Diffrence between Brazilian JiuJitsu, Japanese JiuJitsu and Judo

[Mider1985]

I was looking for good schools that taught good martial arts in general and i had read about how Brazilian Jiujitsu was a complete system that INCLUDED strikes, kicks, throws, and of course groundwork, I read the same thing at the Gracie Academy of BJJ run by the Valente Brothers this school is a 4th level BJJ school like the HQ of Gracie BJJ.

One of the Brothers also told me that originally BJJ incorperated strikes, throws, kicks, strikes etc etc, but that sadly alot of BJJ gyms today only focus on the ground work which is sports BJJ they teach the combat BJJ which is for the street and self defense.

My question is whats the diffrence between BJJ Japanese Jiu Jitsu and Judo. Or does Brazilian Jiujitsu incorperate all the techniques of Judo and Jiujitsu then adds the groundfighting which seems unserpassed except by sambo

 

[SensibleManiac]

A simple answer is they are the same except BJJ focuses mostly on the ground (and most schools on sports BJJ) Japanese is more traditional and features strikes as well as a different methodology for teaching and training, (more formal) and Judo focuses more on standup grappling.
These of course are generalizations, there are some Judo schools that focus on more ground than others.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Mider1985,

I'm going to try to keep this brief, honestly!

Jujutsu (that's the correct spelling there, by the way) is a relatively modern term (post 1600's) used as a generic term for supplementary unarmed or lightly armed systems used by Samurai and other Japanese warriors, used in conjunction with Hada, Goho, Yawara, Wa, Koppo, Kosshi, Taijutsu, Yoroi Kumiuchi, Kattchu Yawara, Kogusoku, Goshinjutsu, Te, Gi, and many others, depending on the school, preference, specific traits, focus of the system, and more. As time went on, there became a range of "commoner's jujutsu", often originally stemming from samurai teaching a form of their arts to make money once wars went "out of fashion", as well as a number of systems developing based around this aspect (most earlier ones were based around weapon skills, as that is what was needed on a battlefield, the unarmed were backup systems). So jujutsu (Japanese) could mean almost anything, really.

In the late 1800's a man by the name of Kano Jigoro studied a number of these jujutsu systems, most notably Kito Ryu and Tenshin Shinyo Ryu, eventually forming his own concepts from these sources (and a few others), and formulating Kodokan Judo. He is reponsible for introducing and popularising the kyu/dan ranking system (taken from other areas of Japanese life, such as the game of Go) and coloured belts to indicate rank.

In the early 1900's he began sending a number of his top students out to spread the art, and one man named Maeda ended up in Brasil. Here he taught the Machodo family, and their cousins the Gracies. The youngest of the Gracie brothers was a weak and sickly child, named Helio, and was not allowed to train with the bigger brothers. But he would spy on their training, and practice what he saw privately. Eventually he was allowed into the training for real, and after Maeda was gone, Helio began exploring what he did in earnest. The Brasilians have a penchant for ground work, so that became a large focus for whta would become known as BJJ. But it's relaly Judo with a different focus.

As to BJJ being a complete system, well, that is a matter of opinion. Bear in mind that the teacher of a system will always turn things to a more positive light in regard to their art, and that cannot always be treated on face value. For example, BJJ has very little in the way of striking, minimalist weapon defence, no weapon use, not be the best idea against a group, and puts you in a very dangerous place for a lot of street defence (small caveat, this can change depending on the instructor, but if it is too different from this, it is often the instructor supplementing with outside exploration, as Kano did and Helio did). There is also no intuition or awareness taught as a general rule, outside of within the fight itself.

But complete systems can be very hard to come across, if not completely impossible. Each art will be based on it's personal philosophy, and that will limit what it will have. For example, my art is an old Japanese survival-orientated system, so we have standup grappling, throws, chokes, limb controls (joint locks), strikes, kicks, defence against all of the above, use of weapons and defence against weapons, intuition and awareness skills and drills, group defence and more. But there is no competitive aspect at all, and you need to find an instructor who can take the old-style attacks and strategies/tactics and get them to apply against modern attacks. But it works for me, maybe BJJ is best for you, or maybe something completely different.

Hope this has cleared a few things up.

