# Judo vs sport vs street vs combat?



## The Master (Jan 15, 2008)

Judo vs sport vs street vs combat

In 1902, Barton-Wright wrote: "Judo and jujitsu were not designed as primary means of attack and defence against a boxer or a man who kicks you, but were only to be used after coming to close quarters, and in order to get to close quarters it was absolutely necessary to understand boxing and the use of the foot."

An interesting quotation from one who founded his own art over 100 years ago.

An expert of a hundred years past, found jujutsu and judo lacking and felt the need to enhance them by combining them with arts from Britain, France and Switzerland. What did he find so lacking in such a perfect art I wonder?

Judo of course is a wonderful art. Originating in Japan in the 1890's by Kano Jigoro, it is a grappling art with it's foundation in several older jujustu schools. It's currently a recognized Olympic sport, and there in is the challenge. An art taught as a sport is a difficult transition to a street or combat environment, especially one where attackers do not politely wait their turn nor attack when you are prepared. Life is not the movies.

So, being one unfamiliar with much of the modern ideals of Judo, how or even can it prepare you to safely and effectively handle multiple simultaneous committed attackers?

What say you to some taninzu-gake?
I shall await reply, and the Saké.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 21, 2008)

"how or even can it prepare you to safely and effectively handle multiple simultaneous committed attackers?"

It can't, but neither can any other art, so that is not much of a drawback.

Much of Barton-Wright's ideas on what needed to be added to Judo/Jiu Jitsu could be qualified as adapting it to a western framework, ie, it would be more common to be attacked by someone with experience or familiarity with boxing or european style wrestling than by another judoka. Also keep in mind, he was not promoting judo/jiu jitsu, but his own art Bartitsu. Therefore, the Japanese arts would be explained as lacking, with Bartitsu being the "complete" art.


----------



## The Master (Jan 22, 2008)

A week later and only one answers the challenge? A pity. From the postings of some others here, one would expect Judo to be the ultimate martial art, and that replying to my query would be but child's play to them.  Their inability to formulate a suitable reply shows that they have much still to learn.



> It can't, but neither can any other art, so that is not much of a drawback.



I disagree. Arts that teach methods to divide, to stagger, to pace out attackers can give you the preparation needed. Their practicality however in a particular situation varies.



> Much of Barton-Wright's ideas on what needed to be added to Judo/Jiu Jitsu could be qualified as adapting it to a western framework, ie, it would be more common to be attacked by someone with experience or familiarity with boxing or european style wrestling than by another judoka. Also keep in mind, he was not promoting judo/jiu jitsu, but his own art Bartitsu. Therefore, the Japanese arts would be explained as lacking, with Bartitsu being the "complete" art.



A true observation. One can hardly expect the creator to minimise his own creation to boost a predecessor.


----------



## exile (Jan 22, 2008)

The Master said:


> Their inability to formulate a suitable reply shows that they have much still to learn.



:lol: 

And this will be all the more difficult for them if they've _stopped_ learning somewhere along the way...

My impression is that none of the traditional MAs, much less the martial sports derived from those arts, were intended to provide combat techniques specifically designed to handle multiple attackers. But that point may have become somewhat clouded by the use of choreographed demos showing these technique sets being used impressively against multiple (sometimes even _armed_ multiple) attackers. A lot of people who should know better, I sometimes think, confuse the showmanship that various arts use to promote themselves with techniques that are effective against noncompliant attackers in real situations&#8212;techniques which are, typically, the heart of the forms/drills making up the core curriculum of the TMAs.

I suspect that there's probably a way to apply judo so that it has damaging street-effective applicability against an attack by one assailant (someone I mentioned this point to very recently laughed when I said this and replied `Yeah, there is&#8212;it's called jiujutsu!'). I have a very hard time picturing how on earth it could possibly be any more effective than&#8212;or even _as_ effective as&#8212;anything else against multiple attackers. My own guess is that the most important aspect of getting away from a gang of assailants (which is about the best you can hope for) is, _stay upright_. And while the karate-based striking arts and many CMAs make a major point of that, it's not exactly a core principle of judo, where ne-waza techs are a big part of the syllabus. So while I'm not putting judo down in the least, I don't see how it could possibly be taken as the last word in street SD in multiple-assailant situations...


