This'll be a bit.
@Chris Parker: You're getting overtly hostile, son, and calling people idiots just isn't okay. Calm down, read for comprehension, and try engaging in some friendly conversation with your peers. Trying to bluster and bluff your way around just isn't working for you.
Steve, you have exactly no leg to stand on to suggest I "read for comprehension", nor any moral authority in anything here at all. This is neither bluff (I'm backing everything up, and not promising things I'm not showing), nor bluster. It's frustration at both the painfully ill-informed posters and their unwillingness to look past their own heads, and an over-flow of frustration at your frankly trolling, practically libellous behaviour. I'm sick of it, and have little interest in hiding that frustration... gentler comments have not gotten any response other than pig-headed stupidity, honestly.
As far as the "idiot" comment, you know, I acknowledged at the time that that was right on the line... and would possibly pull it back... except it's completely supported as an accurate observation of drop bear's behaviour... which continued here:
I can be expert in Japanese systems according to my values you don't share using evidence you wouldn't understand. I mean we all have to respect whatever values we just make up as being important right?
Are you kidding? Do you even know what a value is?!?! It's not a delusional belief, just saying you are something cause you say you are... that's just... stupidity. A value is something that has a relative/scaled worth to you... you, for example, value what you get out of BJJ... that value doesn't make you a Gracie... or Brazilian.. or a Black Belt... or anything else. It just means that aspects and the approach of BJJ appeals to you and has worth to you.
Get it?
When you devalue the idea of martial arts expertise for your own benefit you can't cry foul if everyone else does it.
What on earth are you talking about?!?! What martial arts expertise did I devalue (for the record, that's exactly what Steve has done with my own background and experience for years)? The only thing I have had issues with is when people make statements about arts they clearly have no understanding of... that's not "devaluing (the idea of) martial arts expertise", it's recognising that a complete lack of knowledge has little to no value in a discussion of a topic.
So as far as equal standing goes you are arguing mastery of the equivalent of healing crystals.
What?!??!!?!? You're not making any sense. You say that a fantasy belief equals a value (which is completely wrong), therefore you, with no experience, knowledge, understanding, insight, or anything relevant at all, puts you on "equal standing" with myself in regards to Classical Japanese martial arts... I say that we are not on equal standing... as I know what I'm talking about, and you can't put a sentence together... and you say it's the equivalent of healing crystals?!?!
Are you just trying to get me to call you an idiot again?
And there is apparently a right way and a wrong way to use healing crystals by the way I can legitimately pay money and do a course from an expert.
But it is far cheaper and easier to just say I am an expert and grab rocks from the garden. Because just like a lot of martial arts systems it doesn't matter if I use them right or use them wrong. The effect is the same.
I mean I don't have to share the made up values of someone else's system or some healing crystal guru. Because they are not even real values.
You have no clue what "values" mean, do you?
Look, I'm going to dumb it down for you. That seems like it's apparently necessary.
You have values. They are things that you find worth in. You value time with your family. You value the reward of doing a good job. You value the immediate gratification of eating a whole cake at once. You value attributes in your partner and friends. None of these are "made up values". They can't be. They're just values.
When it comes to martial arts, everyone will have different sets of values. Valuing competition is one. Valuing skills is one, but it's not that simple... typically, you would value skills in particular contexts, or even particular skills. You might value rank. You might value fitness. You might value history. Depth of study. Reputation. Marketing. Personalities. You might value grappling, or you might value kicking skills, or weapon skills. Or combinations. Or none of them in particular.
What your values are will draw you towards specific martial arts, or types of martial arts. None of that makes any of this close to just delusionally deciding to think you're something you're not... it's purely about what aspects of a martial art you will be drawn to.
