Martial Arts History & Influences

[Chris Parker]

Ah, my friend, I wondered the same thing. I thought it was pretty obvious too, and there really wasn't any argument against it, but it seems the length has come more from misunderstanding (thinking the concept was equal to "know the history or you can't perform the techniques", which it never was, or "knowing the history means you need to be approaching it like a scholar or academic", which, again, was never the case). I'm not sure that this is what JKS had in mind when he split my post and the others to start this thread, though. I get the feeling that he was intending more for a discussion of "the history of my art says x, so we do y", kind of like the brief discussion on stance and terrain a page or so ago. But these threads do have a life of their own, and there was a lot of confusion as to the role of Koryu in the discussion, so that kinda pushed it one way as well.

That said, the stance/terrain conversation could start this thread going in another, related direction. That could be interesting.

Oh, and that's precisely what I meant in regards to the BJJ as well. No confusion needed.

 

[Tez3]

Originally Posted by Steve
But if it's about martial arts in general, there are arts taught where, sure, the history of the art influences the instruction, but not in any active manner. Once again, in BJJ, techniques are shown for which no name is given, and as you move from one school to another, different techniques are taught in different ways with different names. The history of the art, while surely being present underneath the instruction, has no overt place on the mats.



Okay, so, here's the thing. Now I'm REALLY confused. I think I get the point, but I'm now wondering why it generated such a long thread. I guess I presumed that this point was self evident. What I mean is, every single thing in existence is a product of those things that came before it. A pear is what it is because of a seed that germinated, grew into a pear tree near enough to other pear trees that it flowered and was pollinated so that it bore fruit. Judo is what it is, Wado-ryu is what it is, ninjutsu is what it is and BJJ is what it is because of what came before it. I'm the man I am. I mean... time marches on.

In other words, if this was your point the entire time, I thought it was a given and agree entirely.
Tez, if you don't learn BJJ from a BJJ instructor, you aren't learning BJJ. I think this speaks directly to Chris Parker's point (unless I'm still having trouble tracking) and I agree. The difference between Catch Wrestling, Judo and BJJ is not the techniques learned.

Sigh, we don't do catch wrestling, we don't do Judo, we do BJJ, BJJ instructors such as the Gracies agree with us, that's what we do, the fact we don't have a BJJ belted instructor doesn't take away from that. We go to seminars, what we do is exactly the same as the BJJ people, we enter BJJ comps not one says go away you're not BJJ. Perhaps we are just a more liberal country...in so many ways.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, but what makes it BJJ, though, and not Judo?

 

[Tez3]

Ah, but what makes it BJJ, though, and not Judo?

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'.

 

[Steve]

Sigh, we don't do catch wrestling, we don't do Judo, we do BJJ, BJJ instructors such as the Gracies agree with us, that's what we do, the fact we don't have a BJJ belted instructor doesn't take away from that. We go to seminars, what we do is exactly the same as the BJJ people, we enter BJJ comps not one says go away you're not BJJ. Perhaps we are just a more liberal country...in so many ways.

Tez, don't sigh. We have judo guys, and sometimes guys from other styles, competing in our local tournaments, as well. That doesn't mean they train in BJJ. They may even do well in the tournament and have pretty good technique.

Just out of curiosity, do your guys ever compete in an IBJJF gi tournament, and if so, at what rank? Josh Barnett is a notable example of this issue. He's a catch wrestler who will readily state that he has never trained in BJJ, although he has trained with and competed against elite level BJJ black belts. He eventually was awarded a BJJ black belt from Erik Paulson because of his competition record. But he continues to be very vocal about the philosophical and strategic differences between BJJ and CACC Wrestling.

Position before submission isn't a mantra we recite at the beginning of class. It's a cliche that sums up a fundamental strategic approach to grappling, and is one way in which BJJ is clearly distinguished from CACC.

You've mentioned that some of your guys have traditional backgrounds in other arts. If you incorporate a side kick and a front kick into your MMA arsenal, would you take that further to imply that you train in Karate or Tae Kwon Do?

 

[JohnEdward]

Hmm, I haven't really dealt with opinion for the majority of this thread, though. I've dealt with details and facts, as well as observation, but not opinion. One last thing for you, though, John. Would you mind answering at least one or two of the questions I've asked you over the thread? You seem to have missed answering a single one.

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.

 

[elder999]

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. .

That they have bad teeth, and prey on the weak? :lfao:

(Old tigers, sensing the end, are most fierce )

 

[Tez3]

Tez, don't sigh. We have judo guys, and sometimes guys from other styles, competing in our local tournaments, as well. That doesn't mean they train in BJJ. They may even do well in the tournament and have pretty good technique.

