Ninjutsu vs Bjj (NAGA rules)

[JowGaWolf]

Yeah, I said that TMAs don't add new techniques to established systems the way Boxing, Judo, Bjj, MMA, etc. does.

Some do when it's possible. For example, in Jow Ga some of our upper cuts will look like boxing uppercuts but sometimes it won't because it's using the uppercut in a different manner. Which requires a different structure that will support the uppercut used in that manner. For example, The rear boxing upper cut is thrown with a different structure than the lead boxing uppercut. You cannot expect the same structure to work for both variations. In other words I literally cannot throw a lead uppercut with the same structure that I throw the rear upper cut.

So there is no way under the laws of physics and human anatomy that you can have the same structure for both. The big wheel punches that use the upper cut will not work with the boxer version of the uppercut because the first hand will throw you off balance if you do it that way. There is no once size fits all for an uppercut structure.

Looks like standard kickboxing with some wild punching thrown in. It's shocking that these people spend all that time learning pretty forms and antiquated techniques to just end up looking like kick boxers with crazy punching at the end. Just incredible.

I use "antiquated techniques" and I look far from a kick boxer. Those who end up looking like kick boxers do so because they aren't trying to use the techniques that they train. They abandoned the techniques and use what feels safe.

If Kung Fu hand techniques were on par, MMA fighters would be training and using them. The fact that they choose western boxing over traditional Kung Fu even in China is very telling.

Maybe they choose western boxing because that fits closely to what they currently know and how they currently punch.

What I'm saying is that Boxing is the better method until someone from your camp proves otherwise.

I don't have to prove that it's better. If you are getting Knocked out by a slap then it's irrelevant if it's better than an uppercut. Because it's the slap that KOed you, not the uppercut. If you hit me in the head with your forearm and I pass out, then it's totally irrelevant what is better. It doesn't matter if professional fighters use it or not, because there I am knocked out on the ground because someone hit me in the head with a forearm.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

bringing up Kung Fu "uppercuts".

Actually, I think the Kung Fu uppercut is better than the boxing uppercut for the following reasons.

- You use left arm to pull down your opponent's head, uppercut to his chin at the same time.
- You use left hand to pull down your opponent's guard, borrow the counter force, your right hand then uppercut to his chin.
- It integrates defense and offense into one motion.
- This kind of "pull and punch" method can be integrated into the wrestling art much easier than the boxing uppercut.

1. Boxing - a punch is a punch.
2. Kung Fu - a punch can be a pull by one hand and a punch by other hand, or a punch by one hand and then pull by the same hand.

In order to truly integrate the striking art with the wrestling art, that "pull" is important.

My guys have no boxing training. Their striking art came from the long fist system. They can do uppercut just like normal boxer does.

A head pulling (downward force) and uppercut (upward force) at the same time can be seen in this clip.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If my history on your system is correct, isn't NGA already an Aikido system known to incorporate techniques not traditionally considered "Aikido" like Osoto-Gari and Shihonnage? If that's the case, I can understand where your mindset comes from. I agree that a lot of it falls on the instructor over the style, but we shouldn't forget that within many styles the idea of innovation and changing the art is drilled out of their minds.

NGA is a cousin to Ueshiba's Aikido, not a branch from it. Both have Daito-ryu as their primary source. We also have some influence from Judo (hence the Osoto-Gari, which we call Leg Sweep). My take on NGA draws more heavily on the Judo influence, partly because my first self-chosen art was Judo (my parents enrolled me in Karate before that).

One side note: I've seen Shihonage taught in Aikido schools before. I don't know how common that is, though.

But yes, you (in your last paragraph) and I are saying much the same thing. I'm just being pedantic in insisting on differentiating between the style and the instructors of that style.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

hence the Osoto-Gari, which we call Leg Sweep.

If you call it "sweep" when using your right leg to hook the outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side), then if you use your right leg to hook the

2nd side - inside of your opponent's right leg,
3rd side - inside of your opponent's left leg,
4th side - outside of your opponent's left leg,

what will you call those throws?

How about to use your hook

- 90 degree up?
- 45 degree up?
- horizontal?
- 45 degree down?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you call it "sweep" when using your right leg to hook the outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side), then if you use your right leg to hook the

2nd side - inside of your opponent's right leg,
3rd side - inside of your opponent's left leg,
4th side - outside of your opponent's left leg,

what will you call those throws?

How about to use your hook

- 90 degree up?
- 45 degree up?
- horizontal?
- 45 degree down?

