First off, Tez, knowing that you print off the longer posts as the screen isn't your favourite thing to stare at, I'd like to say sorry for the trees that you're about to sacrifice....
The Portugese names ROFL! My instructor is a dan graded Judoka (who competed a lot), when he teaches Judo we can see it's different from BJJ, we can do Judo chokes and we can do BJJ chokes, they are different. I have the books by Renzo and Royler Gracie and Renzo with John Donaher, so yes we are doing BJJ. As I said the BJJ instructors we know say it as well. To be honest we don't care what it's called as long as it works. Our name for it is 'effective'.
Hmm, just as confusion seems to be the order of the day with this thread, I'm going to address each bit of information as I go, which may mean my take on things changes once or twice during this post. We'll start with this part.
My question was "what makes what you train in BJJ, rather than Judo?", not to prove that what you did wasn't BJJ, or anything like that, it was to see what you use as definitions and classifications here, which I think we're getting towards. Cool. Before we get too far into that, it's probably best that I clarify what I use as well, to help fascilitate the conversation.
To me, a martial art, any martial art, is defined most by it's approach, something I've often referred to, or described as a guiding philosophy. It's from this guiding philosophy (which, to bring it towards the thread topic, is a direct result of the history of the system) that the techniques and training methods come. Now, you can learn these techniques in more of a "vacuum", which has been mentioned a few times here, but that to me is not learning the martial art. Learning the martial art is learning the approach of that art, of which the techniques are just one part.
For example, I've trained in BJJ myself in the past, including a seminar with Royce Gracie, and that training has helped inform a range of things that I do these days, particularly what works, and what is far less advisable, when it comes to ground fighting. There are a range of techniques that I learned there that I bring into our modern work when we focus on ground work, however when I do it, I am not doing BJJ. The reason is that, although the technical side may be pretty much identical, the approach to it isn't. We have a much higher focus on getting up, disengaging, and escape, rather than submission or control on the ground, for instance. The distinction is between doing techniques from BJJ and doing BJJ itself.
I guess the question would be, would you consider that you are actually doing BJJ, following their approach, intent, aims etc, or are you doing techniques from BJJ, as found in the books you have? Personally, I have no problem with either situation, and, for the record, I feel the latter is closer to the mark. And, honestly, that would make absolute sense to me, as BJJ techniques, especially their ground methods, their reversals, submissions, movement from position to position, I think is brilliant. The approach doesn't gel with me, but their techniques are fantastic.
Oh, but to get back to the history side of things, you mention that the chokes, for instance, are different from BJJ compared to Judo (as well as the somewhat different names going from Japanese to Portuguese...), that, my friend, would be down to the history of the system... so having an idea of where BJJ came from (Judo), what happened to it (introduced to a different environment and country, and developing into a specialisation) tells you about the changes in the chokes, as well as telling you which would be more "effective", based on the environment that they are intended to be used in.
We don't just 'do' MMA, we are a martial arts club, the traditional people don't always do MMA, that's just one of the things we do. If they did those kicks and I taught them it would be karate, if Sandy one of the others taught them is would be MT because we are instructors in those styles. At the moment we don't have an instructor in BJJ, we have had before but as you know we have a fluid membership.
I think this is the distinction I'm talking about. I'd say that, unless those students are learning Karate from you, or Muay Thai from Sandy, then yeah. If they are learning that kick in a different environment, though, such as in the MMA training sessions, and the individual mechanical technique is divorced from the rest of the system, and taught in it's own little vacuum, then it's learning a kick from Karate, it's not Karate itself. For one thing, the exact mechanics would need to be adjusted in small or larger ways to fit in with the greater situation (MMA), removing it even further from it's origins. The techniques are part of the arts, and part of learning the arts, when they are learnt in a greater context, not in separate bubbles. So I'd say they'd learn a kick which came from Karate, but they wouldn't be "doing" Karate when doing that kick.
I think people get annoyed at what they see as 'rogue' coaches and clubs, it can't possibly be the real thing unless it's endorsed by certain organisations or certain people, you have to belong to the in crowd before what you do is legitimate. We can't possibly do BJJ because we don't have a BJJ instructor at the moment, it must be wrestling or Judo. Oh well, as I said it's still effective.