Of course, this doesn't just apply to people. Martial arts themselves have their own set of values. They value skill development in certain areas. They value a particular tactical approach. They value a particular training methodology. They value a particular range, or weapon set (or group of weapon sets). These all add up to inform and structure the art itself. This is the same, whether it's BJJ, MMA, Karate, Judo, Wing Chun, Taiji, Hung Gar, Kali, Silat, boxing, wrestling, or Classical Japanese arts from the Sengoku and Tokugawa periods. Of course, having different values from art to art means that they have different structures, approaches, training methodologies, metrics of measurement, and so on... and, depending on your personal values, you will either appreciate them, or you'll appreciate something else...
Do you get this now?
I have a friend who has had exactly zero self defence running experience and I would be quite confident to put the guy up against you in almost any contextual running race.
Then you'd lose. Mainly as you have failed to understand, or set, the context to be applied... and if you're leaving that to me, you're gonna lose.
I put it to you being fast is going to out perform context. And he is legitimately elite level runner fast.
Then you don't understand context.
And this is the difference between systems that relies on individual values and evidence based systems.
No, it's the difference between understanding the effect of context, and thinking a particular skill in a vacuum performs equally in all scenarios, as well as thinking that such skills will be able to be applied in all scenarios.
In other words, your friend will likely not run faster than me if I break both his legs first. Or he gets hit by a car and damages his spine. Or if he can't run for other reasons. But that's not the main thing...
That one had me scratching my head. Running from danger is something that we're hardwired to be able to do; it's something that every species within the animal kingdom is hardwired to be able to do. Seeking out training on how to run from danger "in certain contexts" is like seeking out training on how to eat, breathe, and sleep "in certain contexts."
Actually, it's not.
We are hardwired for a couple of basic responses... most commonly referred to as "flight or fight"... although there is a third one, which is "freeze". What people seem to think, though, is that it's a choice. It's not. At least, it's not without some very serious and effective training in each area. After all, "fight" is just as hardwired as "flight"... are you suggesting that training in that isn't advantageous?
There's an old joke about two guys out camping... one day, they see a huge grizzly coming towards them. The bear spots them, stops, and studies them, then rears up and roars, before dropping down to start to charge at the two men. The first looks over at his friend, and sees him kneeling over to put on his shoes... "What are you doing, Joe?!?! That bears coming!!!! We don't have time, we gotta run fast!!!! NOW!!!!!!" Joe looks up and says "I don't gotta run fast, Mack, I just gotta run faster than you...."
Fun joke, and an old one... but it's far from accurate or a complete story. Mack could manage to hide. Joe could take so long tying his laces (with adrenaline the finer motor skills disappear) that the bear catches up to him first... or he never gets to start running at all. Running might get the bear to give chase, whereas another action might not have the same behaviour in the bear... what I'm saying is that running is not the only part of it, and "fast" isn't the whole story.
Another example? A real one? Sure.
A friend of my old instructors was in a bad relationship... domestic violence is never a good thing, and not always obvious from the outside. One night, she managed to get away from the guy. She ran. No shoes, just ran. Left the house and ran. As fast as she could. She thought he was going to go too far and really hurt her that night or worse. So she ran. Fast.
Straight down the centre of the street.
He came out onto the street, looked, and saw her immediately, then ran after her. She was caught, and it was only people in the houses coming out (and calling the police) that actually saved her then. Running fast was not the answer. Escape was... but she didn't do that. Now, if she'd trained in tactical escape methods, and concealment methods, she could have escaped.
In other words, there's a lot more to this than most think.
There is a technical aspect to running fast at an elite level. So there could theoretically be a technical aspect to running from danger.
More tactical than technical... which is really a good way to describe self defence training as a whole. Yes, there is some technicality, but that's not the way it actually works.
But what you generally get is some guy claiming to have an expertise in so that they never have to measure their ideas against anything.
No, you get some guy arguing against accurate information because they don't understand how such things are measured.
Oh you run really fast but can you self defence run? Yes? Um well can you run according to ancient Japanese traditions?