----------



## frank raud (Jan 23, 2008)

The Master said:


> I disagree. Arts that teach methods to divide, to stagger, to pace out attackers can give you the preparation needed. Their practicality however in a particular situation varies.


 
Arts that teach such methods(such as....?) do not have you safely and effectively handle multiple simultaneous committed attackers, they have you take on multiple attackers individually, with the increased risk of being assaulted by an additional attacker. You cannot pace out and have multiple simultaneous attackers, it is a contradiction,and a major flaw in your reasoning.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 23, 2008)

> Arts that teach such methods(such as....?) do not have you safely and effectively handle multiple simultaneous committed attackers, they have you take on multiple attackers individually, with the increased risk of being assaulted by an additional attacker. You cannot pace out and have multiple simultaneous attackers, it is a contradiction,and a major flaw in your reasoning.


 
It seems you are playing a semantics game.  If I have 2-3 opponents and move to put one in between the other two I only have "one attacker" at that point, but I still have multiple opponents.  So, you can use strategic placement to buy yourself more time.

If you are so critical of multiple opponents/attackers what do you suggest?  Roll over for them or do you have something that you would attempt to survive?


----------



## frank raud (Jan 23, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> It seems you are playing a semantics game. If I have 2-3 opponents and move to put one in between the other two I only have "one attacker" at that point, but I still have multiple opponents. So, you can use strategic placement to buy yourself more time.
> 
> If you are so critical of multiple opponents/attackers what do you suggest? Roll over for them or do you have something that you would attempt to survive?


 

Please note the words "safely and effectively" as well as "simultaneously".

Anyone suggesting multiple attackers can be handled in a "safe" manner, or dealt with  "effectively" is peddling BS. The only effective way to handle multiple committed attackers is to find/make an opening, and run.

When and if you are able to split up, or cause the attackers to line up, or block each other, do you still have multiple attackers? Yes. Are they simultaneuos? No. I don't believe I am twisting the wording of the OP, as much as pointing out the fallacy of his statement. No art can teach you to safely and effectively combat multiple committed simultaneous combatants.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 23, 2008)

It's easy to armchair and point to Door Number 1 and say, "Tae Kwon Do is a striking art," Door Number 2 and say, "Escrima is a weapons art" and Door Number Three and say "Judo is a throwing art."

To say these things is not necessarily untrue - but not necessarily complete in their description of the arts themselves.

A sixth degree I know and love insists that Judo was the first Asian martial art taught to the US military for it's hand-to-hand and combat applications.  Higher ranks do cover disarming, striking, weaponry according to my source.

Here's a video of Mifune. Towards the end you can see some stand-up against weapons and strikes - they are basic and outdated, to be sure, but it is an example that Judo contains more than just throwing.  You'll see the classic armbar in there along with some other popular MMA and jujitsu moves, chokes, etcetera.

I know there's footage out there somewhere of a multiple attacker demonstration ... but I don't know if it's on the internet or not.

Me, I think I'll remain here in tutelage for Ahm Tsare Do.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 23, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> .
> 
> A sixth degree I know and love insists that Judo was the first Asian martial art taught to the US military for it's hand-to-hand and combat applications.


He is correct A.C. Smith taught judo at Ft Benning from 1917-1918. W. E. Fairbairn was a 2nd dan in Kodokan judo(his diploma was signed by Jigoro Kano himself). Dermott"paddy" O'neill was a 5th dan in judo before he taught the Devil's Brigade. Most miltary combatives was based on judo until quite recently.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 23, 2008)

frank raud said:


> He is correct A.C. Smith taught judo at Ft Benning from 1917-1918. W. E. Fairbairn was a 2nd dan in Kodokan judo(his diploma was signed by Jigoro Kano himself). Dermott"paddy" O'neill was a 5th dan in judo before he taught the Devil's Brigade. Most miltary combatives was based on judo until quite recently.


Here's a link to a reference.  I have a book my teacher gave me with pictures in it of him as a very young man in tournament against the USAF judo team.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 23, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Here's a link to a reference. I have a book my teacher gave me with pictures in it of him as a very young man in tournament against the USAF judo team.


 
http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncframe.htm An earlier link from the same site.