To be fair, I don't think that's what Steve is meaning, and I know it's not what I'm saying either. For one thing, I'm not questioning any legitimacy to the techniques, or where they have been drawn from. I'm getting more to the idea of learning, training, and studying a martial art, as opposed to learning and applying techniques which have been taken from them. Basically, doing techniques from BJJ isn't the same as doing BJJ. Both approaches are legitimate, depending on what is claimed, and both are better suited to different circumstances. With the fluid membership and approach of "only if it's effective", I'd say that the approach of training the techniques, rather than the system, is the better one.
I understand your situation, I don't agree with your statement of not possibly doing BJJ because you don't have a BJJ instructor, that isn't true - btw, I got that. But none the less, not everyone teaching BJJ is at the same skill level, obviously does it really come down to a wink and a nob? Like you said, the importance lays, in the effectiveness. People forget when they get all caught up in to names, and labels and politics, that martial art from day one, absent of history and all of that junk, purpose was about effectiveness. Nothing else, plain and simple. If it isn't effective, no historical information, or category or any of that matters, why some may ask? It is because you would be dead or gravely injured.
No, effectiveness is a value that some people have, not an importance for martial arts. Added to that the detail that effectiveness is relative to the environment, and the argument begins to disappear. As for the contention that martial arts, from day one, (were) about effectiveness, uh, not universally, by a fair long shot. But again, you'd need to define what "effectiveness" means, as that is dependent on a range of different circumstances.
And it is because of that fact that in modern society places so much emphasis on the importance of historical information and other means of authenticity. You don't need to prove your martial art though combat any more, unless it is a street self defense situation. Meaning not like it was historically needed. So I invite everyone who really feels strongly that historical information and background on the authenticity of an art is far more important then it's effectiveness to prove that wrong.
I'm not sure where you get this "in modern society" idea from. And again, it comes down to the old classic of "it depends". It's far from a universal rule, and even further from being a "modern" trait. There are a range of approaches that make historical background and information far more important than what you're referring to as "effectiveness", really, top on the list being Koryu. And no, Koryu were not universally created because they were "effective" in the way you seem to imply either.
Historically that is true, Brits and Americans diverged, but that is because we Americans choose to. We were one at one time. But that is historical tracing, which has no bearing in either country being super powers; our military effectiveness. Historical information doesn't effect our applied might. BJJ has it's roots in Judo newaza, and when BJJ first came to the US, that historical fact made no difference in BJJ's effectiveness. Keep in mind I am thinking along your line of thought, about divergence. Both Judo and BJJ can trace be traced to Jujutsu. But when Judo proved its self against jujutsu, judo was accepted not because of the historical information. It was effective because of its effectiveness over jujutsu. Despite the fact Judo is a composite of variety of traditional battlefield jujutsus. Historically it can be said, BJJ is a variation of Jujutsu that can be traced to "koryu" jujutsus. True or not, it doesn't change any of the arts effectiveness. Like anything else at the end of the day it has to work.
Okay, Steve let this one go, but I'm going to argue a bit on it. First, Americans were never British, technically, they were Colonists. So it was not so much a split between Americans and British where the British living in America became American due to the War of Independance as it was a split between the American Colonies and the British Empire who they were a part of, but they were always, from settlement onwards, Americans. Next, the "military effectiveness" argument? Hmm, if you don't think that's to do with the history, you may want to revisit both how such "effectiveness" was attained, followed by how it was lost (in the case of the British Empire... note, I'm not saying the current British Military forces isn't effective, or incredibly good at what they do, just that the military might and power of the British Empire doesn't exist anymore, for reasons found in history...). The US Military is highly influenced by it's history, and is rightfully very protective and proud of such (as are other Military Forces around the world). Historical information absolutely does affect the might of the current Military (the history of the US giving it it's cultural psychology, which has a high emphasis and value on the military arm of it's power [just listen to the lyrics of the national anthem....], leading to political emphasis on it, the military in turn having a huge influence on political history and reality in the States, leading to more emphasis again, and much of the US self image being tied directly into the Military itself, and so on). So, no, the argument fails on that count.
