Will Brazilian Jiujitsu eventually replace Japanese Jujitsu?

[Gerry Seymour]

I would disagree with it being a "correction". Gracie Jiujitsu's roots are based in self defense, and they used the competitive side to market their system to the masses. What you're seeing now is more like what you see with TMA and sports, where you have groups that want to adhere to the traditional way of doing things, and then you have groups that give the finger to tradition and want to push the competitive side of the art. However, none of it is for anything other than economic purposes. The Gracies adhere to old school Bjj because their schools simply aren't competitive on the sport side of things (Renzo's schools being the exception), and instead of embracing attributes that would make them more competitive, they stick doggedly to old school instruction. I mean, when you have someone like Rickson Gracie saying that stuff like the Berimbolo is BS, that simply carries a lot of weight within the community. However, pretty much no one believes in the invincibility of the Gracies anymore, and acknowledge that when you're looking for competitive Bjj, you might not want to attend a Gracie JJ school.

To their benefit, there's a huge market for self defense, and Gracie JJ schools are getting a lot of money from LEOs and other groups for what they teach. I mean, whenever I start training again, I'm going back to a Gracie JJ school because I have no interest in competitive Bjj, and I'm only looking for self defense at this stage in my life.

With that said, the sport-based Bjj groups have an argument to make that their version of the art is useful for self defense as well, and it's hard to argue against them. Some of the attributes developed from sport Bjj is very applicable to a self defense situation. The escapes, inverted Guards, leg locking, mobility, wrestling-based takedowns, submission chains, etc. isn't anything to scoff at. It also helps that a lot of sport-based Bjj practitioners have moved into MMA rather effortlessly.

Anyway, you feel that BJJ is limited self defense wise and could learn some things from traditional JJ. What would you say those techniques are?

My view has long been that context training (in this case, training specifically for SD context) makes a difference, but not the huge difference often thought by SD folks. If you took a competition-only BJJ guy and had him focus for a while on SD context, maybe his edge in SD improves 10% (to throw out a number) if he has already been training for reasonable variety. If he has been uber-focused on what wins in BJJ competition (as opposed to wider competitions), the context shift probably has a bigger effect simply because it opens up more stuff to work on.

I think this difference becomes more obvious in the other direction. Because a given competition is (aside from a few notable exceptions) a narrow context, folks training only for that context will probably tend to have a large advantage in that context. They simply aren't spending any of their traininig time on other things, so have more time to focus on what wins that competition. Exceptions likely exist, but I'd expect that to be the general rule.

So, counter to some claims, I don't think sport training is generally so narrow it won't transfer to SD situations. Some of it won't, and may present obstacles to application in SD (like tap-point fighting), but most of it will - especially stuff like MMA-focused training.

 

[Hanzou]

I first trained with Rickson several years before the first UFC. He taught us a lot about how to strike while grappling. We were pleased that he did.

I got similar training from Relson, and yes, I’m very glad to have that training.

 

[Hanzou]

My view has long been that context training (in this case, training specifically for SD context) makes a difference, but not the huge difference often thought by SD folks. If you took a competition-only BJJ guy and had him focus for a while on SD context, maybe his edge in SD improves 10% (to throw out a number) if he has already been training for reasonable variety. If he has been uber-focused on what wins in BJJ competition (as opposed to wider competitions), the context shift probably has a bigger effect simply because it opens up more stuff to work on.

I think this difference becomes more obvious in the other direction. Because a given competition is (aside from a few notable exceptions) a narrow context, folks training only for that context will probably tend to have a large advantage in that context. They simply aren't spending any of their traininig time on other things, so have more time to focus on what wins that competition. Exceptions likely exist, but I'd expect that to be the general rule.

So, counter to some claims, I don't think sport training is generally so narrow it won't transfer to SD situations. Some of it won't, and may present obstacles to application in SD (like tap-point fighting), but most of it will - especially stuff like MMA-focused training.

Agreed. As an aside, when I was training for competition I was probably in the best shape of my life. Despite knowing more Bjj now, I was probably more capable of defending myself back then than I am now.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agreed. As an aside, when I was training for competition I was probably in the best shape of my life. Despite knowing more Bjj now, I was probably more capable of defending myself back then than I am now.

Being in "fighting shape" is a real advantage when it's backed by skill.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Aside from the emphasis on 'sport' oriented or 'SD' oriented techniques, what are the real differences in the schools ? I would think that 'sport' oriented schools would focus more time on physical conditioning to make their students as physically fit as possible so that they can out compete other students from other schools. Not being from a martial art that focuses primarily on 'SD' I can only go by what I have seen in other schools and it seems that the majority of time is spent on 'scenario' training ? Can anyone offer any other insight into the focus of SD schools ?

 

[Hanzou]

Aside from the emphasis on 'sport' oriented or 'SD' oriented techniques, what are the real differences in the schools ? I would think that 'sport' oriented schools would focus more time on physical conditioning to make their students as physically fit as possible so that they can out compete other students from other schools. Not being from a martial art that focuses primarily on 'SD' I can only go by what I have seen in other schools and it seems that the majority of time is spent on 'scenario' training ? Can anyone offer any other insight into the focus of SD schools ?