Just out of curiosity, do your guys ever compete in an IBJJF gi tournament, and if so, at what rank? Josh Barnett is a notable example of this issue. He's a catch wrestler who will readily state that he has never trained in BJJ, although he has trained with and competed against elite level BJJ black belts. He eventually was awarded a BJJ black belt from Erik Paulson because of his competition record. But he continues to be very vocal about the philosophical and strategic differences between BJJ and CACC Wrestling.

Position before submission isn't a mantra we recite at the beginning of class. It's a cliche that sums up a fundamental strategic approach to grappling, and is one way in which BJJ is clearly distinguished from CACC.

You've mentioned that some of your guys have traditional backgrounds in other arts. If you incorporate a side kick and a front kick into your MMA arsenal, would you take that further to imply that you train in Karate or Tae Kwon Do?

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.

Wrestling instructors are very hard to find in this country, apart from the traditional types such as Cumberland, Cornish etc.
these are the comps we enter
http://www.thecombatacademy.com/HOCalendar.html
http://www.umauk.co.uk/2011%20Event%20Regsitration%20Pages/UMA_UK_Open_BJJ_Championships_Registration%20Page_22nd_October_2011.htm

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.

 

[JohnEdward]

That they have bad teeth, and prey on the weak? :lfao:

(Old tigers, sensing the end, are most fierce )

And really bad breath when they do prey on the miscalculating weak.

 

[JohnEdward]

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.

Wrestling instructors are very hard to find in this country, apart from the traditional types such as Cumberland, Cornish etc.
these are the comps we enter
http://www.thecombatacademy.com/HOCalendar.html
http://www.umauk.co.uk/2011 Event R...ships_Registration Page_22nd_October_2011.htm

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.

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.

 

[JohnEdward]

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.

 

[Steve]

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.

Wrestling instructors are very hard to find in this country, apart from the traditional types such as Cumberland, Cornish etc.
these are the comps we enter
http://www.thecombatacademy.com/HOCalendar.html
http://www.umauk.co.uk/2011 Event R...ships_Registration Page_22nd_October_2011.htm

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.

I'm not trying to be elitist at all. I have no doubt that your club is top notch. Seriously. Not even a question.

But if you aren't learning BJJ from a person qualified to teach it, ie, at least a purple belt, then you aren't learning BJJ. I'm sure you guys are learning solid grappling and I have no doubt you are competing well within a ruleset. But your not training in BJJ unless you're training in BJJ. It's that simple. If you're learning Cantonese, you are studying a dialect of Chinese, but you wouldn't suggest to anyone you are also learning Mandarin. While both are "Chinese" languages, they aren't the same thing. And you can't learn Cantonese from someone who doesn't speak it.

Tez, you didn't answer the questions I asked. Do you guys compete in IBJJF tournaments? Do you compete in gi? If so, what belt rank to your guys compete at? Who awards you rank? We have guys in our local tournaments who compete who don't train in BJJ, and we do our best to place them where they belong. But that doesn't fly at the Pan Ams, the Mundials, the European Open or any of the other IBJJF tournaments. You have to hold rank in the style.

I'm not making any kind of a value judgement here. I hope that's clear. But I would never suggest that I train in Judo, even though some of our techniques are identical. One step further, I would never claim to be training in Judo, even though a couple of our guys are black belts in that system. It's different. Not better or worse, necessarily. Just not BJJ.

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 don't think it's important at all. It just is what it is. You don't call apples bananas. Even though America and England share many similarities, you wouldn't call a Brit an American. We're different. Our paths diverged and we're not the same anymore.

 

[JohnEdward]

I'm not trying to be elitist at all. I have no doubt that your club is top notch. Seriously. Not even a question.

But if you aren't learning BJJ from a person qualified to teach it, ie, at least a purple belt, then you aren't learning BJJ. I'm sure you guys are learning solid grappling and I have no doubt you are competing well within a ruleset. But your not training in BJJ unless you're training in BJJ. It's that simple. If you're learning Cantonese, you are studying a dialect of Chinese, but you wouldn't suggest to anyone you are also learning Mandarin. While both are "Chinese" languages, they aren't the same thing. And you can't learn Cantonese from someone who doesn't speak it.

Tez, you didn't answer the questions I asked. Do you guys compete in IBJJF tournaments? Do you compete in gi? If so, what belt rank to your guys compete at? Who awards you rank? We have guys in our local tournaments who compete who don't train in BJJ, and we do our best to place them where they belong. But that doesn't fly at the Pan Ams, the Mundials, the European Open or any of the other IBJJF tournaments. You have to hold rank in the style.

