Need help finding a school that teach japanese jujutsu or combo of japanese jujutsu and aikido.

[Chris Parker]

No.

Look, to be frank, the simple fact here is that you don't have the first clue about what Japanese Jujutsu is. I mean... Judo and Aikido are Japanese Jujutsu... just particular forms of it. So is Yagyu Shingan Ryu (in the above clip), as is Daito Ryu (the only real "Aikijujutsu" you'll find, legitimately), Takenouchi Ryu (the believed first Jujutsu-centric system, although they don't use the term "jujutsu", technically...), Sosuishi Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Sekiguchi Shinshin Ryu, Kito Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Fusen Ryu, Shibukawa Ryu, and many, many more. And none of these systems are the same as any of the others. Jujutsu is not one single thing.

 

[moonhill99]

No.

Look, to be frank, the simple fact here is that you don't have the first clue about what Japanese Jujutsu is. I mean... Judo and Aikido are Japanese Jujutsu... just particular forms of it. So is Yagyu Shingan Ryu (in the above clip), as is Daito Ryu (the only real "Aikijujutsu" you'll find, legitimately), Takenouchi Ryu (the believed first Jujutsu-centric system, although they don't use the term "jujutsu", technically...), Sosuishi Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Sekiguchi Shinshin Ryu, Kito Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Fusen Ryu, Shibukawa Ryu, and many, many more. And none of these systems are the same as any of the others. Jujutsu is not one single thing.

Criss it was explained here that Japanese jujutsu are modern eclectic Western systems and more Judo like than Aikido like.

Just look at any youtube clip on Japanese jujutsu .

This is what most of schools are teaching.

That it would be hard to find traditional Japanese jujutsu schools like the videos in post 6 Modern Japanese jiu jitsu vs traditional Japanese jiu jitsu MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

It was explained the reason modern eclectic western systems may not be good is the instructor cross trains in other arts and slaps together different arts and call it Japanese jujutsu.

That is why they where saying for me to take Judo and Aikido to get proper foundation.

That the schools I posted here are not traditional Japanese jiu jitsu but modern Japanese jiu jitsu.


But I take it from some other members posts here that instructors that cross trains in other arts and slaps together different arts and call it Japanese jujutsu is main reason why it is bad. Is the comment of saying Jujutsu scene just gives me hives.

That if instructor was hardcore supporter of Japanese jujutsu it would not better if he is teaching the traditional Japanese jiu jitsu or the modern Japanese jiu jitsu.It is the cross trains in other arts and slaps together different arts is bad and not true Japanese jiu jitsu.

It when they add in boxing, MMA or Kung Fu or leave out parts of jujutsu is how much japanese jujutsu are you getting at the school is all bad.

That is why they would saying for me to take Judo and aikido. I would get enough throws, take downs,flipping, wrist locks, joints locks and such to keep me busy.

As Judo and Aikido is part of Japanese jujutsu.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I'm going to pull this one apart…

Criss it was explained here that Japanese jujutsu are modern eclectic Western systems and more Judo like than Aikido like.

"Chris", not "Criss"… I mean, it's written right there for you… but, a little more pertinently, please don't tell me that you're trying to tell me what is or is not Jujutsu here… and no, that's almost exactly the opposite of what you were told. You were told that the systems and schools you chose as examples of "Japanese Jujutsu" were not Japanese Jujutsu, but were, in fact, modern Western eclectic systems… which they are. Whether they are more "Aikido like" or "Judo like" really doesn't mean anything, or enter into it at all.

Just look at any youtube clip on Japanese jujutsu .

This is what most of schools are teaching.

None of those clips are Japanese Jujutsu, or even claim to be Japanese Jujutsu. The second one ("What Is Jujutsu?") is, frankly, a fairly flawed, general (and inaccurate) take one what Jujutsu can be, and is from the Miyama Ryu, a modern American system. There are a number of mistakes throughout it, and it was probably the most informative of the list.

That it would be hard to find traditional Japanese jujutsu schools like the videos in post 6 Modern Japanese jiu jitsu vs traditional Japanese jiu jitsu MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Sure, no one said that you'd find a traditional Japanese system that has commonly only been taught to a small group in one small geographic location for a number of centuries just around the corner… and honestly, the reality there is "deal with it". There are a number of systems that I'm very interested in, but to learn them, I'd need to move to Japan… and, while I'd love to do that, it's just not on my schedule right now. So, I have to accept that I can't learn them (presently). And that's just reality.