 

[Draven]

My question is whats the diffrence between BJJ Japanese Jiu Jitsu and Judo. Or does Brazilian Jiujitsu incorperate all the techniques of Judo and Jiujitsu then adds the groundfighting which seems unserpassed except by sambo

Judo comes in three major forms;
Kodokan Judo; The origional format that included Atemi-Waza (striking technques) with throws, takedowns, groundfighting and joint locks.
Sport or Olympic Judo; Which avoids the kata and striking techniques of Kodokan judo based on the rules of competition. Its also based on a less combative form of "school boy judo" taught in public schools like the west has wrestling teams.
Police Judo; is a heavily focused off shoot of Kodokan Judo that focuses more an ground grappling & joint locks that is used by LEOs in Japan.

Gracie Jiu-jutsu; is an off shoot of Sport Judo with influencing from Wrestling & Boxing which adds to the focus of fighting on the ground.
Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu; as you said is often an off shoot of GJJ, though some Brazilians have mixed Judo with Sub-wrestling to attatch themselves to the Gracie Fame & some are off shoots so...

Japanese Jujustu; comes in several forms...
Different schools of jujutsu have different focuses and some have heavy striking focus, other joint-locks and still some focus on groundfighting and controls. All JJJ schools have components striking, throws, takedowns, joint-locks, stand up & groundfighting but it depends largely on which individual school do those components come into focus.

 

[frank raud]

Judo comes in three major forms;
Kodokan Judo; The origional format that included Atemi-Waza (striking technques) with throws, takedowns, groundfighting and joint locks.
Sport or Olympic Judo; Which avoids the kata and striking techniques of Kodokan judo based on the rules of competition. Its also based on a less combative form of "school boy judo" taught in public schools like the west has wrestling teams.
Police Judo; is a heavily focused off shoot of Kodokan Judo that focuses more an ground grappling & joint locks that is used by LEOs in Japan.


Just for clarification, there is only one judo, Kodokan judo. There may be different emphasis put on techniques, but it is all Kodokan judo. The IJF may set the rules for Olympic competition, but it is Kodokan judo. The various NGB may empahasis kata or not, but what is taught is Kodokan judo.

 

[Steve]

Judo comes in three major forms;
Kodokan Judo; The origional format that included Atemi-Waza (striking technques) with throws, takedowns, groundfighting and joint locks.
Sport or Olympic Judo; Which avoids the kata and striking techniques of Kodokan judo based on the rules of competition. Its also based on a less combative form of "school boy judo" taught in public schools like the west has wrestling teams.
Police Judo; is a heavily focused off shoot of Kodokan Judo that focuses more an ground grappling & joint locks that is used by LEOs in Japan.


Just for clarification, there is only one judo, Kodokan judo. There may be different emphasis put on techniques, but it is all Kodokan judo. The IJF may set the rules for Olympic competition, but it is Kodokan judo. The various NGB may empahasis kata or not, but what is taught is Kodokan judo.

Is that true? I'm certainly not an expert on judo, but it seems as though I've read about a distinction between modern/post WWII judo and pre WWII judo. I've also read about Kosen Judo, my impression being that it's intended to be as close to Kano's original art as possible.

As an aside, your post reminded me of this brief conversation I had with a BJJ black belt. We were talking about Josh Barnett and he mentioned that Barnett's jiu-jitsu was pretty good. I said, "Isn't Barnett a catch wrestling guy?" His response, "It's all jiu-jitsu. If it works, it's good jiu jitsu. You can call it whatever you want."

While I think it's interesting, the practical difference between some arts, such as Catch Wrestling, Sambo and BJJ, have less to do with technique than with mentality and philosophy. Sure, there is an emphasis in Sambo on leg locks, and catch wrestling includes many great neck cranks, but the real difference between the three styles is more about intent. A catch wrestler will not willingly cede top position. He will fight for it, while a BJJ guy might actually draw a person into his guard, choosing to fight from bottom.

But all that aside, on a strictly practical level, I think you will find that japanese jujutsu schools as a whole will be more comprehensive in their curriculum, including strikes, kicks, joint locks, throws and perhaps weapons. They will often be formal and sparring may or may not be a part of the curriculum, with very little to no competitive element.

Judo, as typically taught, includes some formality, teaches very little if any striking and emphasizes at best a balance between standing grappling and groundfighting or newaza. There is an active competitive element to judo if you desire it. Randori/sparring is integral to the training.

BJJ as typically taught tends to be pretty informal. Very little in the way of ritual, and your gear or kit centers on function over style. Where in Judo, you will most often see an unadorned white or blue gis, in BJJ you will seldom see an unadorned gi. While in international competition you will only see white, blue or black gis, outside of that there's no telling. Purple, yellow, even tie-dyed gis... I've seen them all.