We'd call all of those "Leg Sweep" in NGA - just variations of the concept. I commonly teach a standard Leg Sweep (very similar to Osoto-gari), a front Leg Sweep (both facing the same direction), a double Leg Sweep (take both legs), and a side Leg Sweep (very carefully - easy to injure the knee). Other variations (like sweeping the farther leg) would be covered deeper in the curriculum as folks are ready for them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

We'd call all of those "Leg Sweep" in NGA - just variations of the concept.

One of the brothers of the Jow Ga founder was said to be very street and not formal with the naming of techniques, so there's a lot of techniques that are more concept names than specific names for a technique.

It not uncommon for a Sifu to ask the student to perform variation of a technique name. Having to learn in that type of naming environment makes it easier for me to understand your perspective when you call those things "Leg Sweep" For us the only main difference in a lot of the sweep that we have is if the foot is hooking and pulling, sweeping like a round house type, or striking. But from what I was taught all of our sweeps are sweeps if the foot makes a sweeping motion, even if it's pulling. If there's an exception to that then I don't know it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

One of the brothers of the Jow Ga founder was said to be very street and not formal with the naming of techniques, so there's a lot of techniques that are more concept names than specific names for a technique.

It not uncommon for a Sifu to ask the student to perform variation of a technique name. Having to learn in that type of naming environment makes it easier for me to understand your perspective when you call those things "Leg Sweep" For us the only main difference in a lot of the sweep that we have is if the foot is hooking and pulling, sweeping like a round house type, or striking. But from what I was taught all of our sweeps are sweeps if the foot makes a sweeping motion, even if it's pulling. If there's an exception to that then I don't know it.

The reason that Chinese wrestling uses different terms is because the set up are all different and the rooting leg position are all difference too.

For example, if you want to use your right leg to hook the inside of your opponent's

- left leg, you have to land your left foot in front of his left foot.
- right leg, you have to land your left foot behind his right foot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One of the brothers of the Jow Ga founder was said to be very street and not formal with the naming of techniques, so there's a lot of techniques that are more concept names than specific names for a technique.

It not uncommon for a Sifu to ask the student to perform variation of a technique name. Having to learn in that type of naming environment makes it easier for me to understand your perspective when you call those things "Leg Sweep" For us the only main difference in a lot of the sweep that we have is if the foot is hooking and pulling, sweeping like a round house type, or striking. But from what I was taught all of our sweeps are sweeps if the foot makes a sweeping motion, even if it's pulling. If there's an exception to that then I don't know it.

Yep, that's pretty much the way I see NGA - the named techniques are there to teach base concepts, so we often apply those names to many situations that use similar concepts. There's a throw in Judo that has both facing one direction, and sweeping the back leg up while throwing. To me, that combines the concepts of hip throw and Leg Sweep (the former isn't a named technique in NGA, but one I commonly teach). I find a lot of that along the way - applications that are combinations of multiple "techniques". Other styles (like Judo) would give them separate names.

 

[Buka]

True, but I don't feel that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Rickson is a personal hero of mine, and to learn from him was one of the pinnacle moments of learning Bjj, but I think he's trying to stop a raging river with a coffee cup.

Rickson had more of an impact in my Martial career, and more of an impact in my professional career as a DT instructor, than anybody ever did. Changed everything. Changed the training in my dojo, the way I taught my students, changed my understanding of Martial Arts, of fighting, completely changed our DT program.

I had said to my boss, "I'm going to revamp the entire DT program over the coming years and I'll need to retrain and recertify everyone." Bosses just love that. Mine said, 'Are you out of your fricken' mind? You designed the damn course to begin with."

I replied, "Come down my dojo next month and I'll show you." I was having Rickson down for a series of seminars. This was in 1992. My boss came down and took the first seminar. At the end of the night he walked away scratching his head and said, "Design anything you want. Take all the time you need."
That's a great boss.

Rickson also took my wife under his wing and worked the RNC with her for years. The woman has a God awful nasty choke. If she gets your back you are in big trouble. We trained in a Rickson school here on Maui in the nineties. She's 125 pounds. Big, local guys who were better grapplers than we were wouldn't pay much attention when a small wahine got their back. At least the first time. She'd put them out every time.

It was not pure Gracie Jiu-jitsu that Rickson first taught us, it was MMA - people sometimes get pissed when I tell them that....which usually makes me repeat it with great gusto. It was the principles of BJJ, mostly position and base, to throw effective strikes that we were already proficient in.

Rickson taught me as much about punching on the ground as anyone has taught me anything. And I'll tell you what, if I get you in my closed guard I will punch you silly. It is my favorite place to throw punches from, even more than standing. No foolin'. Caveat - you need a strong core.

So, yeah, I kinda' like the guy, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The reason that Chinese wrestling uses different terms is because the set up are all different and the rooting leg position are all difference too.