When it comes to BJJ's effectiveness when it came to the US having nothing to do with it's origin in Judo's newaza, are you serious? The source of it's technical approach, further refined and developed over years in Brazil, and you think that had nothing to do with it's effectiveness? And Judo's acceptance wasn't really much to do with being "effective over Jujutsu"... for one thing, it was initially referred to as Kano-ha Jujutsu. Next, Kano was setting up "challenge matches" under rule sets that were unfamiliar to the Jujutsu schools he was challenging. But the main thing that lead to Judo's acceptance (and I'll also state that "acceptance" is not really the correct word here, mainstream adoption is probably better) was it's simplified approach compared to many Koryu systems (remember, Kano never got Menkyo Kaiden in his systems), which, combined with Kano's contacts and interest in education, lead to Judo being introduced to a number of levels of schooling in Japan. That's actually where the Kyu/Dan grading convention in Japanese martial arts comes from, as well as the idea of coloured belts. Kano would travel around holding seminars, and needed to be able to see at a glance the experience of the participants, so he knew who he could use as a demonstration dummy, whereas the Koryu (and other) systems around tended to be very singular, with a single dojo, and a single, or limited number of instructors. That allowed each instructor to be familiar with the skills of each student, so such ranking and belts weren't needed. And finally, the source schools of Judo are not "battlefield" systems per se, although Kito Ryu has retained some aspects of that. But Tenjin Shinyo Ryu certainly isn't. But in terms of Judo becoming popular not due to it's history, well, that's really not the point.
With BJJ tracing back to Koryu Jujutsu, well, yeah, but not really, to be honest. It traces to a system which traces to a few Koryu systems, which is not exactly the same thing. And in regards to it's effectiveness, and what effects that, well, that would be it's initial source material, and the development it went through in Brazil, including the forms of competition it encountered there. You know, it's history.
So because we don't currently have a BJJ instructor what we do is Judo, okay if it makes you all happy. When we do get one and we carry on doing what we are doing in exactly the same way it'll be BJJ again. Just because my instructor and others haven't got the magic BJJ belts it can't possibly be BJJ, well I can see that BJJ instructors would say that else how could they charge for gradings? I'm also guessing that all the BJJ people with real belts who have trained with us are lying when they say we do BJJ. We don't grade in anything so I guess we don't train anything either.
If I were learning Mandarin from a Mandarin speaker who wasn't a trained teacher does that mean I'm not learning Mandarin? It's only Mandarin when a specific organisation says it is. I tend to think if Royce Gracie was happy with our Jits (and he was) anyone should be, if not well we're not bovvered!
Don't worry, Tez, I know what "bovvered" means...
No, the thing that Steve and I are saying is that if you don't have someone teaching you the BJJ approach, with the techniques in a BJJ context, then it's not BJJ. Not that it's Judo, but that it's not BJJ, strictly speaking. The purple belt is basically an entry teaching rank, showing that enough of the approach of BJJ has been internalised by the student to begin passing it on. In terms of Royce saying that he was happy with it, from a technical point of view, I'm sure he was. And in terms of him referring to what he saw as "jits", well, that's what Royce sees, and what he was brought in to see. Same with the other BJJ belted practitioners that come through, they will see things through the context of their personal experience, and if you're using techniques drawn from BJJ, that's going to be seen.
With the teacher thing, no, learning Mandarin from a Mandarin speaker is learning Mandarin... but that analogy, doesn't really work here. The actual analogy would be if you are learning Mandarin from a Mandarin dictionary, you wouldn't necessarily be getting the grammar, the conjugation, the proper honorifics, and so on. So it'd be more learning Mandarin words, rather than to speak the language. Very interesting, but not in context. Now, what you can do, is take those words and apply them in context by integrating them into English sentences, most likely at a Chinese restaurant, or in China Town, or similar. But that's still different from learning the language.
Steve, I'm not in the least throwing a temper, I'm sat here with a box of choccies, very relaxed savouring my birthday, it's Mischief Night and I'm having fun, I'm off to watch a fireworks display shortly. so don't assign emotions to me that I'm not having! I'm not worked up, you don't accuse Chris of that when he writes his long posts. chill!
Why are you all so keen to say what we do isn't BJJ, why on earth do you care what we do? It's very amusing! I do actually have a belt in BJJ as does my instructor and a couple of others, colour of mine? Blue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNK-9v7_JI&feature=relmfu
Ah, happy birthday, Irene!
And what do you mean, long posts?
Oh.
Right.
Carry on.
I've not heard that Judo (Kano's judo, anyway) was built around an assumption of wearing armour. I know it derived from older jiu-jitsu methods, but I have never heard it still maintained an "armour-centric" approach. But hey, I'm not really up on the Japanese arts so I'm not gonna try and argue it.
