What you are describing is one aspect of how BJJ has developed and how it is practiced by a significant percentage of practitioners. It is not the original nor the only way it has developed and is practiced. That's why I said it's a partial truth - it is an accurate observation of how many people train in the art, but it is certainly not universal. With all due respect - I think I have rather a lot more experience in the art than you do and thus a lot more data points to draw upon. I have no doubt that you are correctly describing what you have seen.
Hey Tony,
While not arguing that you have more experience in this field than I do, and also not arguing about the origins or focus of some schools of BJJ, I'd argue about the development not coming from the sporting side of things. Of course, I'm open to hearing about an alternate, can you give me an example of BJJ that has not developed it's methodology through sporting application? The reason I ask is that I can't think of any form that shows the hallmarks of not developing in that fashion... and, to be absolutely clear here, I don't see anything negative about developing through sports at all... as I said, it is what gives BJJ it's sophistication and depth of knowledge on the ground. It's a great thing.
Okay. Hold on. If you choose to alter your name, that's one thing. But, one's given name is just that. Your name is Christopher. My name is Stephen. I go by Steve.
No, it's not about "choosing to alter (my) name", it's that the name changes when spoken in a different language.
Ultimately, though, it seems that names weren't a perfect analogy. Etymology is an interesting field of study, and English is a complex language with many influences. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he brought a strong French influence into our language. Many English words have a French root, and while one could say that they were "borrowed," that in no way means that the word now is the same as the French word. In some cases, the English word no longer means precisely what the French word did (or does.) He and his court are largely responsible for bringing us from Middle English into the English that more closely resembles the language we all speak today.
For example, there are many words we use every day in English. The words are English words and have English meanings, even though these words came from old King William and those pesky Normans. Cinema is a common English word, taken from the French word cinematographe, which was a term taken from ancient Greek (kinema).
It's a completely different thing when you're looking at the etymology of a language through the filters of it's source languages (for example, Greek as a basis for most scientific language, Latin for legal language, as well as French, Germanic, Celtic etc for English), and looking at where a loanword comes from. A loanword is brought in independent of the structure and etymology of the language it's being brought into... in other words, if there's no basis in the language from the language the new word is being introduced from, it's a loanword. So, unless you can say how Japanese is a root language of Portuguese, particularly as spoken in Brazil, it's not a true Portuguese word, it's a Japanese word that's been brought in as a loanword.
Or what about the term, "a la mode?" In English, the derivative does not mean the same thing as in French. In America, specifically, "a la mode" refers to adding scoop of ice cream to a piece of pie.
Yeah... you guys certainly have a way with words... it really means "in the style", or "trendy, fashionable"... but hey, I guess adding icecream is fashionable... in a way...
"Amateur" is another English word with roots in French. In the French language, it's a much more general term for someone who loves an activity or does it "for the love of" it. In American English, the term is much more specific and used as the synonym for a professional. It typically refers to someone who is not paid, but can also refer to someone who isn't very good at the activity. The word is an English word. It's pronounced differently than it would be in French, and it has a distinct definition that is not the same as its root.
Sure... but French is a root language for modern English. Japanese is not for Portuguese.
Sushi is indeed an American word borrowed from the Japanese, but I would suggest that American Sushi is NOT what you would typically find in Japan. In America, the term "sushi" refers to a uniquely American experience that overlaps with the Japanese experience in some ways. One is not better than or worse than the other. But they are different, and in America, if you went to a sushi restaurant expecting a very Japanese experience, you would be disappointed in the same way you would be expecting actual Chinese food in a Chinese restaurant.
Seriously? Sushi is an American word? Really?
Look, Steve, I'm not arguing that a word can be applied with slight or larger differences in other cultures, but to say that sushi is an American word because there are sushi restaurants in the US is just plain... hell, I have a bit of trouble finding the word... ludicrous.
So, in this way, sushi said in America is an American word used to describe an Americanized dining experience.
