Will Brazilian Jiujitsu eventually replace Japanese Jujitsu?

[lklawson]

They are mainly kata based. But they also do randori. And they also do Judo.. so why would they need to recreate the wheel there? They can just do Judo randori if they decide that's the only thing that matters.

Just like the school I study also does Judo alongside. But I'll leave you to tell me all about it, your expertise has so enlivened this thread.

There's randori and then there's randori. Last night I was just doing "light randori," not to a fall (though that happened), just to fitting in and finding the balance. It's "free practice." Randori is NOT supposed to be shiai. Too many people confuse free practice with competition. You don't always spar all out in boxing. You don't always go all out in wrestling training falls. And you don't always go all out in free practice.

In fact, I'd argue that, in Judo at least, the point of randori is training. The idea is to get better, not to win. Kano argued that too much competition mindset actually harmed Judo and that too many Judoka were doing randori incorrectly; with a mind to winning instead of learning.

This seems to be a misconception that the OP has. One of several.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I have been to the strippers three times in my life. But I wouldn't class myself as a stripper guy

But the strippers you went to would classify you as such. They got paid.

 

[Hanzou]

There's randori and then there's randori. Last night I was just doing "light randori," not to a fall (though that happened), just to fitting in and finding the balance. It's "free practice." Randori is NOT supposed to be shiai. Too many people confuse free practice with competition. You don't always spar all out in boxing. You don't always go all out in wrestling training falls. And you don't always go all out in free practice.

In fact, I'd argue that, in Judo at least, the point of randori is training. The idea is to get better, not to win. Kano argued that too much competition mindset actually harmed Judo and that too many Judoka were doing randori incorrectly; with a mind to winning instead of learning.

This seems to be a misconception that the OP has. One of several.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yes, because I said that randori is ALWAYS a competition.

Oh wait, that's right, I NEVER said that. Reading is fundamental friend.

 

[lklawson]

The issue is sifting through the 1,000s of techniques to find the ones that are applicable to a modern context and then to test and refine them under pressure.

Pretty much everything is applicable to a modern context because the human body hasn't changed. It still breaks in exactly the same way now as it did 2,000 years ago. If there is a challenge, it's knowing which techniques are applicable to any given circumstance and how to apply them within that context. Some techniques are far easier to apply with a greater likelihood of success. The Term of Art for these has become "High Percentage Techniques." There are other techniques which may be more difficult to apply. And there are some techniques which apply very infrequently in a modern context. As an extreme example, a technique for disarming a swordsman seems like it would be a pretty infrequent need. Nevertheless there are, bizarrely, still sword attacks (though rare), and (slightly more commonly) machete attacks. But more common still are clubs held and swung in ways analogous to a sword for which the same disarming technique may be applicable.

So pretty much every technique is still "applicable" to a modern context. But I would recommend you try to figure out which are the most likely and common applications and study them first. Then branch out to the ever more unlikely or esoteric.

The thing is, that this is not a particularly modern "problem." Societies have been changing since the beginning and what worked 100 years previously, for any given society at any given time, may no longer be applicable to them. Changing technologies, such as the introduction of bronze, or later iron, then steel, often changed which techniques were more common or applicable. Changes in social norms or laws could change what techniques were seen as viable and which would get you ostracized or face legal repercussions. Even differences in cultural norms from one similar culture to another often changes what techniques and strategies were likely or applicable. For example, in German and Austrian culture, from at least late 18th C. up until the mid-20th C., a dueling scar on the cheek, a "schmisse" was a badge of honor, mark of a brave man (and good husband material), and was absolutely required to get anywhere in a military career. It was a badge of honor. Conversely, in 19th C. Spanish culture (overlapping time periods), a dueling scar on the cheek was señalada (a "mark"), of someone who was a scallywag, an inferior person, and a bad fighter. It was a mark of shame. (ref: Bowie Knife Fights, Fighters & Fighting Techniques. . .: More on Spanish Knife Culture ). Yeah, there was a little bit of truth mixed in with the Inigo Montoya character. But that changes how duels were fought between the two cultures. One had duels which were custom designed to create a facial scar because the person wanted one. The other would mark for life as a loser.