----------



## theletch1 (Jan 23, 2008)

A little on the history of the USMC close quarters combat methods:

*This Training continued to evolve up to World War II. Those who had taught the inter-war years were joined by Marines such as Captain Stephen Stavers and Corporal John J. Styers. As World War II burst upon the Corps, individuals and units were developing specialized training based upon the experiences of Marines from the inter-war years, this included exposure by Marines that were stationed overseas, who had the opportunity to study far eastern martial arts systems such as judo, karate, and jujitsu. Additionally, the techniques of Major Dermot O'Neill and Lieutenant Colonel Rex Applegate were introduced to Marine units and all of these were employed by Marines during the Island Hopping Campaigns. Additionally, the rapid expansion of the Marine Corps saw a refinement to our character and leadership programs*

You can find the full article here.
When I studied the old LINE system in the Corps it still carried alot of the judo aspect with the addition of a killing blow at the end of each technique...hey, it was old Corps.:supcool:


----------



## matt.m (Feb 24, 2008)

The Master said:


> Judo vs sport vs street vs combat
> 
> In 1902, Barton-Wright wrote: "Judo and jujitsu were not designed as primary means of attack and defence against a boxer or a man who kicks you, but were only to be used after coming to close quarters, and in order to get to close quarters it was absolutely necessary to understand boxing and the use of the foot."
> 
> ...


 

Well, I am a 2nd dan in Yudo.  I never lost in grade or high school in competition on the mat.  I was on the All Marine Judo team where I won 33 gold and 2 silver medals for them.  I won the East Coast, West Coast, National, U.S., World, European, and Pan Am All Military games in my weight class.

So being an instructor as well as a well versed competitor I find you inquiry a bit disturbing.  It seems to me as though I were to go to an MMA board for example and ask them to substantiate what it is they practice.

But getting back onto point.  Yudo/Judo is a brutal form of self-defense that cripples people easily.  Really, the old saying "That everyone can wrestle." is readily apparent in arts such as Yudo and Hapkido.  Redirection to a bone crushing follow through.  Honestly I want someone to run up to me or grab me if they are going to attack me.  I welcome that kind of thing with open arms, no pun intended.  Plus.....many, many, many women have had exceptional success in arts like Yudo, Hapkido, Aikido......why?  It is simple, they are based on the water wheel and re-directing someone else's energy to put them on the ground.  It's all about technique, the more you practice the more successful you are.

If you teach the art as the art and do many reps to do the best you can you will always do well in competition.  Tae Kwon Do is much the same in it's ridicule.  However, I challenge anyone to try and devalidate the exceptional abilities of teaching the traditional art, the grace/power/strength.  The true meaning of each of the two arts, however.......too say that Yudo/Judo is not applicable to street or combat is just laughable.

By the way I have been in hand to hand combat on 4 continents and 1 island while serving my country from 1992-1997.  So it's all about the school and the way that it teaches.  I have seen schools that were lacking and ones that were exceptional.  Also, everything in between.  However, I will say that Yudo/Judo is quite a remarkable form of self defense. 

Just my .02


----------



## matt.m (Feb 24, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> A little on the history of the USMC close quarters combat methods:
> 
> *This Training continued to evolve up to World War II. Those who had taught the inter-war years were joined by Marines such as Captain Stephen Stavers and Corporal John J. Styers. As World War II burst upon the Corps, individuals and units were developing specialized training based upon the experiences of Marines from the inter-war years, this included exposure by Marines that were stationed overseas, who had the opportunity to study far eastern martial arts systems such as judo, karate, and jujitsu. Additionally, the techniques of Major Dermot O'Neill and Lieutenant Colonel Rex Applegate were introduced to Marine units and all of these were employed by Marines during the Island Hopping Campaigns. Additionally, the rapid expansion of the Marine Corps saw a refinement to our character and leadership programs*
> 
> ...


 

Well just to substantiate what my main man said. "I was shown what my grandfather learned as a Marine going to the Korean war.  My pop is a 5th dan in Hapkido, a lot of similiarities......In the early 90's I was taught L.I.N.E., I eventually became a certified instructor.  It was very hapkido/Japanese JiuJitsu/Judo based.