For example, if you want to use your right leg to hook the inside of your opponent's

- left leg, you have to land your left foot in front of his left foot.
- right leg, you have to land your left foot behind his right foot.

We (at least I) tend to separate the entry from the technique. So I'll discuss what's available from a given entry or position. And even when we combine the entry and technique as a single concept, we still just use the one name and discuss what's different about the setup in this version versus that version. It ends up being much the same approach, whether they are named differently or not.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

We (at least I) tend to separate the entry from the technique. So I'll discuss what's available from a given entry or position. And even when we combine the entry and technique as a single concept, we still just use the one name and discuss what's different about the setup in this version versus that version. It ends up being much the same approach, whether they are named differently or not.

I think the term "hook" may be better than the term "sweep". You are talking about a hook pulling motion. There is nothing wrong to say to hook your opponent's

- right leg from outside 45 degree up, or
- left leg from inside horizontally.

Actually I like the simple term better. It's just there are different Chinese terms for these.

Boar, hog, swing, pig, ... are the same thing afterward.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yep, that's pretty much the way I see NGA - the named techniques are there to teach base concepts, so we often apply those names to many situations that use similar concepts. There's a throw in Judo that has both facing one direction, and sweeping the back leg up while throwing. To me, that combines the concepts of hip throw and Leg Sweep (the former isn't a named technique in NGA, but one I commonly teach). I find a lot of that along the way - applications that are combinations of multiple "techniques". Other styles (like Judo) would give them separate names.

That's probably why we think similar about techniques. Now that I think of it, I wonder if this was intentionally done by the Jow Ga founder's brother. I say this because the advantage of seeing things this way means we less likely to be tied down to what a sweep can be. For example, the entire uppercut discussion, where to me an uppercut is a general concept of a punch, but to Hanzou it is a specific type of punch that is done only one way.

When I learn a technique I automatically just assume that there is more than one way to apply it or to do something similar in concept but different in application.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the term "hook" may be better than the term "sweep". You are talking about a hook pulling motion. There is nothing wrong to say to hook your opponent's

- right leg from outside 45 degree up, or
- left leg from inside horizontally.

Actually I like the simple term better. It's just there are different Chinese terms for these.

Boar, hog, swing, pig, ... are the same thing afterward.

Interestingly, we actually start with purposely NOT hooking the leg. It's a safer starting point and makes it less likely you end up going down in a tangle. So the Classical (the Osoto-gari version) is a swing, rather than a hook. Of course, after a point, we learn to use a hooking action when it adds something useful, but the sweep - the swinging momentum of the leg - continues to be the principle force in most variations.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Chinese is a very condense language.

切 (Qie) - Front cut (right leg hook the outside of the right leg 45 degree up),
刀 (Dao) - Inner sickle (right leg hook the inside of the right leg 45 degree up),
合 (He) - Inner hook (right leg hook the inside of the left leg horizontally),
削 (Xiao) - Sickle hook (right leg hook the outside of the left leg horizontally),

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's probably why we think similar about techniques. Now that I think of it, I wonder if this was intentionally done by the Jow Ga founder's brother. I say this because the advantage of seeing things this way means we less likely to be tied down to what a sweep can be. For example, the entire uppercut discussion, where to me an uppercut is a general concept of a punch, but to Hanzou it is a specific type of punch that is done only one way.

When I learn a technique I automatically just assume that there is more than one way to apply it or to do something similar in concept but different in application.

I think it can help, though it has another risk. In some NGA schools, they work hard not to vary from the Classical version of most techniques, so they end up limiting themselves more than I suspect the founder of NGA intended. I've looked at his selection of techniques (and at some of those he'd have had to decide to leave out) and it seems pretty clear that he was trying to cover a specific range of principles. Some of the techniques seem to be there solely to work on a principle (nobody is likely to ever find the specific technique a best solution), and others seem to cover a pretty broad swath (arm bar and leg sweep are both in that camp). I like to think my approach is closer to that of the founder. I have no reason to think that's actually true, but I like to think it, anyway.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think it can help, though it has another risk. In some NGA schools, they work hard not to vary from the Classical version of most techniques, so they end up limiting themselves more than I suspect the founder of NGA intended. I've looked at his selection of techniques (and at some of those he'd have had to decide to leave out) and it seems pretty clear that he was trying to cover a specific range of principles. Some of the techniques seem to be there solely to work on a principle (nobody is likely to ever find the specific technique a best solution), and others seem to cover a pretty broad swath (arm bar and leg sweep are both in that camp). I like to think my approach is closer to that of the founder. I have no reason to think that's actually true, but I like to think it, anyway.