But, that said, do you actually know what you're looking at when you watch those clips? You do realise that the clips themselves are representative only of a small portion of what is taught in those particular systems, not of Jujutsu (as a whole) itself, yeah?

It was explained the reason modern eclectic western systems may not be good is the instructor cross trains in other arts and slaps together different arts and call it Japanese jujutsu.

No, it wasn't. It was explained that what you were citing as "Japanese Jujutsu" wasn't Japanese Jujutsu, but instead a Western eclectic (made up of different sources) system, mainly as that's what it was. There was little made of that being a reason they were seen as "bad"… in fact, value judgements like that didn't really come into it for the majority of posters. The main point was that systems that aren't Japanese Jujutsu are not Japanese Jujutsu.

That is why they where saying for me to take Judo and Aikido to get proper foundation.

Hanzou said he would suggest that you start with those, or BJJ, but didn't say anything about it being due to a better base… in fact, he didn't really give his thinking. It could just as easily be that they have more likelihood of having higher quality (particularly the BJJ and Judo), or that Judo and Aikido, by actually being Japanese, are going to give you more of the cultural aspects and "feel" of Japanese martial arts, which Western systems tend not to, depending on what exactly you were after.

That the schools I posted here are not traditional Japanese jiu jitsu but modern Japanese jiu jitsu.

No kidding. You were told that from the beginning.

Oh, and for the record… when it's Japanese, it's "Jujutsu"… "Jiu-jitsu" is simply wrong (the second character 術 can only be pronounced "jutsu"… "jitsu" 実 is a completely different word).

But I take it from some other members posts here that instructors that cross trains in other arts and slaps together different arts and call it Japanese jujutsu is main reason why it is bad. Is the comment of saying Jujutsu scene just gives me hives.

No, that's not the main reason, but it is symptomatic of a range of other potential issues. I have no idea why it would give you "hives", though, as you currently don't have any knowledge of what it is they're claiming to be, and how close or far they actually are.

That if instructor was hardcore supporter of Japanese jujutsu it would not better if he is teaching the traditional Japanese jiu jitsu or the modern Japanese jiu jitsu.It is the cross trains in other arts and slaps together different arts is bad and not true Japanese jiu jitsu.

And none of the systems you've brought up have made any such claim… it's been largely you deciding that that's what they're presenting. I'd suggest taking your own biases out of the situation first.

It when they add in boxing, MMA or Kung Fu or leave out parts of jujutsu is how much japanese jujutsu are you getting at the school is all bad.

"Leave out parts of jujutsu"?!?! What does that even mean?

That is why they would saying for me to take Judo and aikido. I would get enough throws, take downs,flipping, wrist locks, joints locks and such to keep me busy.

And completely miss the point of it all.

As Judo and Aikido is part of Japanese jujutsu.

No, Judo and Aikido are modern forms of Japanese Jujutsu… Judo came largely from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu and Kito Ryu (there were other influences as well, but that's the main thrust of it), and Aikido came from Daito Ryu (as did Hakko Ryu, which is why you think that "Japanese Jujutsu is more like Aikido than Judo"), among other systems. They are, in the end, simply two expressions of what Jujutsu can be… and represent nothing other than what Judo and Aikido (individually) are.

 

[Hanzou]

Just to clarify my position;

If given the choice, I would choose Judo, Bjj, and even Aikido over an eclectic American JJ system. Not saying that you can't find any good eclectic American JJ systems out there, but Judo, Bjj, and Aikido are simply better institutions with better defined ranking systems, large governing bodies regulating quality of instruction, and plenty of resources to help a beginner learn their art.

Again, not knocking American JJ arts, but I simply don't believe that someone can reach "Soke" level in multiple forms of legitimate classical Japanese Jujutsu. Some of those "founders" of American JJ are claiming more experience in classical JJ than Ueshiba or Kano, who were both Japanese, and lived in Japan during the Meiji restoration. Helio Gracie, Carlos Gracie, and Oswaldo Fadda never claimed to be "Soke" in their form of American Jiujitsu, and they made it a point to infuse Brazilian culture in their styles.