Well in the Gracie JJ school I attended (Relson affiliate) there's the self defense stuff that they teach which honestly looks like something you'd see in a TMA. Some people think that stuff is hokey BS, and frankly there's some merit for that criticism, but some of the stuff (the headlock counters) were pretty solid. They also taught dealing with punches while standing, or in Guard, side control, or under mount, which I thought was way more applicable to a SD situation than the one-step SD stuff.

We also learned takedowns (DLT, Hip throw, Body fold, etc.) how to cover distance, how to create distance while standing, etc. I would say it's a pretty holistic experience. I haven't spent any significant time in a sport-based school to say they do anything different. However, some have told me that they don't learn takedowns or punching while grappling.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Well in the Gracie JJ school I attended (Relson affiliate) there's the self defense stuff that they teach which honestly looks like something you'd see in a TMA. Some people think that stuff is hokey BS, and frankly there's some merit for that criticism, but some of the stuff (the headlock counters) were pretty solid. They also taught dealing with punches while standing, or in Guard, side control, or under mount, which I thought was way more applicable to a SD situation than the one-step SD stuff.

We also learned takedowns (DLT, Hip throw, Body fold, etc.) how to cover distance, how to create distance while standing, etc. I would say it's a pretty holistic experience. I haven't spent any significant time in a sport-based school to say they do anything different. However, some have told me that they don't learn takedowns or punching while grappling.

Interesting. Could you break down a typical class to give me an idea on how time is spent ?

 

[lklawson]

Well, I see this thread has progressed more-or-less as I expected, though a bit more pleasant than I had thought.

My class went well. Had to work very hard with two of the students for them to make their qualification score but we eventually got them there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hanzou]

Interesting. Could you break down a typical class to give me an idea on how time is spent ?

Fundamentals (1hr) class would typically work as follows;

-Warm Ups
-Drilling the techniques of the day
-Rolling

 

[Yokozuna514]

Fundamentals (1hr) class would typically work as follows;

-Warm Ups
-Drilling the techniques of the day
-Rolling

Seems reasonable. Quality is more important that quantity for me but of course I would like to take advantage of both if that was possible. Does your club offer different streams for mat rats vs weekend warriors ? Our typical student has an option to go to 3 days of 1-1/2 hour each but mat rats can and do have access to additional time on the floor when they reach a high enough level and show the desire. Training can go up to 10 hours or more/week not including adding their own fitness regime on off days.

 

[Hanzou]

Seems reasonable. Quality is more important that quantity for me but of course I would like to take advantage of both if that was possible. Does your club offer different streams for mat rats vs weekend warriors ? Our typical student has an option to go to 3 days of 1-1/2 hour each but mat rats can and do have access to additional time on the floor when they reach a high enough level and show the desire. Training can go up to 10 hours or more/week not including adding their own fitness regime on off days.

When I attended it did. My old club is gone, but here's a link to a group I used to train with for about a year when I lived in central Ohio. I think they're following a similar format to my old club. I think their website can answer a lot of your questions.

Relson Gracie Jiu Jitsu Academy - Columbus, OH

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well in the Gracie JJ school I attended (Relson affiliate) there's the self defense stuff that they teach which honestly looks like something you'd see in a TMA. Some people think that stuff is hokey BS, and frankly there's some merit for that criticism, but some of the stuff (the headlock counters) were pretty solid. They also taught dealing with punches while standing, or in Guard, side control, or under mount, which I thought was way more applicable to a SD situation than the one-step SD stuff.

We also learned takedowns (DLT, Hip throw, Body fold, etc.) how to cover distance, how to create distance while standing, etc. I would say it's a pretty holistic experience. I haven't spent any significant time in a sport-based school to say they do anything different. However, some have told me that they don't learn takedowns or punching while grappling.

My opinion of one-step stuff is that it just creates a bridge to some bits that don't fit within other training. If the principles are pretty much the same, then it's just another drill for applying them. If the principles aren't much the same, I'm not sure they can serve much purpose (assuming they are a small part of training time).

 

[Rusty B]

Okay, so one day I spent over an hour trying to find the one Japanese martial art called "jiu jitsu," from which all other styles of jiu jitsu descended... and I found nothing.

Unless someone here knows otherwise, this tells me that "jiu jitsu" is simply a generic term for grappling arts that originated in mainland Japan or offshoots thereof. Much in the same way that "kung fu" is a generic term for Chinese striking arts that may or not even be related to each other.

When we're looking at aikido, hapkido, judo, hakko-ryu, etc... most styles of jiu jitsu don't have "jiu jitsu" in the name.

Brazilian jiu jitsu is one of the few that does, and it's the most popular one. In that case, it has only "taken over" jiu jitsu in the sense that it's the most popular form of it.

But it doesn't "own" the term.

 

[Hanzou]

Okay, so one day I spent over an hour trying to find the one Japanese martial art called "jiu jitsu," from which all other styles of jiu jitsu descended... and I found nothing.

