Will Brazilian Jiujitsu eventually replace Japanese Jujitsu?

[drop bear]

I'm not Korean. According to the DNA people, I'm as white as you can get. And yet, I've spent a considerable portion of my life wearing Korean clothing. So what?

So if someone trains at your club they will recreate an honest representation of Korean culture?

Because of the clothing.

 

[drop bear]

Those two aren't at the same level. You've talked about the weapon in the first one and the system in the second. The SA revovler is more like the sword from Koryu arts. Training with the SA revolver for "Cowboy Action Shooting" would be more like training in a Koryu (though there are problems with that analogy).

The question would be whether training with the SA revolver improves overall ability with other guns that might be more desirable for defensive use, rather than for SASS competition.

Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.

We can look at this and determine if it could be used in self defense.

Which is about the best determination we have for modern shooting to be honest.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So if someone trains at your club they will recreate an honest representation of Korean culture?

Because of the clothing.

No, because we're not training the culture. We're training the martial art. I have no idea what the people in that picture are doing. But merely wearing a suit of armor from another culture doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.

 

[drop bear]

No, because we're not training the culture. We're training the martial art. I have no idea what the people in that picture are doing. But merely wearing a suit of armor from another culture doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.

Correct and that is kind of the difference.

 

[lklawson]

Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.

We can look at this and determine if it could be used in self defense.

Which is about the best determination we have for modern shooting to be honest.

My point in bringing it up being that, despite the fact that they're <cough> "playing dress up," taking fictitious names, pretending as if they're in a time period and place that they're not, using antique designed weapons that most agree have been improved on by modern alternatives; i.e.: <cough> "LARPing," they still have significant and viable skill which is directly applicable to the modern firearms-for-fighting context.

So this B.S. "playing dress-up" horseshiz that some people like to pull is a fallacy. It's conclusively demonstrated multiple times now that studying "antique" fighting skills, both armed and unarmed, even using "less than modern weapons," can, and often does, lead directly to applicable and viable fighting capacity even in a modern context. I.E., it can certainly be "practical" in some cases despite of what some people continue to claim.

 

[Hanzou]

Those two aren't at the same level. You've talked about the weapon in the first one and the system in the second. The SA revovler is more like the sword from Koryu arts. Training with the SA revolver for "Cowboy Action Shooting" would be more like training in a Koryu (though there are problems with that analogy).

The question would be whether training with the SA revolver improves overall ability with other guns that might be more desirable for defensive use, rather than for SASS competition.

The point is for the purpose of self protection, why would I purchase an antique gun over a modern gun when the modern gun is superior in every way?

 

[drop bear]

My point in bringing it up being that, despite the fact that they're <cough> "playing dress up," taking fictitious names, pretending as if they're in a time period and place that they're not, using antique designed weapons that most agree have been improved on by modern alternatives; i.e.: <cough> "LARPing," they still have significant and viable skill which is directly applicable to the modern firearms-for-fighting context.

So this B.S. "playing dress-up" horseshiz that some people like to pull is a fallacy. It's conclusively demonstrated multiple times now that studying "antique" fighting skills, both armed and unarmed, even using "less than modern weapons," can, and often does, lead directly to applicable and viable fighting capacity even in a modern context. I.E., it can certainly be "practical" in some cases despite of what some people continue to claim.

"they still have significant and viable skill"

Yep that. That is the fundamental difference.

 

[lklawson]

The point is for the purpose of self protection, why would I purchase an antique gun over a modern gun when the modern gun is superior in every way?

No, the point, which you seem to keep deliberately missing, is not the tool, but the skills built. The skills are very clearly "practical," despite being learned and practiced with "an antique gun."

 

[Hanzou]

No, the point, which you seem to keep deliberately missing, is not the tool, but the skills built. The skills are very clearly "practical," despite being learned and practiced with "an antique gun."

Okay, but why build skills with an inferior weapon? Wouldn’t I be better off building skills with the superior weapon?

 

[lklawson]

"they still have significant and viable skill"

Yep that. That is the fundamental difference.

So then you agree that it's not about how the skill is acquired, whether in some "classical" Ju Jutsu koryu while "playing dress-up," or in something that you personally like better. As long as the skills are developed to actually fight, it doesn't matter what they wear, where they practice, or even if they want to pretend that they're in a different place and time period.