If the goal was to actually use NGA, then I'm sure you are on the exact track as your founder. Teach a student a basic jab and they will throw that jab the same way each time as long as they never use it. Put that same student in a sparring environment and you'll see that jab evolve and change before your eyes. Even if you don't teach the student, you will start seeing the student experiment with feints, double jabs, power jabs, set up jabs, and all of this will happen on it's own. Even more changes occur when you spar outside of your system, as the attacks look foreign compared to what everyone trains inside the school.

The only way I could see the founder of NGA wanting it to remain static is if he was trying to preserve a historical representation. This is also not bad as HEMA wishes they had a historical representation of what they do beyond piecing pictures together and looking at similar sword fighting from other systems. So have you thought of the new name of your fighting system? Or are you keeping the same name?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If the goal was to actually use NGA, then I'm sure you are on the exact track as your founder. Teach a student a basic jab and they will throw that jab the same way each time as long as they never use it. Put that same student in a sparring environment and you'll see that jab evolve and change before your eyes. Even if you don't teach the student, you will start seeing the student experiment with feints, double jabs, power jabs, set up jabs, and all of this will happen on it's own. Even more changes occur when you spar outside of your system, as the attacks look foreign compared to what everyone trains inside the school.

The only way I could see the founder of NGA wanting it to remain static is if he was trying to preserve a historical representation. This is also not bad as HEMA wishes they had a historical representation of what they do beyond piecing pictures together and looking at similar sword fighting from other systems. So have you thought of the new name of your fighting system? Or are you keeping the same name?

I've never come up with a name I like. To me, it's still NGA. I refer to it as a sub-style: Shojin-ryu Nihon Goshin Aikido. But that's only when I actually get around to using the name. It turns out, I don't do that very often - once had a student ask me a couple of months in what style I teach.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So have you thought of the new name of your fighting system? Or are you keeping the same name?

After I have integrated kick and punch into Chinese wrestling, I can't call it Chinese wrestling any more. I'll call it combat Chinese wrestling (combat Shuai Chiao, CSC, or just CC). Just hope 1000 years from today, someone will give me credit for this.

 

[Hanzou]

Some do when it's possible. For example, in Jow Ga some of our upper cuts will look like boxing uppercuts but sometimes it won't because it's using the uppercut in a different manner. Which requires a different structure that will support the uppercut used in that manner. For example, The rear boxing upper cut is thrown with a different structure than the lead boxing uppercut. You cannot expect the same structure to work for both variations. In other words I literally cannot throw a lead uppercut with the same structure that I throw the rear upper cut.

So there is no way under the laws of physics and human anatomy that you can have the same structure for both. The big wheel punches that use the upper cut will not work with the boxer version of the uppercut because the first hand will throw you off balance if you do it that way. There is no once size fits all for an uppercut structure.

So again, you guys aren't adding new techniques to Jow Ga. You're attempting to emulate the original goals of the founder.

I use "antiquated techniques" and I look far from a kick boxer. Those who end up looking like kick boxers do so because they aren't trying to use the techniques that they train. They abandoned the techniques and use what feels safe.

So those examples you showed of competitive Kung Fu are examples of people abandoning their techniques?

Maybe they choose western boxing because that fits closely to what they currently know and how they currently punch.

The Chinese would choose western boxing over their native martial arts because it fits their fighting style better? Wouldn't it make more sense that boxing takes less time to learn, cuts out all of the form and weapon nonsense, and produces better results?

I don't have to prove that it's better. If you are getting Knocked out by a slap then it's irrelevant if it's better than an uppercut. Because it's the slap that KOed you, not the uppercut. If you hit me in the head with your forearm and I pass out, then it's totally irrelevant what is better. It doesn't matter if professional fighters use it or not, because there I am knocked out on the ground because someone hit me in the head with a forearm.

In the conversation of which is the better method to produce a fighter, it definitely is relevant. Boxing continues to evolve while Jow Ga remains stagnant. That's a very important difference between the two. Obviously if you want to learn a nice historical discipline and learn a little Chinese terminology and history, there's nothing wrong with Jow Ga. However, if your goal is to learn how to fight, or to become a professional fighter, obviously boxing is the better alternative.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So those examples you showed of competitive Kung Fu are examples of people abandoning their techniques?

I don't see an abandoning of technique. They may not use all of the techniques they know but they do use some of them..
Shuai Jiao

Long fist

half moon kick

In the conversation of which is the better method to produce a fighter, it definitely is relevant.

This is why you don't learn anything. You are always trying to put one thing as being better than another.

Here's your boxing produces a better fighter.

.