Your mileage may vary, and at the end of the day its your coin OP. However, I think you'd be better served taking Judo, Bjj, or Aikido.

 

[Chris Parker]

And, to clarify further, there is no such thing as "Soke level"… anyone claiming it as an attained rank has no clue what they're talking about, anyone who says the title's been awarded to them by a board, or for creating their own system, or anything else, has no clue whatsoever.

Soke is quite a loaded word… and there is no non-Japanese Soke at all. I personally doubt there ever will be. Sure, there are plenty of Westerners (mis)using the title… but frankly, that just outs them as frauds, incompetents, delusional, or so deeply lacking in understanding that there's no way they could have any real connection to any Japanese arts of any form.

 

[moonhill99]

Chris than I don't know what people mean by those schools are modern western eclectic systems.

I thought Tony and others here where saying

Typically such systems will have roots in judo and/or aikido, but they may also include elements from karate, kung fu, arnis, and who knows what else.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems, but you said you were specifically looking for Japanese jujutsu,


And

Oh boy... Chris Parker is going to have a field day if he sees this thread...

Personally, it would be none of the above. Something about the American Classical Jujutsu scene just gives me hives. Not saying there's not some good ones out there, but man, some of those schools just scream B.S. all over it



So if this is not modern western eclectic systems. What is modern Western eclectic systems.

I said base on the replies here.

1.Is instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.

Base on some threads here.


If it is none this than I'm confused of what is modern eclectic western jujutsu and why it is bad.

 

[moonhill99]

None of those clips are Japanese Jujutsu, or even claim to be Japanese Jujutsu. The second one ("What Is Jujutsu?") is, frankly, a fairly flawed, general (and inaccurate) take one what Jujutsu can be, and is from the Miyama Ryu, a modern American system. There are a number of mistakes throughout it, and it was probably the most informative of the list.

Cris why are those 4 clips not Japanese Jujutsu you say?

Is it too modern in its way of teaching and doing things?

Too Judo like with not many wrist locks?

Or base on Tony and others here where saying

typically such systems will have roots in judo and/or aikido, but they may also include elements from karate, kung fu, arnis, and who knows what else.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems, but you said you were specifically looking for Japanese jujutsu,


And

Oh boy... Chris Parker is going to have a field day if he sees this thread...

Personally, it would be none of the above. Something about the American Classical Jujutsu scene just gives me hives. Not saying there's not some good ones out there, but man, some of those schools just scream B.S. all over it

So what makes those 4 clips not Japanese Jujutsu?

Or is it not traditional Japanese Jujutsu but modern Japanese traditional Jujutsu?

Or

instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.

I'm confused on why you say it is not Japanese jiu jitsu.

And if those 4 clips are modern eclectic western jujutsu and what is modern eclectic western jujutsu than.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris than I don't know what people mean by those schools are modern western eclectic systems.

What's meant is, well, that's what they are. The systems in question are modern… founded by Westerners and based/developed/taught in the West… and are made up of a variety of sources, from different and disparate areas (not necessarily connected or compatible). Hence… modern… Western… eclectic.

I thought Tony and others here where saying

Typically such systems will have roots in judo and/or aikido, but they may also include elements from karate, kung fu, arnis, and who knows what else.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems, but you said you were specifically looking for Japanese jujutsu,


And

Oh boy... Chris Parker is going to have a field day if he sees this thread...

Personally, it would be none of the above. Something about the American Classical Jujutsu scene just gives me hives. Not saying there's not some good ones out there, but man, some of those schools just scream B.S. all over it

So if this is not modern western eclectic systems. What is modern Western eclectic systems.

Yeah… all they're saying is that systems that aren't Japanese Jujutsu, as they, well, aren't Japanese to begin with, aren't Japanese Jujutsu. It's nothing more complex than that.

I said base on the replies here.

1.Is instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.

Base on some threads here.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here… if it's a modern, Western system, it's not a classical Japanese one… that's really all that's being said.

If it is none this than I'm confused of what is modern eclectic western jujutsu and why it is bad.

It's not bad, by definition. But the main thing is that, if you're asking to learn Japanese Jujutsu, none of these systems are that. It's like you saying you want to play football, and I keep suggesting a tennis match… it's still a sport, lots of fun, but it's not football.