Good. This is progress.

 

[lklawson]

Okay, but why build skills with an inferior weapon? Wouldn’t I be better off building skills with the superior weapon?

The question is irrelevant because the skill is still built regardless.

 

[Hanzou]

Because the skill is still built regardless.

Skill yes, the same level of skill, no, because the modern weapon is more accurate, reliable, and easier to handle than the antique.

 

[drop bear]

So then you agree that it's not about how the skill is acquired, whether in some "classical" Ju Jutsu koryu while "playing dress-up," or in something that you personally like better. As long as the skills are developed to actually fight, it doesn't matter what they wear, where they practice, or even if they want to pretend that they're in a different place and time period.

Good. This is progress.

Absolutely. Very few people bag out catch wrestling. Because there are catch wrestlers who will maul you.

I mean you are not going to laugh at a Senegalese wrestler dressed up in his gear.

 

[Hanzou]

So then you agree that it's not about how the skill is acquired, whether in some "classical" Ju Jutsu koryu while "playing dress-up," or in something that you personally like better. As long as the skills are developed to actually fight, it doesn't matter what they wear, where they practice, or even if they want to pretend that they're in a different place and time period.

Good. This is progress.

Are the skills developed to actually fight though?

 

[Steve]

Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.

We can look at this and determine if it could be used in self defense.

Which is about the best determination we have for modern shooting to be honest.

Yeah, they're actually shooting things.

My point in bringing it up being that, despite the fact that they're <cough> "playing dress up," taking fictitious names, pretending as if they're in a time period and place that they're not, using antique designed weapons that most agree have been improved on by modern alternatives; i.e.: <cough> "LARPing," they still have significant and viable skill which is directly applicable to the modern firearms-for-fighting context.

So this B.S. "playing dress-up" horseshiz that some people like to pull is a fallacy. It's conclusively demonstrated multiple times now that studying "antique" fighting skills, both armed and unarmed, even using "less than modern weapons," can, and often does, lead directly to applicable and viable fighting capacity even in a modern context. I.E., it can certainly be "practical" in some cases despite of what some people continue to claim.

I think you actually misunderstand the "playing dress up' horseshiz point. (BTW, horseshiz??? LOL).

I think it's almost exactly the opposite of what you articulate above. The problem isn't with people who dress up and actually learn functional skills that they apply in a particular context. SCA, these cowboys, HEMA, Dog Brothers, BJJ, MMA... it's all people learning something, and then doing that thing. They practice, they train, they perform, and they get better.

The problem IS with people who assume the trappings of an activity without actually engaging in the activity. Pretending to be a fighter. Pretending to be a self defense expert. Pretending to be a ninja. It's fine to pretend, like being an Elven Sorcerer out in the park on a sunny afternoon casting lightning bolts at your buddies. It's fine to pretend to be a ninja sneaking around the park and tumbling with your friends. But it's just healthy to understand the difference between real life and make believe. I think if the cowboys were using dime store cap guns, we'd be having a different discussion.

 

[dunc]

useful techniques in the old Japanese styles that are not found in modern systems

An example of one of these techniques that is better for SD.

For example BJJ does not do a good job of dealing with a grab and punch. I’m not sure if it even appears in the BJJ SD curriculum. However, there are a tonne of techniques in the JJJ systems that deal with this scenario

 

[Hanzou]

For example BJJ does not do a good job of dealing with a grab and punch. I’m not sure if it even appears in the BJJ SD curriculum. However, there are a tonne of techniques in the JJJ systems that deal with this scenario

You mean this?

Interestingly, they found that the easiest counter (overhand and spin) worked the best.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exept again with cowboy action shooting we can see an end result.

We can look at this and determine if it could be used in self defense.

Which is about the best determination we have for modern shooting to be honest.

The competition element helps for evalutation, for sure.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point is for the purpose of self protection, why would I purchase an antique gun over a modern gun when the modern gun is superior in every way?

I was just correcting the analogy, which failed to reach that point.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Correct and that is kind of the difference.

What's the difference between wearing Korean clothes and practicing a Korean empty hand martial art and wearing Japanese armor and practicing a Japanese sword art?