I get you think that's a joke, but, well... yeah. "Self defence running" is a thing... and "fast" isn't a part of it. "Fast" helps. But it's not what is relied upon... as we understand that there's a good chance the other guy could be faster... or there could be more of them... or the environment might not let you get far enough away... or weapons could be involved... and adrenaline will affect the other guy as much as you, making them stronger, faster, etc. And as far as "run(ning) according to ancient Japanese traditions", well, if you're studying those traditions, then that will be a very valid question... after all, if you can't, then you're not really doing that tradition.
But this is your biggest disconnect, and I genuinely can't believe this has to be repeated again.... modern self defence and Classical Japanese martial arts are NOT THE SAME THING. They are not trained for the same reasons, for the same context, in the same way, and more. Why you continually try to imply that it's even a factor, especially after 28 pages of being told this, I have no idea... well, I do, but it's not flattering....
I will say something else on the "run(ning) according to ancient Japanese traditions" though... pretty much all classical arts have their own approach to footwork... which can be very alien, or unusual, for modern Westerners to do... very different methods of shifting weight, transferring it across different parts of your feet, using different muscles than you "normally" do, and so on. Believe it or not, walking is as much cultural as it is biomechanically universal to humans. And even then, different systems have very different methods of walking. Those different methods of footwork (literally teaching you how to walk) then form the basis of the mechanics of the art you're learning... and influence the way any weapons are used, the distancing applied, power generation, speed, how you structure your body, and far more. So yeah... the question of whether you can do it according to the tradition becomes quite important.
This goes on until the values are so personally interpreted that it no longer reflects reality.
Dude, you don't reflect reality. That is nothing like "values", and values are always personal, so are not "personally interpreted". I mean.... should be buy you a dictionary for Christmas? Words seem to confuse you...
In BJJ there is a joke. When you get choked out by a white belt and then teach them how to do the sub properly.
By the way being able to be beaten by a white belt and to take it like a man is a very hard thing to do.
Er... okay... is there any relevance to this? Other than yet another demonstration that you can't follow a basic idea?
Japanese jujujtsu is and has always been a mixture of Karate, Judo, Aikido and BJJ techniques, although the tendency is that they can't do either one properly.
No.
It was not a statement of lineage. If you kick and punch, you will inevitably overlap with Karate. And Japanese Ju Ju jutsu schools have always kicked and punched, but they are more Krav Maga esque..
Completely wrong.
Mere assertions won't further this discussion.
Except yours?
Look, jujutsu is a term that originated in the Edo period in Japan (mid-17th Century onwards)... although arts identified as jujutsu (even though other terms are used, such as hade, kogusoku, koshi no mawari, taijutsu, yawara,yawaragei, te, gei, wa, wajutsu, koshi, torite, and far more) go back a lot further, with the oldest recognised jujutsu-centric art being Takenouchi Ryu from around 1532.
Karate originated in Okinawa, combining methods from China and the Ryukyu kingdom from the 17th century onwards, but only came to Japan in 1912 when Kano Jigoro was instrumental in getting Funakoshi Gichin to Japan to put on a demonstration. The first classes were in universities in 1918, and the modern name "karate" (empty hand) was officially adopted in 1936.
Judo was founded in 1888 by Kano Jigoro, who held licence in two classical Jujutsu systems, the relatively new Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (itself an off-shoot of the older Akiyama Yoshin Ryu line of Jujutsu, dating from around 1630), and Kito Ryu, an even older system that involved methods of fighting in armour among others.
Aikido was created by Ueshiba Morihei, based largely in Daito Ryu Aikijutsu (itself founded/formulated by Takeda Sokaku at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th Century), but also influenced by Yagyu Shingan Ryu Taijutsu, Shinkage Ryu kenjutsu, Kukishin Ryu, and so on, beginning in the 1920's. Originally Ueshiba was teaching (and ranking his students in) Daito Ryu, but soon started to develop his own method, being recognised as a new art, named Aikido in the 30's.