None of those clips are Japanese Jujutsu, or even claim to be Japanese Jujutsu. The second one ("What Is Jujutsu?") is, frankly, a fairly flawed, general (and inaccurate) take one what Jujutsu can be, and is from the Miyama Ryu, a modern American system. There are a number of mistakes throughout it, and it was probably the most informative of the list.

Cris why are those 4 clips not Japanese Jujutsu you say?

Because none of them are even Japanese.

Is it too modern in its way of teaching and doing things?

No, it's that none of them are Japanese.

Too Judo like with not many wrist locks?

Completely irrelevant.

Or base on Tony and others here where saying

typically such systems will have roots in judo and/or aikido, but they may also include elements from karate, kung fu, arnis, and who knows what else.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems, but you said you were specifically looking for Japanese jujutsu,


And

Oh boy... Chris Parker is going to have a field day if he sees this thread...

Personally, it would be none of the above. Something about the American Classical Jujutsu scene just gives me hives. Not saying there's not some good ones out there, but man, some of those schools just scream B.S. all over it

So what makes those 4 clips not Japanese Jujutsu?

They're not Japanese… they're founded in the West, by Westerners, and taught in Western countries exclusively (not found in Japan at all).

It's really that simple.

Or is it not traditional Japanese Jujutsu but modern Japanese traditional Jujutsu?

I don't even know what that means…

Or

instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.

I'm confused on why you say it is not Japanese jiu jitsu.

And if those 4 clips are modern eclectic western jujutsu and what is modern eclectic western jujutsu than.

And now you're just repeating yourself… I have no idea what you're trying to ask.

 

[moonhill99]

What's meant is, well, that's what they are. The systems in question are modern… founded by Westerners and based/developed/taught in the West… and are made up of a variety of sources, from different and disparate areas (not necessarily connected or compatible). Hence… modern… Western… eclectic.

Cris this is what I'm confused what does it matter if it is founded by westerners or not? or if is a westerners teaching it or Japanese teaching it?

What makes it modern? Or a modern western eclectic systems the curriculum or you say founded by westerners?

Yeah… all they're saying is that systems that aren't Japanese Jujutsu, as they, well, aren't Japanese to begin with, aren't Japanese Jujutsu. It's nothing more complex than that.


Cris this what I'm confused, I said lot of the new schools are more Judo like than aikido and one of the members here was saying there are different types of Japanese Jujutsu and Judo and Aikido are part of Japanese Jujutsu.

So if it is not the curriculum than what is making it modern or modern western eclectic systems? I thought the curriculum of Japanese Jujutsu now is modern and this is what makes it modern western eclectic systems.

But now I think I misinterpreted the replies here that you saying that not the case but going on saying it is founded by westerners and non Japanese teaching it. If so what does this matter.

Is the curriculum unless the curriculum is modern or some how mixed with other systems like boxing or Kung fu.



Yeah… all they're saying is that systems that aren't Japanese Jujutsu, as they, well, aren't Japanese to begin with, aren't Japanese Jujutsu. It's nothing more complex than that.

That is what I'm trying to understand what makes it not Japanese Jujutsu. The curriculum is mixed with other systems like boxing or Kung fu or is it some how different.

The teacher not understanding the history enough or leaving out many of the moves of it because not understanding it enough?

What does founded by westerners or non Japanese teaching it have to do with making it non Japanese Jujutsu. Unless some how you looking for older traditional Japanese Jujutsu.

If it is modern Japanese Jujutsu than the curriculum should be modern but what does founded by westerners or non Japanese teaching it have to do with it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here… if it's a modern, Western system, it's not a classical Japanese one… that's really all that's being said.

Because I said.

1.Is instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


You said.

No.

Look, to be frank, the simple fact here is that you don't have the first clue about what Japanese Jujutsu is. I mean... Judo and Aikido are Japanese Jujutsu..

And

and no, that's almost exactly the opposite of what you were told. You were told that the systems and schools you chose as examples of "Japanese Jujutsu" were not Japanese Jujutsu, but were, in fact, modern Western eclectic systems… which they are. Whether they are more "Aikido like" or "Judo like" really doesn't mean anything, or enter into it at all.

And

What's meant is, well, that's what they are. The systems in question are modern… founded by Westerners and based/developed/taught in the West

And some of the other replies here.