So, basically, what are you looking for? What suits your personality? My own opinion is that the best, most effective martial art for you is the one that you will continue to train in over a long period of time, the one you enjoy. Everything else is extra.

 

[jarrod]

there are hundreds of styles of jujitsu, as well as different streams of thought within judo & bjj. generally speaking though, bjj will focus a lot on the ground, judo will focus a lot on throws & should have at least a little groundwork, & japanese jujitsu could be just about anything. then there are modern jujitsu styles founded in america which derive from japanese jujitsu &/or judo (american jujitsu, danzan ryu, seizan ryu, shingitai jujitsu...).

anyway to answer your question, bjj schools usually don't teach many if any of the throws contained in judo. rather they have taken judo groundwork to a very advanced level.

jf

 

[jarrod]

Is that true? I'm certainly not an expert on judo, but it seems as though I've read about a distinction between modern/post WWII judo and pre WWII judo. I've also read about Kosen Judo, my impression being that it's intended to be as close to Kano's original art as possible.

As an aside, your post reminded me of this brief conversation I had with a BJJ black belt. We were talking about Josh Barnett and he mentioned that Barnett's jiu-jitsu was pretty good. I said, "Isn't Barnett a catch wrestling guy?" His response, "It's all jiu-jitsu. If it works, it's good jiu jitsu. You can call it whatever you want."

While I think it's interesting, the practical difference between some arts, such as Catch Wrestling, Sambo and BJJ, have less to do with technique than with mentality and philosophy. Sure, there is an emphasis in Sambo on leg locks, and catch wrestling includes many great neck cranks, but the real difference between the three styles is more about intent. A catch wrestler will not willingly cede top position. He will fight for it, while a BJJ guy might actually draw a person into his guard, choosing to fight from bottom.

kosen isn't even a seperate style. as i recall, it was a method of kodokan instruction which focused on groundwork initially in order to make newer judoka competitive with more advanced opponents in a short amount of time, since it usually takes less time to be proficient at groundwork than throws. police judo just includes the non-competition techniques of kodokan judo.

recently i competed in the first freestyle judo nationals, which is just a new ruleset judo. still judo though.

i think you are right about intent & philosophy. & that can vary from school to school, which makes this sort of question hard to address.

jf

 

[frank raud]

Is that true? I'm certainly not an expert on judo, but it seems as though I've read about a distinction between modern/post WWII judo and pre WWII judo. I've also read about Kosen Judo, my impression being that it's intended to be as close to Kano's original art as possible.

Has judo evolved? Yes. It is still Kodokan judo. Has the emphasis changed with judo becoming an Olympic sport(in 1964)? Yes. And it is still Kodokan judo.

Was KOSEN judo intended to be as close to Kano's original art as possible? No. KOSEN was a subset of Kodokan judo with an emphasis on newaza, ground work. The glory days of KOSEN were during Kano's lifetime, if KOSEN was the ideal that Kano wanted, he would not have changed the competition rules to minimize newaza in a competition. Kano believed in a balance between kata, standing techniques and groundwork. KOSEN focused predominately on groundwork, not in keeping with Kano's ideas. But it still was Kodokan judo.

 

[Nolerama]

To the OP: find a school that fits you. Then develop MA interests from there.

You're never going to start your journey if you sit at the beginning and wonder what to do.

 

[Steve]

Has judo evolved? Yes. It is still Kodokan judo. Has the emphasis changed with judo becoming an Olympic sport(in 1964)? Yes. And it is still Kodokan judo.

Was KOSEN judo intended to be as close to Kano's original art as possible? No. KOSEN was a subset of Kodokan judo with an emphasis on newaza, ground work. The glory days of KOSEN were during Kano's lifetime, if KOSEN was the ideal that Kano wanted, he would not have changed the competition rules to minimize newaza in a competition. Kano believed in a balance between kata, standing techniques and groundwork. KOSEN focused predominately on groundwork, not in keeping with Kano's ideas. But it still was Kodokan judo.

LOL. Like I said, you remind me of that BJJ black belt. If you practice Judo, it's all Judo. If you practice BJJ, it's all BJJ. And to many judoka, BJJ stands for Basically Just Judo.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Kosen Judo is not a style per say, it was the Judo Curriculem taught in middle and high school before WW2.

It focused more on groundwork because you don't need as high a quality of mats for groundwork, you develope joint locking skills easier on the ground (you can actually fight for them and against them) and you bnuild good attributes and attitude for later , further Judo study.