BJJ's origin in in the early 20th Century when Kano JIgoro began sending dan-ranked students around the world to help promote Japanese culture through his Kodokan judo, including Maeda Mitsuyo. Maeda taught a number of people, including members of a family named Gracie (note there are also other lineages, such as the Fadda lineage that are not related to the Gracies) over the course of a few years. The Gracies then continued to refine the techniques, focused on ground work, and developed through an approach of competitive bouts, both internally and with other arts/approaches. It rose to prominence in the 1990's with UFC.
So... you still want to tell us that Japanese jujutsu "has always been a mixture of karate, judo, aikido, and BJJ techniques"?
JJJ has always had striking, contrary to what the OP seems to think.
"This included the development of various striking techniques in jujutsu which expanded upon the limited striking previously found in jujutsu which targeted vital areas above the shoulders such as the eyes, throat, and back of the neck. However towards the 18th century the number of striking techniques was severely reduced as they were considered less effective and exert too much energy; instead striking in jujutsu primarily became used as a way to distract the opponent or to unbalance him in the lead up to a joint lock, strangle or throw."
First off, a source for your quote would be helpful.
Secondly, I don't think you have any idea what Japanese jujutsu is... particularly when it comes to classical arts (koryu). A good rule of thumb is that it's a general term, so trying to be specific, without applying it to a specific school, gets you into inaccurate territory pretty quickly... after all, does jujutsu include chokes? Yes? Hmm... Asayama Ichiden Ryu doesn't have any... is it an unarmed system? Yes? Well, that rules out Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, Shingetsu Muso Yanagi Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Iga Ryu-ha Katsushin Ryu, Kiraku Ryu, and many more... I can go on, but the point is, such general statements are always going to be wrong in a large number of situations... reality is far more nuanced.
I will also add that the OP was the one using the term Karate originally, which is perfectly fine with me.
I have been to japanese Ju ju jutsu clubs, and they are no more Karate than TaeKwondo clubs are judo in self defense training... Things overlap.
Then you haven't been to actual Japanese jujutsu clubs.
With respect I suspect that you have been to schools that combine judo, aikido, karate etc and call themselves Japanese jujutsu
No, you.
I don't see how BJJ is supposed to replace it when they don't allow strikes in their competitions.
What does competition have to do with it? Classical Japanese arts don't do competition in the first place...
Someone is throwing a punch at you, you duck under the punch and take them down. You use positional control to remain on top and submit them.
Someone is on top of you throwing punches. You put them in your Guard, deflect the attack, sweep, and use positional control to remain on top and submit them.
Someone attempts to tackle you. You put their head in the guillotine while their momentum makes you fall backwards. You put them in your Guard, utilizing positional dominance, and finish the choke.
Conversely if you can't maintain the choke, you sweep to top position and again use positional control to stay on top and submit from there.
Multiple circumstances, same basic principle.
No, those are different applications of a tactic. It's a bit wider than the "break your legs from anywhere" technique approach I responded to initially, but still not the same thing as I'm talking about.
So you're saying the ability to stop the mobility of an attacker (and actually works extremely well against larger, stronger attackers) isn't viable for self defense?
HAOV.
What I'm saying is that what you describe is far more likely in a sporting competitive format and context, and, from a self-defence perspective (again, that has no relevance to the thread, and is purely a lack of understanding of classical arts on your end) is such a low likelihood situation, and such a limited and specialist response, that it goes against what would be expected of a self defence approach.
I'm sure there's plenty of arts that contain those things. The question is can those techniques be performed under duress or against a resisting opponent? Bjj practitioners have shown that they can employ their techniques in a bad situation. I've seen practitioners of other systems not being able to employ their art when someone is resisting or attacking them.
Yes, they can. They are. The problem is you aren't aware of what that means in the context of classical arts.
Actually that's exactly what I was describing.