And that is just a few examples. What about when technology or social norms changes armor and clothing. You can see that happening in the U.S. right now. Ballistic resistant body armor is becoming more common. It started with cops in the 70's with Second Chance and has slowly progressed to where even Rent-a-Cop "Polyester Police" security guards are often required to wear it. Right this second, body armor is one of the hottest selling products in the Firearms-for-Self-Defense community. Websites like TacticalSh*t run specials and are often sold out. That's changing what martial techniques are viable. A knife-thrust to the chest is less likely to strike home; you may need to choose a different target. It certainly impacted the martial use of firearms in the 70's by forcing what has become known as the Mozambique Drill (aka: "Failure to Stop Drill" or "Failure Drill"). But the funny thing is, it's not new by any means! You can look at the Fechtbucks (medieval "fight manuals") and see knights fighting in armor and having to deliberately target "not the chest." You can read accounts and material from the Napoleonic era, where breastplates were common, and see how fighters would have to deliberately target "not the chest," even with firearms of the day. (And I've come across some wonderful information tracking the same for combat use in WWI, including military specs for ballistic resistant personal armor!)

Everything that's old is new again. And what's "high percentage" now might not be in 50 years, or 20, or maybe not even in 10. Society, technology, laws, and social norms are always in a state of flux. It's not particularly hard to imagine the U.S. culture developing to regard BJJ as a "thug's pastime" and applying significant social pressure against it. Just combine the fact that it is (from reports I've seen) often thought of in Brazil as a "thug" martial art with the social pressure associated with smoking or racism. Et voila!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yes, because I said that randori is ALWAYS a competition.

Oh wait, that's right, I NEVER said that. Reading is fundamental friend.

Are you still talking?

 

[Hanzou]

Are you still talking?

Just correcting the BS spewed by certain posters.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, but not a single student ever posting a randori video from any classical JJ system, in a family of systems that supposedly do randori quite often? I find that very odd. That led me to my initial conclusion that these arts are mainly kata based, and if there is randori, it's probably more along the lines of Aikido stylistically;

Instead of Judo;

It's certainly possible. I think I've only ever located one example of "sparring" in NGA videos, and it was really folks trying to force techniques. I've seen actual sparring happen in schools (it was usually just strikes), but haven't seen a video of it ever. Nearly 100% of the videos posted are either the Classical Techniques (the short 2-man kata) or the "attack line" (common drill feeding an attack). That combination is probably between 10% and 50% of what time is spent on, depending upon the school and instructor, in my experience. So I assume the same level of omission is possible for videos in other styles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just picking a number that would be considered pretty normal for any other sort of guy.

So if say I was a wrestler. I would probably want to have successfully wrestled a fair few more than three guys before I started to bang on about it.

Look if you could pull a rubber knife off most people that would be pretty convincing.

I mean a black belt BJJer can submit most people on demand.

I have been to the strippers three times in my life. But I wouldn't class myself as a stripper guy

I'd argue if someone is better than 50% in taking a knife away from someone who isn't drunk or clumsy and is actually trying, they're pretty danged good. If it gets to 80%, either the defender is phenomenal, or the attacker isn't really trying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Kinda disagree. Does anyone think that Cus D'mato could beat Tyson when he was coaching him?

Does ANY combat sports competitor, past children, think that their coach could beat them up? No, of course not. It's silly. What you and 'bear are doing, without even realizing it, is falling into the asian martial mythos that western culture has built up since the '60s. Sure you're rejecting it, but you assume that it was commonly believed in the first place.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Actually, that's what I was saying. In many TMA schools, where the (probably Westernized) culture of authority exists, folks tend to get the impression the instructor is some superhuman fighter, and size and strength (and youth and athleticism) don't matter. Since they came up in that culture, themselves, the instructors tend to not take chances that would allow them to be defeated. Mostly (or all) because of that mythos you speak of.

Go to a boxing gym, and folks wouldn't be terribly surprised if the best coach isn't the best fighter in the room (even if perhaps he once was). I'd guess @Tony Dismukes isn't able to best everyone he teaches in BJJ, and neither he nor the students are either surprised or concerned by that.

 

[lklawson]

Just correcting the BS spewed by certain posters.

Irony.

 

[drop bear]

But the strippers you went to would classify you as such. They got paid.

Not until they know me by name.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, that's what I was saying. In many TMA schools, where the (probably Westernized) culture of authority exists, folks tend to get the impression the instructor is some superhuman fighter, and size and strength (and youth and athleticism) don't matter. Since they came up in that culture, themselves, the instructors tend to not take chances that would allow them to be defeated. Mostly (or all) because of that mythos you speak of.