Please, challenge the USMC's record in combat.  I was not a Sergeant in "The World's Finest." for no reason.  Plus, you don't get that title for no reason, plus Gen. John A. LeJeune who led the U.S.M.C. and Army in France were given the title "Tuefelhunden" by the Germans, when translated this means "Devil Dog".  Ya don't believe me read up on the battle of Belleau Wood in WWI.  The Marines were awarded the Croix DeGere, the french equivilant of the Congressional Medal of Honor in the U.S.

It is pure fear not bravado that your opponent gives titles to their enemies like that.  We would always cross train with the French Foreign Legion, Canadians, British, Spainards, etc. in N.A.T.O. and U.N. operations.  They brought their countries flags, we brought our Marine Corps standard.  

Oh, and I am great friends with a Black belt in the MCMAP program which is the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.  He and I have trained together and they have became more advanced in their aggression techniques which are very much Yudo/Hapkido orientated.  The good ol' crippling and killing techniques.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 24, 2008)

frank raud said:


> Please note the words "safely and effectively" as well as "simultaneously".
> 
> Anyone suggesting multiple attackers can be handled in a "safe" manner, or dealt with "effectively" is peddling BS. The only effective way to handle multiple committed attackers is to find/make an opening, and run.
> 
> When and if you are able to split up, or cause the attackers to line up, or block each other, do you still have multiple attackers? Yes. Are they simultaneuos? No. I don't believe I am twisting the wording of the OP, as much as pointing out the fallacy of his statement. No art can teach you to safely and effectively combat multiple committed simultaneous combatants.


 
I am sorry if I offend you sir but I must ask the following question...."Are you off your meds?????"   Interestly enough I have 4 months of house to house fighting and riot control where we Marines were quite outnumbered and we couldn't just shoot anyone we wanted just because.

I used a lot of four corners, side kick, hapkido cane and locks.......However, with good practiced footwork you and divide and conquer.  It isn't that hard.  It just takes reps........too many times the only thing that separates the victory from the loser is "Conviction of winning."  Psychologist call it fight or flight.  "Look, if you don't practice like you would fight then you will indeed loose.  Also, if you don't fight with commitment to throwing or performing the technique then it is useless. Period, end of story.

I wonder why fighting mulitple attackers an inplausibility?  It is easy to do, if you train for it.


----------



## frank raud (Feb 25, 2008)

matt.m said:


> I am sorry if I offend you sir but I must ask the following question...."Are you off your meds?????" Interestly enough I have 4 months of house to house fighting and riot control where we Marines were quite outnumbered and we couldn't just shoot anyone we wanted just because.
> 
> I used a lot of four corners, side kick, hapkido cane and locks.......However, with good practiced footwork you and divide and conquer. It isn't that hard. It just takes reps........too many times the only thing that separates the victory from the loser is "Conviction of winning." Psychologist call it fight or flight. "Look, if you don't practice like you would fight then you will indeed loose. Also, if you don't fight with commitment to throwing or performing the technique then it is useless. Period, end of story.
> 
> I wonder why fighting mulitple attackers an inplausibility? It is easy to do, if you train for it.


 

Excellent example of fighting multiple opponents. Different context than the original poster's example,if I am reading you correctly. You, as Marines were going house to house to establish control of an area, is that correct? I am not minimizing what you did by any means, just trying to fully comprehend.

Divide and conquer? Excellent strategy,however as I have already been accused of semantics for the use of language on this thread, lets get a definition of simultaneous:
*simultaneous (adj)*

*Synonyms*: *concurrent*, immediate, instantaneous, real-time, synchronized, coinciding, coincident

*Antonym*: *separate*

So according to a dictionary, the opposite of simultaneous is separate. If you "divide and conquer", are you not creating separate attackers? Still multiples, but separate events, however closely linked?

So when I said "Anyone suggesting multiple attackers can be handled in a "safe" manner, or dealt with "effectively" is peddling BS. The only effective way to handle multiple committed attackers is to find/make an opening, and run.