Either your misunderstanding what principles and differences in circumstances are, or your describing exactly not what you're meaning. Either way, no, it's not what you're describing.
I don't see how allowing strikes in competition means much to anything.
Competition itself means nothing in this...
In Gracie JJ striking is almost always implied in practice. For example, I was trained to force a RNC from back mount by punching/elbowing my attacker on either side of his head.
Yeah... I'm starting to think you misunderstand most of your lessons... you weren't trained to "force" a RNC, you were taught a way to open someone up for a RNC using strikes... the difference between a technical and a tactical mentality.
As I said, what gives Bjj influence is its perceived effectiveness.
And, as I've said, that's marketing.
People want to train in a style that works, not fairy dust BS where you spend decades training and the only thing you've learned is a medieval Japanese dance complete with a dress (Hakama).
Dude. Enough. You've been told that your characterisation is inaccurate, and offensive. You've also been told that the reasons for training are different, so to insist that you apply your metrics is to completely miss the point.
What we do is not "fairy dust BS". You don't understand it, nor have any experience in it, and have no way to comprehend what "practical" is. It is not "medieval Japanese dance". To be blunt here, it's far more martial than anything you've ever done. Plus a lot more realistic. It's just a completely different context.
But enough with your comments. You'e been told this over and over again. Don't make us say it again.
You clearly know litte about it.
Oh, I love irony....
Sport Ju Jutsu has sparring and submission
So what? What has that to do with anything here?
Found this article talking about the BJJ self defense video that was posted earlier:
The BJJ Self Defense Experiment
I especially liked this part:
The Heel Hook for Self Defense
The Heel Hook, this one single submission, accounted for just under half of ALL submissions applied during the experiment…
Why did this one submission show up again and again and again?
In part it was because all three experts are really, really skilled at the Heel Hook (Garry Tonon, in particular, is feared for his relentless lower body attacks in competition).
But these guys are good at all aspects of jiu-jitsu, so that fact doesn’t completely explain why this one particular leglock was so powerful…
It seems like once the gi comes off that submissions tend to gravitate towards the legs and the neck. Take a look at modern no-gi competition, old-school catch wrestling, and Brazilian Luta Livre back in the day: they all are no gi grappling arts and all had great chokes and great leglocks!
Another aspect of the Heel Hook that makes it so powerful for self defense is that it doesn’t require much strength. In this submission you’re attacking the relatively small ligaments in his knee and ankle, and he can’t really use strength to muscle out of the submission.
If you have to apply this submission in anger you use the relatively big muscles of your torso against the much smaller ligaments, which is usually accompanied by a loud popping sound and your unfortunate opponent dry heaving on the floor.
(That makes the Heel Hook one of the biggest equalisers you can use if you’re fighting someone much bigger than you.)
Also it keeps you safer from strikes. An opponent who knows that you’re hunting for a Heel Hook is usually going to be pre-occupied with defending this submission. Unless he’s an idiot he knows that he’s close to tapping out; he’ll be trying to escape and won’t be concentrating on breaking your nose.
In addition to him being distracted your legs are also in a great position to disrupt his base. If he’s on his butt and you’re entangling his legs correctly then it’s hard for him to stand up.
I definitely agree that if you're fighting someone a lot bigger and stronger than you, and you're in a position to use it, those types of locks can be a very viable option.
And all that shows is a complete lack of understanding about self defence at all... on pretty much every single level. But again, that's got nothing to do with the topic as you presented it... BJJ's rep is based in it's marketing, which is itself based in it's competitive record... Classical Japanese arts don't do competition, and also aren't about modern self defence, being, you know, classical arts. Self defence is on the outside of each of these... the only relevance is BJJ sometimes thinking it's got something to do with it (yeah... no), or people having a largely uninformed concept of martial arts (ie thinking they're all about self defence) when looking initially. In both cases, it has nothing to do with the idea of BJJ schools "replacing" classical ones... because, for the last time, they aren't.