So I get idea when I said.

1.Is instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

That this is false, this does not make it so called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


Or

2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.


So than this is false does not make it so called modern eclectic western jujutsu.

This is the confused here.

When I read.


Tony and others here where saying

Typically such systems will have roots in judo and/or aikido, but they may also include elements from karate, kung fu, arnis, and who knows what else.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems, but you said you were specifically looking for Japanese jujutsu,


And

Oh boy... Chris Parker is going to have a field day if he sees this thread...

Personally, it would be none of the above. Something about the American Classical Jujutsu scene just gives me hives. Not saying there's not some good ones out there, but man, some of those schools just scream B.S. all over it


Base on this and other replies here I than said.


1.instructor calling it a Japanese jiu jitsu school when it is not really a Japanese jiu jitsu, but 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else.

So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


2. Or instructor not educated enough of on the history of Japanese jiu jitsu.


So called modern eclectic western jujutsu.


And base on some replies that my interpretation on the replies on what is so called modern eclectic western jujutsu is wrong.

That is is why I'm asking you and others to clarify.

I think we all can agree it not older and classical Japanese jiu jitsu base on those clips of older Japanese jiu jitsu members are posting here.

But it is still Japanese jiu jitsu just not the older and classical Japanese jiu jitsu?

 

[Spinedoc]

A Japanese system has to be founded in Japan. If a western person founds it, it doesn't matter what techniques he uses, it's not a Japanese Jujutsu.

There are 2 different types of Japanese Jujutsu, and dozens of ryu or schools in each type.

1. Gendai jujutsu, this would be jujutsu systems created after the Meiji restoration, would be considered "modern" Japanese jujutsu. Judo, Aikido, Hakko Ryu, etc. All modern Japanese systems.

2. Koryu jujutsu, older, before the Meiji restoration, considered "Classic" jujutsu systems. Daito Ryu, Yagyu, etc.etc.etc.

Basically, it doesn't matter if an instructor is well versed on japanese history or not, if the system was not founded (and for the most part still organizationally run) in Japan, it's not a Japanese jujutsu. That doesn't mean its good or bad, just means that it is not Japanese.

You started the thread stating that you wanted to study a Japanese jujutsu, that means very specific art forms, which is what I think Chris was trying to say.

Mike

 

[moonhill99]

A Japanese system has to be founded in Japan. If a western person founds it, it doesn't matter what techniques he uses, it's not a Japanese Jujutsu.

There are 2 different types of Japanese Jujutsu, and dozens of ryu or schools in each type.

1. Gendai jujutsu, this would be jujutsu systems created after the Meiji restoration, would be considered "modern" Japanese jujutsu. Judo, Aikido, Hakko Ryu, etc. All modern Japanese systems.

2. Koryu jujutsu, older, before the Meiji restoration, considered "Classic" jujutsu systems. Daito Ryu, Yagyu, etc.etc.etc.

Basically, it doesn't matter if an instructor is well versed on japanese history or not, if the system was not founded (and for the most part still organizationally run) in Japan, it's not a Japanese jujutsu. That doesn't mean its good or bad, just means that it is not Japanese.

You started the thread stating that you wanted to study a Japanese jujutsu, that means very specific art forms, which is what I think Chris was trying to say.

Mike

So it does not matter if the curriculum is 100% clone of Japanese jujutsu it is not Japanese jujutsu? Than what is it?

You can't just say jujutsu because it could be Brazilian jiu jitsu that work on ground fighting.

There is school in Tampa that calls it self Japanese jujutsu and looks very good school. If this is not Japanese jujutsu than what is it.

A school in Tampa that calls it self Japanese jujutsu and looks very good.

A jujutsu School in Tampa

Tatsumaki Dojo Traditional Ju-Jutsu
Tatsumaki Dojo Traditional Ju-Jutsu

If you say this is not Japanese jujutsu than what is it a mixed system?

So a mixed system is bad?

 

[Spinedoc]

It's a mixed system with several gendai jujutsu forms, including Hakko Ryu founded in 1941, Yoshitsune jujutsu, founded in 1960, a koryu form (I know debatable), daito ryu aikijujutsu which, in it's current form, was founded in 1900, judo, founded in 1882.......this is further mixed with okinawan karate and kobudo.