When and if you are able to split up, or cause the attackers to line up, or block each other, do you still have multiple attackers? Yes. Are they simultaneuos? No " was I in complete disagreeance with you?  Do you think that perhaps having the option of a gun "Interestly enough I have 4 months of house to house fighting and riot control where we Marines were quite outnumbered and we couldn't just shoot anyone we wanted just because." might also make a difference over the original post scenario of defending yourself strictly with judo against MULTIPLE COMMITTED SIMULATANEOUS ATTACKERS?

Matt, you took offense to the original post. I believe that was the intention.

Curiousity question, Matt. In your house clearing riot control scenario, would you feel adequately prepared with ONLY your martial arts training and no military training in house clearing, crowd control,scouting, communications, etc?
I realize you come from a long line of military men(and that is something to be proud of), but try to analyze the original presented scenario with your military background.

Or phrase it a different way. IF you could not divide and conquer by separating your attackers(a swarming  or a boot party as an example), do you feel your yudo training would safely and effectively(which I understand to mean you wouldn't get hurt) against something like this?


----------



## matt.m (Feb 25, 2008)

frank raud said:


> Excellent example of fighting multiple opponents. Different context than the original poster's example,if I am reading you correctly. You, as Marines were going house to house to establish control of an area, is that correct? I am not minimizing what you did by any means, just trying to fully comprehend.
> 
> Divide and conquer? Excellent strategy,however as I have already been accused of semantics for the use of language on this thread, lets get a definition of simultaneous:
> *simultaneous (adj)*
> ...


 

Here is where you are mistaken......in battle you have to accept that you will be hurt, at the least somewhat.  I have been around the M.A.'s of Yudo, Hapkdo, and Tae Kwon Do as well as sword arts since 1978.  I am an 80 percent disabled war time Marine Veteran.  I am highly trained in fighting with a cane and have to wear 2, custom fit titanium leg braces.  Dude, honestly I have seen and beat the best at the time.  Honestly, no offense but you have no idea what you are talking about........remember I said without commitment you will lose quickly for sure.  If you are sure and level headed you may get hurt but it will be minimal.

I love it when people talk about military combat and have never went to war.  This seems to me that you are goading me.  Your comment 
"Matt, you took offense to the original post. I believe that was the intention." is audacious at best.  If you have never had to fight for your life with only a shanai and a k-bar then don't speak.  Really, plus being in charge of the welfare of those who are your subordinates is an extra stressor.  Let me ask you "Have you ever opened a letter from someone's mother asking the following: 'Sgt. Morton, please do the best you can to keep my son safe'".

Wow, to answer your question directly, Yes, I know for absolute certainty that my Yudo and Hapkido will without a doubt save my life in combat.  It is called commitment and resolve.  I have 32 medals, mostly combat, meritorious, and presidential in nature.  If you are willing to accept the fact that you are going to take some lumps against multiple attackers then winning is easy, it like I said before is all about commitment and resolve.  Let's see, I been there done that and got the t-shirt in Haiti, I helped rescue Scott O'Grady, Combat in Tunisia, Israel, Albania, Turkey, During Operation Purple Star happened "Dual CH-53 collision" over Camp Lejeune happened I waded into the Atlantic while getting beat to pieces pulling my dead brothers out of the water.  I survived a 1500 ft. helicopter crash in Liberia during a combat mission.  I was one of only 4 who survived the crash and with a broken back I still killed the people coming to get us before the Cobra's could come from the U.S.S. Saipan and get us.

Again, it is all about commitment and resolve.  I assure you pal, I don't like being goaded as you did to me.  Especially with the absolute certainty you did to me.

I bid you a good day.


----------



## swiftpete (Feb 25, 2008)

I couldn't imagine any martial art could prepare anyone for that. How does anyone defend against 12 people kicking their head in? 
He even tried running away but that didn't work as there were just too many of them and they swarmed from all angles. He was just lucky to get away with his face in one piece.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Feb 25, 2008)