Go to a boxing gym, and folks wouldn't be terribly surprised if the best coach isn't the best fighter in the room (even if perhaps he once was). I'd guess @Tony Dismukes isn't able to best everyone he teaches in BJJ, and neither he nor the students are either surprised or concerned by that.

You also have the possibility of someone coming in from the outside and best everyone.

Because concepts like an open mat allow for that.

So say Lachlan guiles rolls up to the class one day on his holidays or something and leg locks everyone in the room. He would be given that opportunity to do so.

Because it isn't that big a deal

 

[drop bear]

OK. So I've done it three times with real knives. 100% success. OK, I did lose an eye once, but I survived. I count that as a win. I don't know how many times in practice, and I sure don't have a record of what percentage succeeded, but certainly I succeed more often than not.



I'm not as stringent as you. I'd give you credit for being a stripper guy.

If you can basically do the thing on demand then you can basically do the thing.

It is like water diviners. Ok. They have tales of street success. But put them in a room and tell them to find a bucket of water and they can't.

So yeah for knife if you can take a rubber knife off most guys under some pretty basically realistic conditions then you could be a weapon guy.

 

[lklawson]

You also have the possibility of someone coming in from the outside and best everyone.

Because concepts like an open mat allow for that.

So say Lachlan guiles rolls up to the class one day on his holidays or something and leg locks everyone in the room. He would be given that opportunity to do so.

Because it isn't that big a deal

Which is perfectly fine during Open Mat but not so much during an instruction period if it wasn't a leg-lock lesson.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

Pretty much everything is applicable to a modern context because the human body hasn't changed. It still breaks in exactly the same way now as it did 2,000 years ago.

That is silly.

Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed.

This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.

 

[drop bear]

Which is perfectly fine during Open Mat but not so much during an instruction period if it wasn't a leg-lock lesson.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Does Japanese jujitsu do an open mat?

Basically Lachlan guiles would roll up to JJJ class and never leglock anyone. And that class would suffer for it.

 

[Hanzou]

That is silly.

Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed.

This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.

Not only that, but the world has changed. We're no longer sitting in seiza sipping tea with a tanto at our side nor are we walking around next to authority figures carrying katanas. Thus there's very little application for training that revolves around those scenarios outside of cultural preservation/appropriation, or simply living out a personal samurai fantasy.

 

[dunc]

Pretty much everything is applicable to a modern context because the human body hasn't changed. It still breaks in exactly the same way now as it did 2,000 years ago. If there is a challenge, it's knowing which techniques are applicable to any given circumstance and how to apply them within that context. Some techniques are far easier to apply with a greater likelihood of success. The Term of Art for these has become "High Percentage Techniques." There are other techniques which may be more difficult to apply. And there are some techniques which apply very infrequently in a modern context. As an extreme example, a technique for disarming a swordsman seems like it would be a pretty infrequent need. Nevertheless there are, bizarrely, still sword attacks (though rare), and (slightly more commonly) machete attacks. But more common still are clubs held and swung in ways analogous to a sword for which the same disarming technique may be applicable.

So pretty much every technique is still "applicable" to a modern context. But I would recommend you try to figure out which are the most likely and common applications and study them first. Then branch out to the ever more unlikely or esoteric.

The thing is, that this is not a particularly modern "problem." Societies have been changing since the beginning and what worked 100 years previously, for any given society at any given time, may no longer be applicable to them. Changing technologies, such as the introduction of bronze, or later iron, then steel, often changed which techniques were more common or applicable. Changes in social norms or laws could change what techniques were seen as viable and which would get you ostracized or face legal repercussions. Even differences in cultural norms from one similar culture to another often changes what techniques and strategies were likely or applicable. For example, in German and Austrian culture, from at least late 18th C. up until the mid-20th C., a dueling scar on the cheek, a "schmisse" was a badge of honor, mark of a brave man (and good husband material), and was absolutely required to get anywhere in a military career. It was a badge of honor. Conversely, in 19th C. Spanish culture (overlapping time periods), a dueling scar on the cheek was señalada (a "mark"), of someone who was a scallywag, an inferior person, and a bad fighter. It was a mark of shame. (ref: Bowie Knife Fights, Fighters & Fighting Techniques. . .: More on Spanish Knife Culture ). Yeah, there was a little bit of truth mixed in with the Inigo Montoya character. But that changes how duels were fought between the two cultures. One had duels which were custom designed to create a facial scar because the person wanted one. The other would mark for life as a loser.