You're missing the point. The experience isn't the thing, it's where the word comes from... and it's a Japanese word.
Also, if anything, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the subset of Gracie Jiu Jitsu. While it's true that Oswaldo Fadda lineage is alive and well, all but a very, very few Jiu Jitsu black belts trace their lineage in some way back through the Gracies. In modern usage, most people use the term Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to indicate that they are not directly affiliated with the Gracie family. However, BJJ... particularly in America, stems from GJJ and not the other way around.
So... although there are other forms of BJJ, other than Gracie, there's the Fadda lineage, there are groups that have grown out from the Gracies, there's the Machado's, BJJ is a subset of Gracie JiuJitsu? Really?
Uh, nope.
Finally, Chris, have you ever see this famous painting by Rene Magritte? It's called the Treachery of Images. The caption, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," is an integral part of the piece. Translated, it means, "This is not a pipe."
View attachment 18640
This painting came to mind as we discuss symbols. One might say that it is clearly a pipe, but it's not. It's a picture, a painting. And, really, this is even more removed. It's a digital copy of a painting of a pipe. But it's still not a pipe. In the same way, Jiu Jitsu might seem to be a Japanese word, but it's not. Heck, jujutsu isn't even a Japanese word, nor is this:
View attachment 18641
These are symbols that
stand for words which mean something in the language in which they are spoken. In Brazil, if you say jiu jitsu, it doesn't mean something Japanese. It means something Brazilian. And the spoken word is itself a symbol for the thing to which it refers.
While I get what you're saying, you're taking it to an extreme where it all loses meaning... the picture is a representation of a pipe, sure, and sure, the written word, whether alphabetical, pictographic, or otherwise, are simply representations of the words, which are simply representations of concepts and ideas, which are simply expressions of internal feelings, which are... really?
The written word is the written word. It's still the word. It's a symbolic representation of the word, but it's also still the word.
As far as "JiuJitsu", if spoken in Brazil not referring to something Japanese, that still doesn't change the fact that it's a Japanese word, mistransliterated, and applied within context to a Brazilian expression of a Japanese art. Hell, you call your uniforms "kimono"... are you going to tell me that that's not a Japanese word either?
Hmmm.... sorry, but no. Just because the Brazilians took a Japanese martial art and gave it a Brazilian twist, does not mean that the words are no longer Japanese. Same way that if the Americans created their own Krav Maga system and called it "American Krav Maga", that does NOT mean that the words "Krav" and "Maga" are now American words, or English words. These are still Hebrew words.
Brazilians kept calling it JJ because their version of it doesn't have strikes at all, so it's still considered "gentle". Since "Ju" and "Jutsu" translates into "Gentle art", the Brazilians can call it "Brazilian Arte Suave", which translates exactly the same way.
Yes, the Japanese would probably understand if you pronounce like the Brazilians do, as "Jiu Jitsu", simply because they're aware of the world around them, but "Jiu" is still a mispronunciation of "Ju" and "Jitsu" is still a mispronunciation of "Jutsu".
Look, I'm agreeing that the origins are Japanese, that BJJ is a Brazilian art derived from a Japanese art, that (when looking at Japanese arts) the transliteration is incorrect, but the resultant art is removed enough that separation has given rise to a different rendering of the term... almost a "Chinese Whispers" thing. Is it "correct" from the point of view of the actual Japanese term? No. However, it can't be ignored that, at the time, it was considered to be, if not the "correct" form, then it was the standard form of rendering the word. BJJ just happens to have kept it.
Judo and Jujutsu are distinct enough that they are considered completely separate arts, and have been quite a while now. BJJ techniques were developed from watching and refining the martial art of Judo, not the martial art of Jujutsu, even if the term "Jujutsu" doesn't indicate one single method but rather an approach.