People come outy on top in multiple assults all the time, it happens, it happens more when the person attacked has some training or is a good fighter with good awarenss. It also helps if your attackers are not expeirenced at mobbing someone, or have bad tactics.
Sometimes multiple attackers do come 1 at a time, because the enviroment dictates it or with fist, feet and objects flying they dnt want to get hit in the pileup. I have seen ths a few times and expeireinced it myself as the victum, but also when a few of us as teens decided that an adult (and big) crackhead, that threatend to rape a local girp, needed a beat down and a warrning to move.
 There are also situations where a fight starts one on one and after their buddy is down, they decide they want in.
Is it likely to look like a Kung fu flick? No. Is it going to be easy? Probably not. Are you going to take some hits and be injured? Allmost deffinatly.
Are your odds good? Probably not, but if your in the situation, you dont just curl up and die (and at least trainig for it gives you better odds than not training for it. To quote fiction, but w\ritten by a man who survived the trenches of France "There is allways hope, untill there is none."-Arrogan, The Two Towrer.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Feb 25, 2008)

All the same, I have allso seen people bumrushed by a l;arge group and if your in that pile, you are in for it.

So many varibles, that's life.


----------



## frank raud (Feb 25, 2008)

I love it when people talk about military combat and have never went to war. This seems to me that you are goading me. Your comment 
"Matt, you took offense to the original post. I believe that was the intention." is audacious at best.

Hmm, must apologise. I used the word offense, you called it disturbing.

"So being an instructor as well as a well versed competitor I find you inquiry a bit disturbing. It seems to me as though I were to go to an MMA board for example and ask them to substantiate what it is they practice"

I believe the original poster is trolling for reactions,look at his second post

"A week later and only one answers the challenge? A pity. From the postings of some others here, one would expect Judo to be the ultimate martial art, and that replying to my query would be but child's play to them. Their inability to formulate a suitable reply shows that they have much still to learn."

Does that sound like a genuinely curious question, or someone who has carefully chosen their words to bait a response?

I didn't talk about military combat, I asked questions about it. So I am confused how it is that I goaded you. You provided a scenario with multiple opponents different than the original poster. I acknowledged that, and asked for some clarification on the differences between your scenario(real life) versus the hypothetical scenario originally offered. 

I commend you on your many medals and obvious courage and valour, you have given a lot for your country. 

If you feel that I am goading and baiting you, put me on ignore. Apparently you wont be missing much.


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2008)

[playnice]Carol Kaur[/playnice]


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Feb 25, 2008)

So am I to understand that Civillians should not discuss military combat?
That's what was just implied.

Never been in the service (got asthma, tried 3 times) but I was raised by a 3 tour vet, his Dad was a WW2 vet, most of my step dad's friends were Vietna and Korea vets. I always had an intrest in Military history, weapons and martial arts.

The dojo I train in was mostly made up of Marines (It started at Larson's gym in Quantico, we are Quantico Dojo and our Kai is Quantico Kai. the father of MCMAP studied in the Dojo for a number of years) before 9-11. Many of our students are retired Marines.
Our late sempai was in Spec ops for about 20 years of a 26 year carreer in the Army and a few of those who served with him also studied with us.
Our sensei trained LRRPs in the 60s while in the Army.

My late sempai, Col James Tirey,USA(ret) and I would discuss warfare alot and I did ask him if it botherd him talking with a civie about it. He said no, there are simularities between warfare and civillian fighting (and as he pointed out many differences). Maybe being SF (who's main job is to teach others to raise merry Hell) his outlook was different from an Infantry Marine, but most of the Marines I know do not have a problem talking with civs about it either.

True I am very respectfull and choose my words carefully and never goad or pry.

A few times I have run into the attitude that only Soldiers/Marines should talk of such things, but usually these are from guys who never saw the elephant either and have had less street fights than myself.

It would be prudent to remind everyone that there is a tradition of civillians fighting. Ask the Britts about what the backwoods men did to them. At the time the Brittish Army was the best in the World, yet civillians, not playing the line up and follow the rules approach to fighting had a great effect on the Brittish war effort (True it took a standing Army to win the war.)
Andrew Jackson had no formal training, yet the battle of New Orleans was won by him, over the same men who would fight with Wellington and bring down Napolean.
Many civillians fought in the Indian wars and played a big part in the conquest of the United States.
Military History and tactics are a good resource of study for a martial artist. Flanking, envelopement, feighning, deception, the willingness to close and kill an enemy, the understanding that you usually are better off counter attacking into an ambush instead of backing up, the Mantra of Speed+Surprise+Violence of action = chaos! are very relevent to the serious student of combat, of anykind.