Kano's Judo (the Kodokan) is the only Judo around (there was a Koryu system or two that used the term a century and a half before him, but that's fairly different). In terms of Judo being built around an assumption of wearing armour, uh, no it isn't. However, culturally, Japanese arts prefer grabbing over striking due to striking in armour being ineffective and dangerous for the most part (there are exceptions), and that has influenced the dominant grips found in Japanese methods. The standard "Judo grab", for instance, is known by a few different names in different systems, such as Kumi Uchi, and the right hand high originates from grabbing the shoulder straps, with the grab to the sleeve coming from the shoulder guards (sode). Variations include the left hand grabbing the belt (or both hands grabbing the belt), again present in armour, and both hands high, or both hands on the sleeves. Systems that don't deal with armoured origins as much have a different form of double lapel grab, where both hands are in the centre of the body, holding the folds of the kimono together. This prevented accessing hidden weapons, as well as being a more secure grip than the shoulder and sleeve in lighter kimono, which could rip when you tried to apply the techniques. Then there are methods from Kito Ryu preserved in the Judo methods, such as the Koshiki no Kata that Elder posted earlier, which is designed to be performed in armour. So while there isn't an armour-centric approach in Judo, it's methods betray such origins.
No argument from me that whatever we do now is a result of the history that was before.
I'll say a bit more about my own particular method. Our oral history traditions tell us that the seeds of our system took root when a Tibetan Lama witnessed a fight between a crane and a monkey. The Lama had prior martial experience, and witnessing this event planted some ideas in his head that he used to develop the fundamental methodology that later became the Tibetan White Crane system.
I do not believe this story is completely historical fact, but I believe there is some truth in it. While there is probably some historical fact that SOMEBODY in the past was watching and taking hints from the activities of Cranes, the story as it exists today is probably chock-full of embellishments.
I do not believe that this story was created later as a way of explaining the big sweeping movements. I do believe the crane itself did provide some direct inspiration for our training methods. I say this because I have found in the literature descriptions of crane behavior written by ornithologists and conservation biologists, people completely un-connected to the martial arts, that is found directly in our forms and techniques. When I find descriptions of aggressive crane behavior when defending the nest, and I can immediately recognize the same movements in our techniques and forms, it is clear to me that the crane is not merely metaphorical or allegorical in our system and history. That is something that I find fascinating.
So how does this relate to the discussion here? Well I suppose if the system had originated in Hong Kong, there may not have been the opportunity to observe the cranes and derive that inspiration. Perhaps the Tibetan Plateau provided for a unique environment for the right individual with the right mindset to recognize the possibilities inherent in what he was seeing. Living in a sparsely populated region, with a population of cranes that could be observed, provided the opportunity to develop our method. The wrong environment, like a crowded city, would have not given the opportunity to observe the cranes, and this source of inspiration would not have existed.
So in that sense, I suppose geography and terrain had an impact on the development of our system.
Yeah, such stories are typically as much symbolic as literal events, I've come across a range of systems that include such stories. What I was getting at with the terrain aspect, though, was that that was one aspect of the history of a system that, no matter where in the world it may be taught now, retains it's place with the only reason of "effectiveness" relating to it's earlier environment. You'd probably be surprised to know why a whole range of things are done in a range of systems, honestly, with some forms of walking (which might look odd) being based around the style of clothes worn at a certain period in time, or being specifically for a type of building at night, or for walking around a battlefield, so avoiding getting your feet stuck in the mud that is created by the combination of blood and other bodily fluids and the ground. I was just trying to use a simple, gross example.
Steve you seem awfully concerned about this where as frankly I don't really care, I was arguing with you because you seem so adamant that what we do is not BJJ and can't be because we don't belong to a BJJ organisation you recognise. You seem to be insistant on saying what we do isn't BJJ. It's irrestistble to pull your tail over this. I'm just saying a Gracie recognised it as such lol, we are a legitimate club we don't need validation from an association who rips you off, what we do works that's proof enough. If well respected BJJ graded people come to us to train and say we are doing BJJ that's good enough for all of us. It seems to worry you that we are 'rogue', that we don't belong to anyone, many martial arts clubs here don't. We just are, that makes us legitimate, not a seminar, not someone from an association taking money off us, we just. There's no governing body for MMA here, that just is too.
Belts don't necessarily make you good or a competent instructor look again at the 6 year old black belts, joining an association doesn't make you good, practice with good instructors does.
Again, I don't know that that is what Steve was getting at. Being a part of an association doesn't guarantee legitimacy, not being a part of doesn't preclude it.