It's modern, western, mixed system. Not necessarily good or bad....but not a true japanese jujutsu.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If it is none this than I'm confused of what is modern eclectic western jujutsu and why it is bad.

Cris this is what I'm confused what does it matter if it is founded by westerners or not? or if is a westerners teaching it or Japanese teaching it?

What makes it modern? Or a modern western eclectic systems the curriculum or you say founded by westerners?

Let's go back to my earlier statement that "jujutsu" is the term for a family of related arts. Let's use the analogy of a human family to clarify the concepts somewhat.

Imagine the family dynasty started by Mr. Fumio Watanabe. Mr. Watanabe was born in Japan in 1640. He is thoroughly Japanese and (given is date of birth) has some ideas that we would consider very old fashioned.

His great-great-great-great-etc-grandson Hiro was born in 1870. Hiro Watanabe is also totally Japanese, but embraced modernity and vocally rejected many of the feudalistic traditions that his father embraced.

Hiro and his wife moved to England, where they had a number of children. The children were raised in a different culture than their parents. Even though they retained much of their heritage, they were English.

These children then went on to have children of their own. Some of them clung to various aspects of their family traditions, some did not. Some married into other Japanese families, others found mates among the English. Some moved to other countries and spread the family there. Some kept the family name and some did not.

Even among those of the Watanabe diaspora who took pride in their family history and traditions and self-identified as Japanese, most had very little personal experience or any clear idea of what it was like to be born and grown up Japanese in Japan.

If you replace "Watanabe" with "jujutsu" than you have some idea of the situation. Of course, the metaphor isn't perfect. You have to imagine that each member of the family has the potential (usually not realized) to live for centuries. You also have to imagine that instead of a child requiring two parents, there could be only one or there could be several. It's kind of messy.

So it does not matter if the curriculum is 100% clone of Japanese jujutsu it is not Japanese jujutsu?

You can't have a 100% clone of the curriculum of Japanese jujutsu because there is no single curriculum of Japanese jujutsu. The curriculum of Hakko Ryu is different from the curriculum of Takenouchi Ryu is different from the curriculum of Judo. Every style of jujutsu has its own curriculum.

As far as whether it matters whether a given style of jujutsu is actually Japanese or not? That depends on what you're looking for and why you want it.

 

[moonhill99]

But what I don't understand is why if it is founded by westerners or westerners teaching it is modern western eclectic systems.

But a modern curriculum would not make it so. A modern Japanese jujutsu school in US would not make it modern western eclectic systems or a mixed system like 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else not make it a true Japanese jujutsu.

That is what I thought Tony and others where trying say here.

If it is modern Japanese jujutsu or a mixed system like 30% boxing ,40% Japanese jiu jitsu and some thing else it is not true Japanese jujutsu. But called a modern western eclectic systems.

So it does better if the instructor spends all of his or her life devoted to try to make clone Japanese jujutsu and no mixed arts like no karate or no boxing thrown into the curriculum it is not Japanese jujutsu but modern western eclectic systems or a mixed system .

No matter how hard the instructor tries to copy Japanese jujutsu or respect history it is not Japanese jujutsu but modern western eclectic systems.

Because I thought one of Cris post in other thread to other poster was going on about the instructor not respecting history of Japanese jujutsu!!! But throwing in many modern arts into his Japanese jujutsu school not making it a clone Japanese jujutsu but a mixed school.

It is sorta of like saying you like McDonald's food but you get the fries and drinks at KFC so it not really true McDonald's food you like to eat.

So you should not really call it McDonald's food.


It was this thread Cris was saying it was not true Japanese jujutsu because he was throwing in so many arts into his school the curriculum was very mixed making it not a true Japanese jujutsu.

Combat Jiu-Jitsu with Matt Bryers MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

 

[Spinedoc]

Well, here's an analogy. I love scotch. Fact I'm kind of a Scotch snob. I'm particular to Islay scotches. Now to another scotch drinker they know exactly what this means. And if I was to go and try and sell Islay scotches here in United States there would be nothing wrong with that. However if I was to try and start my own distillery here in United States and say I was making Islay Scotch, that would be fraudulent. Islay comes from one particular region in Scotland. I might still be making scotch, but it would not be Islay scotch. Does that make sense?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

But what I don't understand is why if it is founded by westerners or westerners teaching it is modern western eclectic systems.