Now I am quick to add that the study of warfare and KNOWING warfare are not the same. (and it's one of the many reasons I tried to enlist into combat arms, to see and feel it for myself.)
Many of the service members who have performed so well in Afghanastan, Iraq and Somlia had no combat exp. untill they went to war.
It was the training, based on the study of war, along with other qualities that helped these people perform so well.
Just as if things go Thunderdome here one day and I have to protect my family or my country, then I will stand to and do what I must do.
It's a dying American tradition.
Thanks to all of those who serve, fight the fight, give all and show the lessons learned.
God bless.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 25, 2008)

frank raud said:


> I love it when people talk about military combat and have never went to war. This seems to me that you are goading me. Your comment
> "Matt, you took offense to the original post. I believe that was the intention." is audacious at best.
> 
> Hmm, must apologise. I used the word offense, you called it disturbing.
> ...


 

Not only do I accept your apology with graciousness I will give you rep for consideration and humility.  I won't block you, I just misunderstood.  Thank you.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 25, 2008)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> So am I to understand that Civillians should not discuss military combat?
> That's what was just implied.
> 
> Never been in the service (got asthma, tried 3 times) but I was raised by a 3 tour vet, his Dad was a WW2 vet, most of my step dad's friends were Vietna and Korea vets. I always had an intrest in Military history, weapons and martial arts.
> ...


 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and appreciate the fact that you are choosy about wording.  However, I have several members of my family who had served in the Army and Marines.  My family were the Highlanders of Scotland and built the Presbyterian University.  Anyway, It is way different when hearing a story and being part of the situation where history is written.  I am glad you understand the difference.  Thank you as well for your considerate post.


----------



## Devon (Mar 5, 2008)

frank raud said:


> Much of Barton-Wright's ideas on what needed to be added to Judo/Jiu Jitsu could be qualified as adapting it to a western framework, ie, it would be more common to be attacked by someone with experience or familiarity with boxing or european style wrestling than by another judoka. Also keep in mind, he was not promoting judo/jiu jitsu, but his own art Bartitsu. Therefore, the Japanese arts would be explained as lacking, with Bartitsu being the "complete" art.



Correct on both counts. Bartitsu was intended as a process of cross-training between Japanese, French and English fighting styles and Barton-Wright advocated learning enough of any one style that it could be used to counter the others.

He recognized that it was more likely for his students in London to be attacked by someone with a boxing background, or by a savateur if they traveled to Paris, than by a jujitsuka. His specific advice was to assume a boxing guard and to use boxing defense against a boxer, but this was a ruse in order to close and counter with jujitsu, which was all but unknown except to his students at the time, and so was expected to be an effective "secret weapon".

The premise was that Bartitsu encompassed the best aspects of three styles of ko-ryu jujitsu, Kodokan judo, English boxing, savate and walking stick fighting.  However, within a couple of years Barton-Wright started feeling the heat from the overwhelming public interest in jujitsu and his "star" instructors, Yukio Tani and Sadakazu Uyenishi, who were making a big name for themselves as challenge wrestlers in the music hall circuit.  

When B-W wrote the article quoted in the OP he was kind of in damage control mode, stressing that while judo and jujitsu were excellent methods, they were only elements of the larger art of Bartitsu.  Unfortunately for him, shortly after that he had an argument and a fight with Yukio Tani;  Tani and Uyenishi left to pursue their own careers and Barton-Wright's Bartitsu Club closed down soon after that.

Within a couple more years, sporting magazines and newspapers stirred up a "boxing vs. jujitsu" debate and pretty soon after that promoters started staging boxing vs. judo/JJ matches.  Some of them were rigged, others seem to have been genuine contests.  The judomen usually won, but not as often as you might think, probably because the boxers were not required to wear gi jackets.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Mar 13, 2008)

The Master said:


> Judo vs sport vs street vs combat
> 
> In 1902, Barton-Wright wrote: "Judo and jujitsu were not designed as primary means of attack and defence against a boxer or a man who kicks you, but were only to be used after coming to close quarters, and in order to get to close quarters it was absolutely necessary to understand boxing and the use of the foot."
> 
> ...



Judo is great for self defense.


----------