Judo and Jujutsu are distinct the same way each different Jujutsu system is distinct from the others... the way Takenouchi Ryu is different to Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, is different to Yagyu Shingan Ryu, is different to Sho Sho Ryu, is different to Takagi Ryu, is different to Sekiguchi Ryu, is different to Asayama Ichiden Ryu, is different to Kito Ryu, is different to Hakko Ryu, is different to, well, all of the others. BJJ developed from one form of jujutsu... specifically Kano-ha Jujutsu, along with a range of other influences.
Not that I really care that much, or at all. You can call it whatever you want. I'm just stating technical observations.
But ignoring the contextual application of what you're observing.
It is for the guy who started the thread, because he specifically said he wants to learn these arts from a "street effective" standpoint. He's the one I responded to.
Okay.
This, while valid, does not address the concern of the guy who opened the thread, and like I said, I was responding to him.
Which was dealt with at the beginning of the thread.. but okay.
I've visited more than one BJJ school in my vicinity and did encounter the problem I was saying. In the local sporting center, they offer BJJ, so I spoke to the instructor and asked him about his approach to street situations and does he address it. To his credit, he fully admitted that the answer is no and he's teaching it from a "fitness, sport, fun for the whole family" kind of approach, and not survival.
He did refer me to a friend of his who teaches in a close by city, but he too did not have any "street survival" scenarios in his curriculum. Only people rolling around, passing guards, applying chokes etc on a mat.
Which is application, as I said... just application in a particular context.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist in BJJ. I know for a fact that it does. The Gracies have a comprehensive program regarding these scenarios. They too, by the way, agree with my concern, as you can see here:
And here:
My point is still very very valid. You have sporting schools and self defense schools, and I know this is true because I've been in both. A martial art that emphasizes real life events and has no competition, will only have schools that address self defense. With BJJ, that is not the case. I'm not saying it's "good" or "bad". I'm just saying it's true. When I said "concern" before, I was referring, again, to the concerns of the guy who opened the thread.
Yeah... I've seen the program. And, honestly, those videos don't really fill me with a huge amount of confidence that they've really grasped the differences... the focus is still in the wrong direction, and no matter how much Rener tries to separate the two, they're really little more than variations on each other in that approach. And, when it comes down to it, that's what it would need to be. To be as removed as the boys were suggesting would be no benefit at all.
Nor would I. That was my point.
Okay... but that was only half of what I said.
You can simply ask them if there was any attention paid to real life scenarios.
Sure, but my point was that they wouldn't necessarily have the knowledge themselves to determine that.
I would agree with you that Jiu Jitsu is a uniquely Brazilian martial art related closely to, but distinct from, modern Judo. I would presume (perhaps mistakenly) that modern BJJ is as closely related to any kind of koryu art as modern Judo. However much that might be.
JiuJitsu is not a uniquely Brazilian martial art, Steve. Brazilian JiuJitsu is. And, for the record, no, BJJ is definitely much more removed from Koryu than Judo is, on many, many levels.
Regarding phonetic spellings, if we're translating Japanese into English or vice versa, then that's relevant. But Jiu Jitsu doesn't refer to something Japanese. It refers to something Brazilian, and so any romanization of kanji is relevant only as a footnote to discussing the etymology of the term. It's trivia and may be interesting, but has no bearing on the correctness of the modern usage of the word.
We're not translating, though, Steve, we're transliterating. And, if you're not looking at romanization of the kanji, why are the kanji used? Why do BJJ practitioners get 柔術 tattooed on themselves? Why does it turn up on videos, such as the ones linked above?
Do you think that the scribbles on the page below are jujutsu?
じゅうじゅつ
If so, my point wasn't clear. The scribbles on the page above, like the kanji and any other words, are symbols representing words that in turn represent some thing.
They are the word. That is the word as written in hiragana syllabary.
My experience in Brazilian Jiujitsu always had a self defense component. Now I agree that is not the norm with everyone but it is the norm with all the schools I have encountered affiliated with most of the Gracies. (mine were initially affiliated with Rorion) Helio Gracie was adamant on teaching the self-defense and the sporting side as were his sons and now grand sons. Heck I have been in the room with Royce showing self-defense moves, just as I learned them from my instructor.