An art is Japanese if it was created in Japan. It's western if it was created in the West. It's pretty straightforward. (You will find a fair number of people who consider their art "Japanese", even though it was founded in the West by Westerners, because the art's ancestry can be traced back to Japan and they have held on to certain Japanese cultural trappings. It's like my family metaphor - do you consider members of the Watanabe family who have been in England for 5 generations to still be "Japanese"?)

An art is modern if it was created in modern times. This raises the question of what you consider "modern". 20th century? 21st century? Depending on your context, you might draw the cut-off point at different times. (You might also decline to draw a binary distinction and instead consider modernity as a continuum.) When you are talking about arts derived from a Japanese tradition, one of the most commonly used cut-off points is the Meiji restoration. Japanese arts founded before that point ("koryu" arts) generally shared certain philosophical and pedagogical attributes that are very different from those of the arts founded after that point ("gendai" arts). There might arguably be more similarity between Judo (a gendai art) and some modern form of jujutsu created 100+ years after Judo than between Judo and its immediate forebear Tenjin Shinyo-ryu, which was founded only 50 years before Judo.

An art is eclectic if it draws upon a variety of unrelated sources for its curriculum. This can be somewhat subjective, since a large percentage of newly created arts draw upon more than one source. Personally, I tend to use the term if the sources are clearly unrelated and their separate origins can still be perceived in the resulting art.

 

[moonhill99]

An art is Japanese if it was created in Japan.

True.

It's western if it was created in the West.

True

It's pretty straightforward.

I understand this part.


You will find a fair number of people who consider their art "Japanese", even though it was founded in the West by Westerners, because the art's ancestry can be traced back to Japan

Only if the curriculum is Japanese. If the curriculum is not Japanese or is mixed with other systems than no it should not be called true Japanese jujutsu.

and they have held on to certain Japanese cultural trappings. It's like my family metaphor - do you consider members of the Watanabe family who have been in England for 5 generations to still be "Japanese"?)

What is Cris Parker and some other members here are chasing Japanese curriculum or Japanese cultural?

If it is Japanese curriculum but a westerner cultural than base on the cultural it is not true Japanese. But the curriculum is Japanese.

I buy Japanese games in the west at the store does that make it less Japanese because in Japan they use other box or it not in English or different?

It's like my family metaphor - do you consider members of the Watanabe family who have been in England for 5 generations to still be "Japanese"?)

I'm concern about curriculum not culture or history. If the curriculum is new ,different or mixed than yes I will agree it is not true Japanese curriculum of that system.

I must ask what they do in Japan that so different than here besides the curriculum that makes it so different you call it.

An art is modern if it was created in modern times. This raises the question of what you consider "modern". 20th century? 21st century? Depending on your context, you might draw the cut-off point at different times. (You might also decline to draw a binary distinction and instead consider modernity as a continuum.) When you are talking about arts derived from a Japanese tradition, one of the most commonly used cut-off points is the Meiji restoration. Japanese arts founded before that point ("koryu" arts) generally shared certain philosophical and pedagogical attributes that are very different from those of the arts founded after that point ("gendai" arts). There might arguably be more similarity between Judo (a gendai art) and some modern form of jujutsu created 100+ years after Judo than between Judo and its immediate forebear Tenjin Shinyo-ryu, which was founded only 50 years before Judo.

I thought every thing after the Meiji is considered modern.

So this would be modern Japanese jiu jitsu.

Where traditional Japanese jujutsu schools are like the videos in post 6.
Modern Japanese jiu jitsu vs traditional Japanese jiu jitsu MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

If so why are modern Japanese jiu jitsu bad?

What are they teaching in those 4 clips above that make it so bad?

Is it too mixed with other systems? The curriculum is too new and different than the curriculum in Japan? They don't teach these new systems in Japan?

They would not teach these moves and techniques in Japan like they are shown in the 4 clips above?

What makes those moves and techniques bad?

An art is eclectic if it draws upon a variety of unrelated sources for its curriculum. This can be somewhat subjective, since a large percentage of newly created arts draw upon more than one source. Personally, I tend to use the term if the sources are clearly unrelated and their separate origins can still be perceived in the resulting art.