I'm not making any kind of a value judgement here. I hope that's clear. But I would never suggest that I train in Judo, even though some of our techniques are identical. One step further, I would never claim to be training in Judo, even though a couple of our guys are black belts in that system. It's different. Not better or worse, necessarily. Just not BJJ.

I don't think it's important at all. It just is what it is. You don't call apples bananas. Even though America and England share many similarities, you wouldn't call a Brit an American. We're different. Our paths diverged and we're not the same anymore.

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.

 

[ap Oweyn]

That would depend.
The Other Discussion may have still been Active.
Redirections are best served when the Previous Discussion has been Concluded somewhat.

And how would it be concluded precisely?

 

[Steve]

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.

I don't disagree. But at the end of the day Americans aren't Brits and BJJ isn't Judo. Efficacy is a different conversation altogether.

 

[Tez3]

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!

 

[Steve]

So because we don't currently have a BJJ instructor what we do is Judo, okay if it makes you all happy.

It's not judo, either, unless you're learning from someone qualified to teach it. It's grappling, for sure, and I'm confident that it's quality grappling. But unless you're learning Judo... you're not learning Judo.

When we do get one and we carry on doing what we are doing in exactly the same way it'll be BJJ again.

If you are training with someone who is competent to teach and award rank in BJJ, sure.

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.

Jesus. You're throwing a temper tantrum, Tez.

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!

One of us is bovvered (whatever that means), but I'm pretty sure it's not me.

Here's my thing. Why are you so keen to call it BJJ? Why so adamant that it's not Catch Wrestling or Sambo or something else?

Also, I'm still interested to know whether you guys compete in IBJJF tournaments, and at what rank you guys compete at in your local BJJ tourneys. Do you jump in as white belts and clean the place up, or do you borrow blue, purple, brown or black belts? If you compete at higher belts, who helps you determine your appropriate rank? Do you guys train under Royce Gracie, or are you using a snapshot in time at a seminar to legitimize your entire program?

Ultimately, you seem to be getting worked up about this, but I'm at a loss as to why. I wouldn't want to presume competency in Judo. I certainly don't try to imply competency in CACC Wrestling or Sambo. I would suspect that many of the techniques and skills I've learned will carry directly over, but they're not the same. As I said before, why are you so keen on presuming competency in BJJ?

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[Flying Crane]

Hey, Michael.

With regard to the armour, there's still plenty of non-armoured systems, particularly Japanese, that still retain quite a lot of giveaways to their armoured past, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that they'd abandon them. You'll find that things like the grips in Judo, for instance, are originally based on where the handholds would be on a suit of yoroi (Japanese armour), and the displacement of balance is all armour based as well (as is the emphasis on throws in the first place, let's not forget).

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.

With the big movements, yeah, I wouldn't attribute that to anything like "big sweeping plains" in anything other than a metaphorical, or symbolic sense. But I would say that that method of learning and training power generation, regardless of if it is based on the terrain, a vision of a bullfrog, or the mechanics of a chameleons tongue, or just good old fashioned "hey, I've found something that works", the method itself comes from the history, and the way it has been passed down, including the lessons that accompany it, are all a result of the influence of that history. Which is the same as everything else here, really.

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.

 

[JohnEdward]

It's not judo, either, unless you're learning from someone qualified to teach it. It's grappling, for sure, and I'm confident that it's quality grappling. But unless you're learning Judo... you're not learning Judo. If you are training with someone who is competent to teach and award rank in BJJ, sure. Jesus. You're throwing a temper tantrum, Tez. One of us is bovvered (whatever that means), but I'm pretty sure it's not me.

Here's my thing. Why are you so keen to call it BJJ? Why so adamant that it's not Catch Wrestling or Sambo or something else?

Also, I'm still interested to know whether you guys compete in IBJJF tournaments, and at what rank you guys compete at in your local BJJ tourneys. Do you jump in as white belts and clean the place up, or do you borrow blue, purple, brown or black belts? If you compete at higher belts, who helps you determine your appropriate rank? Do you guys train under Royce Gracie, or are you using a snapshot in time at a seminar to legitimize your entire program?

Ultimately, you seem to be getting worked up about this, but I'm at a loss as to why. I wouldn't want to presume competency in Judo. I certainly don't try to imply competency in CACC Wrestling or Sambo. I would suspect that many of the techniques and skills I've learned will carry directly over, but they're not the same. As I said before, why are you so keen on presuming competency in BJJ?

Steve, I know you are speaking to someone else, I do see where your coming. I would say, not associated with your discussion with Tez, you seem to be concerned with demarcation of the arts. Knowing that BJJ is Brazilian based on Japanese Judo newaza and Judo is the fusing of several martial arts into one, i.e. giving credit where credit is due. Would I be correct?