As for it not being catch wrestling, I have a suspicion however what you know as catch wrestling may be different from we know it as.
http://sfuk.tripod.com/articles_02/lanccw_1.html
Dave is a very well respected martial artist here, he has his own organisation also well respected.
Now that is a very nice article (not entirely sure of the "Shaolin Chuan Fa" origin of Karate, although in a roundabout way it can be traced back there, I suppose...). And it really highlights a lot of my points, actually. It shows that Lancashire Catch is an approach, rather than a series of techniques, including an approach to the training itself (gotta love the "time" approach to things like squats... ha!). The techniques themselves can then be transplanted and put into other contexts, but unless you're training in that Lancashire Catch method, you're not training in Lancashire Catch.
In competitions those of ours who go in for them are graded and go in the appropriate group. We don't grade people but remember we have many people coming and going in our club and many have belts from other clubs and gyms so that at least should satisfy your need for 'legitimate' BJJers lol! We don't get to enter comps often our lads are usually matched in another fight, one that last six months in a hot sandy country.
Two of the people we do BJJ with, Jean is Brazilian. he's from Gracie Barra Luiz Barboza in Paraiba, fights out of London Shootfighters. So, theres a nice little history for you. :ultracool
Now we're getting more to it. So when Jean is teaching, he's more likely to be taking a BJJ class, with a BJJ approach, rather than a class that has BJJ techniques (which is really the distinction). So in these cases, that would most likely satisfy the idea of training in BJJ (for the record, I don't think there's been any claim that what you're doing isn't legitimate, just that the approach didn't match a BJJ approach, therefore it wasn't BJJ strictly speaking. That didn't mean it wasn't legitimate, though...).
Truth is, and don't tell Chris this, I only read every third paragraph in his posts.
(Just kidding, Chris. I am riveted by your posts)
Ha, well, truth is, only every third paragraph I put any effort into... hmm, was this number two or three? Eh, I lose count....
I disagree, you have dealt with your perspective, and how right your perspective is and how wrong those you deem wrong are - in your opinion. I sense a huge chip on your shoulder in regard to this. I am really cautious based on your view and your handling of this thread no to provide you any opportunity to personally attack me. Where then I will get really pissy and offended and fire back at you where we are both trying to discredit each other. Sorry, I am not joining that Rodeo. Been there done that, felt really stupid and childish, for getting down to that level of engagement. Too much negativity. The results are never good or resolves anything. Sorry, I will pass on that Chris, as I would rather suffer from your kicks of sand in my face than allowing myself to lose control. Because I know I will, I know I can, and if cornered can get really mean and nasty. I hope you know what they say about old tigers.
So, let's move on.
Just to finish, I'll come back to this.
John, I want to say this as clearly as I can. There is no chip on my shoulder. There is no opinion being offered in regard to what you do. I have given my perspective based on the information you have provided, as well as my schooling and background in these matters, and your posts are very lacking when it comes to martial arts history, Japanese arts, Japanese methodology, and Koryu. This is not a slight on your training, your ability, your knowledge of your system, your skills with it, your applicability of it, your teacher, or anything else. There is, in fact, no negativity whatsoever.
However, to take your own arguments from earlier to be wary of "self appointed historians/experts", my background and knowledge in this field is pretty well established, and if you want further information I am more than happy to provide it. Some will need to be by PM, but as much as I can put publicly I will. You, on the other hand, have not provided any information to back up where your highly unusual take on such matters comes from, despite many opportunities and frequent requests. As a result, your credibility is highly suspect in these fields. And when I see you posting information (typically either incorrect, or grossly, and inaccurately simplified or generalised) under the credibility of having experience in Koryu, that concerns me. Especially when others take what you say as accurate, due to their not knowing any better.
Now, frankly, I don't think any of that is malicious on your part. I think you genuinely believe what you are posting, and genuinely believe you have a Koryu background. As a result, this is not an attempt to discredit you. It is an attempt to get some understanding about where you are coming from. However you are seemingly completely unwilling to actually answer the most basic of all questions to start to help your credibility, or to give you more information about what you're actually training in, which is this: What Ryu is it?
This is not backing you into a corner, John. It's inviting you out into the open. The only person backing you into a corner, I have to say, is you. So how about it? Can you answer the question? Or are you going to respond to that question with the same passive aggressive evasions as you have here?
