judo, Shotokan, Ueshiba's Aikido, etc.). Unless we get stuck in semantics (we'd have to closely define "system", for instance), I'd think we can find some agreement here.



Oh, I got what you meant… and my point was that it's not really about the person themselves. You can get individuals who can make the most bizarre mix "work" through sheer natural talent and skill… but the system itself is still just as troubled… which shows when anyone other than that gifted person tries to make it functional.



gpseymour said:


> For instance, if I just reached out and grabbed techniques (and even principles) from the various arts I've been exposed to, I'd probably end up with a jumbled bunch of stuff that's hard to transfer, even though those are the pieces I'm most likely to reach for in my own practice. If I were inclined to dig deeper and find unifying principles among them, I might be able to construct a whole that made sense and (by being well-suited to the way I use the techniques) might be easier for me to transmit.



Yep.



gpseymour said:


> Mind you, that would require far more attention and diligence than I'm likely to give to the effort, so mine would more likely end up "cobbled together", so I stick to the art I was taught.



Yep.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> It was the OP's perception, based on minimal exposure to the system and some semi-similar arts, not a definitive comment… and one that I'd challenge, honestly.


Since I have no knowledge of the system, at all, I simply used that assumption as a point to discuss from. So far as I know, it could be either fantastic or crappy - I've seen both outcomes.



> Depending on the art, any of the above, in any mix, or none of them. There's really not a single way things go down in this sense… but my point was that it was more often (at least, in the successful systems, to use that term) an overall change to methodology (congruent and coherent).



I think we're arguing basically the same thing; you're just being clearer about it. When I say "effective" that sort of presupposes your description. I doubt a combination of styles would be effective without that shift, and any "divergence" from a single art that lacks that shift is typically nothing more than a renaming (I've seen that a few times in arts I've studied).



> Hmm… even the blending of principles isn't too often a recipe for success… it really is most commonly a new methodology, which might draw from other approaches, but makes them consistent and coherent in the new.



Agreed. That's why I included the word "effective".  Without bringing a consistent set of principles (or methodology) to the new system, it's unlikely to be an effective blending. Again, I think we're arguing the same thing..



> Oh, I got what you meant… and my point was that it's not really about the person themselves. You can get individuals who can make the most bizarre mix "work" through sheer natural talent and skill… but the system itself is still just as troubled… which shows when anyone other than that gifted person tries to make it functional.



I wasn't talking about the individual's ability to _use_ the new system, but their ability to _create_ it. You are correct, of course, that even a poorly-developed system may work for one person (especially the person who put it together) and not for another (especially someone without significant background to be able to overcome the system's limitations). I was thinking more on the order of someone who is talented at building a unified whole from what they've learned, which can be irrespective of their ability to perform (to some extent). An average technician can be above average at the synthesis process needed, and the latter is more likely in my experience to be able to deliver any system to the next generation of instructors (to me, the real test of a system).

For the most part, I think we're in agreement, Chris. There is a unification (principles, methodology, etc.) that has to exist for the synthesis to be effective. Without that, it's just someone taking a hot-melt glue gun to pieces extracted from different sources.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