Mine claimed to, but was flawed across the board, including from Royce. There was a lot that was claimed to be self defence techniques... but, really, it was just altered sports methodology.
As Steve has mentioned the word jiujitsu is now distinctly Brazilian. A traditionalist may not like it but hey it is, what it is!
Except it's not. There are any number of Western, modern systems that use the same spelling.
Chris fitness is some thing that will always help someone out in self-defense and yes the Gracie's have proven their form of jiujitsu works great in a one on one confrontation whether for self-defense or in competition. A whole heck of a lot of street fights have documented this in brazil. If you want I can send you a video tape of some of them. It is not at it's base a sporting system but a system for personal protection. (that is how the Gracie's see it and how Helio Gracie saw it) Though not all Brazilian Jiujitsu instructors now not affiliated with the Gracie's see it that way!
I'm not arguing against fitness, Brian, I was saying that the focus on, and type of fitness is different for sports as opposed to other aims.
But what you do is not what I do. You do jujutsu. I do Jiu Jitsu. They aren't the same.
Yeah, what you do is different... and you spell the term differently... sure. But the simple fact is that it's a Japanese word transliterated incorrectly. You use the older transliteration? Cool. The argument as to who does what is actually kinda besides the point, though.
Does it actually beg the question? I don't think so, or at least, I don't know whether you and I are using the phrase in the same way. Begging the question is a kind of circular logic.
When you're claiming that that particular spelling and usage is Portuguese, and "uniquely Brazilian", then yes, it does, as there are quite a number of others, not Brazilian, not Portuguese, that use it the same way your system does. It's not circular logic as much as pointing out that your claim is easily refuted.
But, if you're asking that question, I'd say the answer is... something else?
But you said that the usage of "JiuJitsu" is "uniquely Brazilian"... that it's part of the Portuguese language... and Oaktree came up with a usage that was not Brazilian, not your system, and not Portuguese in origin... which means that the usage is not uniquely Brazilian, nor Portuguese in origin. I feel that was perhaps the point...
We can talk about historic diction. We can discuss contemporary diction. We can even discuss both at the same time. But we should be careful not to confuse the two. Language is like fashion. It ebbs and flows and changes all the time. This is particularly true where other languages enter the mix.
Sure, but you still need to differentiate between what is a loanword imported from another language, and what is etymologically speaking part of the base language itself. JiuJitsu is, in this case, an imported Japanese loanword, and it's mis-transliterated.
Simply put, over the last 100 years, the vocabulary has settled. And in the year 2014 AD, it's pretty clear that in English, jujutsu is not jiu jitsu. They are loosely related, but the relationship between jiu jitsu and judo is much closer. Australian Rules Football isn't American Football, even though they have similar names and are loosely related. And, most people in the world have no trouble distinguishing the two. In the same way, Jujutsu and Jiu Jitsu aren't the same, and I wonder why you have so much trouble distinguishing them.
The football analogy is completely off base, Steve... no-one's arguing that "fuutbawl" is the same word as "football", but it's the way it's spelt in Swahili. And, while I'm at it there's no such thing as "in English" here... it's not an English word, although it has found a place within the lexicon (as a loanword).
Let's talk about your fixation with male eroticism. What's that about?
Now, Steve, you wouldn't be trying to muddy the discussion there, would you?
I don't know, oak tree. You say public perception, but your public is definitely different from mine. I've never even heard the term korotty before. And even if someone says tai chi, I don't think it's as horrible as you seem to believe. My mom does tai chi and really likes it. It's really good for her and whether it's called taiji or tai chi, she certainly means no offense.
Is English your first language? I'm wondering if some of the disconnect we are having is in part due to a language barrier.
English is mine, Steve, so I'm going to say that no, that's not the issue.