Yes like the Jacksonville school you said teaching boxing and Brazilian jiu-jitsu part of its Japanese jiu jitsu.

Would not be true Japanese jiu jitsu.

You said and others here said that a lot of the Japanese jiu jitsu schools in US are mixed systems.

If so than that would not be true Japanese jiu jitsu.

Typically such systems will have roots in judo and/or aikido, but they may also include elements from karate, kung fu, arnis, and who knows what else.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems, but you said you were specifically looking for Japanese jujutsu,

You mean looking for a traditional Japanese jujutsu schools or a Japanese jujutsu schools that is not mixed or not and or modern Japanese jujutsu schools or not?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Only if the curriculum is Japanese. If the curriculum is not Japanese or is mixed with other systems than no it should not be called true Japanese jujutsu.

Yeah ... that gets tricky. Firstly, if by curriculum you mean the list of techniques taught - that's not the most important factor in defining a martial art. Secondly, it can be a bit confusing determining where exactly individual techniques originated.

Let's take BJJ as a case study. This is generally regarded as a Brazilian art, not a Japanese one. However ...

The original curriculum came entirely from a Japanese judo practitioner (Maeda). Carlos Gracie studied with either Maeda or Maeda's student Donato Pires for only about 3 years and did not learn anywhere close to the full Judo curriculum. Over time, practitioners added more techniques to the art from catch wrestling, Sombo, and Judo. However the Sombo techniques may have originated in Judo and the catch wrestling techniques may also have been in Judo, although independently discovered. BJJ competitors regularly develop new techniques based on the old ones, but we occasionally find old footage of Judo practitioners using some of those same moves. This is why some old-time Judo practitioners refer to BJJ as Basically Just Judo.

What makes BJJ a separate (though closely related art) from Judo are tactics, objectives, specialization, training methods, and culture.

I mentioned earlier that no two systems of Japanese jujutsu have the same curriculum. In addition, martial artists from different parts of the world have independently discovered many of the same techniques (although the flavor of these techniques may vary according to the art). This is why I think it's much simpler to just identify the nationality of an art based on where it was founded.

I must ask what they do in Japan that so different than here besides the curriculum that makes it so different you call it.

Depends on the arts in question. In many cases the difference between a modern Japanese art and a modern American art might not be any greater than the difference between two modern Japanese arts or between two modern American arts.

So this would be modern Japanese jiu jitsu.

Nope. Those are all modern Western systems descended from Japanese systems. (That last one had a lot of karate and/or TKD in it.)

If so why are modern Japanese jiu jitsu bad

No one is saying it's bad. Japanese/Western, modern/classical, eclectic/traditional - nothing of that has anything to do with whether an art is good or bad.

They don't teach these new systems in Japan?

They would not teach these moves and techniques in Japan like they are shown in the 4 clips above?

I don't know whether any of those arts have migrated back to Japan. (I doubt it.) BJJ is an example of a Western member of the jujutsu family that has travelled back to the roots and is being studied in Japan by Japanese practitioners today.

You mean looking for a traditional Japanese jujutsu schools or a Japanese jujutsu schools that is not mixed or not and or modern Japanese jujutsu schools or not?

That's up to you. Since you've clarified that you don't care about history or culture and just want a curriculum that includes throws, strikes, and locks, then I would forget about it and just find a school where you like the instruction. Based on your criteria, it doesn't sound like it really should matter to you whether an art is Japanese or not.

 

[moonhill99]

I don't have time to respond to the above has I'm busy with work and stuff. I will try to do it soon.

But from what I seen the schools out side of Japan seem to drop the word Japanese jujutsu and just call it jujutsu . The instructors teaching it seem more in common with Judo and some instructors will mixed in styles (boxing or karate so on) than the classic old jujutsu.

And people seem to spell jujutsu many ways.

The instructors don't seem interested teaching the old classic one but into the modern one. With Aikido and Judo so popular these days may be that is why.

 

[Chris Parker]

You firstly need to do one thing… forget everything you think you know (frankly, it's nothing), and actually listen to what you're being told. So far, none of what you've said even makes sense.

People teach the art they know and are able to teach… if that's a modern system, it's a modern system. If it's a classical one, it's a classical one… it has nothing to do with who is interested in teaching what… it's about what they're actually teaching.

The rest of your post is just as off-base, bluntly.