Unless someone here knows otherwise, this tells me that "jiu jitsu" is simply a generic term for grappling arts that originated in mainland Japan or offshoots thereof. Much in the same way that "kung fu" is a generic term for Chinese striking arts that may or not even be related to each other.

When we're looking at aikido, hapkido, judo, hakko-ryu, etc... most styles of jiu jitsu don't have "jiu jitsu" in the name.

Brazilian jiu jitsu is one of the few that does, and it's the most popular one. In that case, it has only "taken over" jiu jitsu in the sense that it's the most popular form of it.

But it doesn't "own" the term.

True. However, the other side of this is Bjj’s perceived effectiveness over other forms of Jujitsu. This perceived effectiveness isn’t challenged, and is a driving force behind its popularity. As I said before, unlike other MA fads, BJJ’s popularity rests mainly in its performance in self defense and various types of competition. This means that BJJ is more than likely going to continue to be popular for the foreseeable future.

In short, what happens when you have a readily available form of Jujitsu that is viewed as far more effective and practical than far more obscure (nearly impossible to find) Jujitsus? Will people continue to seek out those more obscure JJs if they’re perceived to be far less effective than the more readily available one?

 

[dunc]

Okay, so one day I spent over an hour trying to find the one Japanese martial art called "jiu jitsu," from which all other styles of jiu jitsu descended... and I found nothing.

Unless someone here knows otherwise, this tells me that "jiu jitsu" is simply a generic term for grappling arts that originated in mainland Japan or offshoots thereof. Much in the same way that "kung fu" is a generic term for Chinese striking arts that may or not even be related to each other.

When we're looking at aikido, hapkido, judo, hakko-ryu, etc... most styles of jiu jitsu don't have "jiu jitsu" in the name.

Brazilian jiu jitsu is one of the few that does, and it's the most popular one. In that case, it has only "taken over" jiu jitsu in the sense that it's the most popular form of it.

But it doesn't "own" the term.

Jiu Jitsu is essentially a subsystem or principle within the older Japanese styles. The term jiu is used relatively frequently to communicate the principle in traditional styles, this could be in striking, weapons as well as grappling

Some styles that focus a lot (not exclusively) on Jiu Jitsu principles do use older terms such as Jutaijutsu in their names

 

[drop bear]

My view has long been that context training (in this case, training specifically for SD context) makes a difference, but not the huge difference often thought by SD folks. If you took a competition-only BJJ guy and had him focus for a while on SD context, maybe his edge in SD improves 10% (to throw out a number) if he has already been training for reasonable variety. If he has been uber-focused on what wins in BJJ competition (as opposed to wider competitions), the context shift probably has a bigger effect simply because it opens up more stuff to work on.

I think this difference becomes more obvious in the other direction. Because a given competition is (aside from a few notable exceptions) a narrow context, folks training only for that context will probably tend to have a large advantage in that context. They simply aren't spending any of their traininig time on other things, so have more time to focus on what wins that competition. Exceptions likely exist, but I'd expect that to be the general rule.

So, counter to some claims, I don't think sport training is generally so narrow it won't transfer to SD situations. Some of it won't, and may present obstacles to application in SD (like tap-point fighting), but most of it will - especially stuff like MMA-focused training.

The issue is essentially quality. SD is generally basically so terrible as to not really need an adjustment from the competition guy.

So even though technically you might be doing the wrong thing. Most have no ability to defend it and so the deficiencys of that move never come up.

Rhonda rousey is a good example. Couldn't strike to save herself. Kept doing one submission. Which isn't a great striking submission because you loose top control.

Still won a UFC title. Because nobody could defend it.


So while SD essentially claims this striking, grappling superiority, in a specific context of self defence. You have to be a competent striker or grappler for any striking or grappling to work.

 

[drop bear]

So this is technically the wrong way to address ground and pound. But it works because the guys doing it are so good at it.

And this is common with traditional styles as well. To be successful you actually have to be good at what you do.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=265788471331133

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is essentially quality. SD is generally basically so terrible as to not really need an adjustment from the competition guy.

So even though technically you might be doing the wrong thing. Most have no ability to defend it and so the deficiencys of that move never come up.

Rhonda rousey is a good example. Couldn't strike to save herself. Kept doing one submission. Which isn't a great striking submission because you loose top control.

Still won a UFC title. Because nobody could defend it.


So while SD essentially claims this striking, grappling superiority, in a specific context of self defence. You have to be a competent striker or grappler for any striking or grappling to work.

I'm trying to figure out if you were disagreeing with something I said, or just quoting me while making a related statement.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So this is technically the wrong way to address ground and pound. But it works because the guys doing it are so good at it.

And this is common with traditional styles as well. To be successful you actually have to be good at what you do.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=265788471331133

This is part of why I advise people to find a martial art that they really love to train. Because if they don't, it doesn't matter how great the art is, they won't put the necessary work in to get really good. In general, someone who trains a 50% efficient art with 100% dedication will beat someone who trains a 100% efficient art with 10% dedication.

 

[Hanzou]

Yeah, leg locks help that particular situation quite a bit. That style of Bjj opens up sweep opportunities fairly effortlessly.