And that is just a few examples. What about when technology or social norms changes armor and clothing. You can see that happening in the U.S. right now. Ballistic resistant body armor is becoming more common. It started with cops in the 70's with Second Chance and has slowly progressed to where even Rent-a-Cop "Polyester Police" security guards are often required to wear it. Right this second, body armor is one of the hottest selling products in the Firearms-for-Self-Defense community. Websites like TacticalSh*t run specials and are often sold out. That's changing what martial techniques are viable. A knife-thrust to the chest is less likely to strike home; you may need to choose a different target. It certainly impacted the martial use of firearms in the 70's by forcing what has become known as the Mozambique Drill (aka: "Failure to Stop Drill" or "Failure Drill"). But the funny thing is, it's not new by any means! You can look at the Fechtbucks (medieval "fight manuals") and see knights fighting in armor and having to deliberately target "not the chest." You can read accounts and material from the Napoleonic era, where breastplates were common, and see how fighters would have to deliberately target "not the chest," even with firearms of the day. (And I've come across some wonderful information tracking the same for combat use in WWI, including military specs for ballistic resistant personal armor!)

Everything that's old is new again. And what's "high percentage" now might not be in 50 years, or 20, or maybe not even in 10. Society, technology, laws, and social norms are always in a state of flux. It's not particularly hard to imagine the U.S. culture developing to regard BJJ as a "thug's pastime" and applying significant social pressure against it. Just combine the fact that it is (from reports I've seen) often thought of in Brazil as a "thug" martial art with the social pressure associated with smoking or racism. Et voila!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Hi

I don’t agree with this 100%
1. As you say there are clearly old techniques that could be adapted for modern weapons / clothing. I think it would be interesting to train the modern adaptions primarily rather than the traditional ones. This is better than, for example, training sword disarms regularly and occasionally trying to figure out how the techniques change when a sword becomes a baseball bat
2. There are quite a few movements that are foundational in some older systems, but maybe not so important for a modern context (& therefore shouldn’t be foundational any more) an example is the positioning to access (& prevent your opponent accessing) your swords. If you’re not walking around armed today then perhaps your core positioning and angling will change in order to be optimal
3. The traditional schools do not do a good job of training against “modern” strikers and grapplers. For example The core attacking (uke) strikes used in the traditional schools are not the strikes you see in say kickboxing/boxing etc. I hear the argument that a punch is a punch, but I don’t buy it. The set up, timing, rhythm etc are very, very different and that’s a pretty important thing to train against
4. The chain of transmission in traditional systems is 100% reliant on this chain working perfectly. Unfortunately life doesn’t work like that and students miss details which are then not passed onto their students and so on. So it’s conceivable that some techniques are being taught now that have mistakes in them which need to be ironed out by testing under pressure

For these kind of reasons I do feel that there are adaptions needed for the traditional systems to be optimal for today’s context

I hope this makes sense

D

 

[drop bear]

Not only that, but the world has changed. We're no longer sitting in seiza sipping tea with a tanto at our side nor are we walking around next to authority figures carrying katanas. Thus there's very little application for training that revolves around those scenarios outside of cultural preservation/appropriation, or simply living out a personal samurai fantasy.

I think defending this concept that they got it right a hundred years ago. Supports the training module of some arts.

Where I am an it either works or it doesn't kind of guy.

And there is so much more nuance between a technique that works and one that doesn't even when they look similar.

Ippon seonagi

Ippon seonagi that works.

 

[lklawson]

That is silly.

Our understanding has increased. So the techniques have changed.

Not particularly. The same throws, chokes, and joint locks as before, 500 years ago or 5,000.


Beni Hassan wrestling tomb art c. 3000 B.C. by lklawson
[Ankle Lock bottom row]

[Arm locks]

[Arm lock]

[Knee ride on back]

[Arm lock]

[Leg entanglement]

[Full Nelson]

[Front Headlock Choke]

There are thousands more, but I'm getting tired of embedding them.

This is predominantly why things like kata sort of look a bit off.

Which kata? There are thousands of kata and hundreds of thousands of different claimed reasons for them. It's a stupid argument.

Nope. The same techniques that worked in day of yore still work and in the same circumstances as before. The only question is which of those circumstances likely to happen?