Kirk, you called?
Okay, because I was asked to come along here and add a little input, let's see what we have. Fair warning, this will be largely off topic for the basis of the thread, and seeks to simply address (and hopefully put to rest) a side issue from the last few pages. So… let's see what we have.
Well first a lot of WC guys mix in other arts like say Kali I think the above misses a point. How Martial Arts evolve. Martial Arts, including MMA, evolve based on the environment they find themselves being born and growing in, and also account for the physical attributes of those helping to create/perfect them. I think this is missed.
Okay, yep, fair enough. Not sure how much people have missed it, but, as said, I'm only dealing with the last few pages, so I'm going to say that yes, understanding the cultural conditions of the development of an art is very important to gain an understanding of it (the wherefores and whys of it, as it were).
Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu. It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons. Punching an armed and armored opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs. The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind and developed defenses against multiple avenues of attack in that context.
Er… less agreement here. In fact, this is one of the biggest misconceptions and fallacies when it comes to the "history of jujutsu" (which, of course, isn't really anything like a single codified history at all…). Let's look at it, shall we?
- Jujutsu was developed to fight an armoured opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.
Hmm… well, that is part of the contingency and application potential of some (note here: some!) jujutsu ryu-ha… but that's as far as I'd personally take it. I mean… Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Sekiguchi Shin Shin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Iga Ryuha Katsushin Ryu, and many others don't fit this profile at all, as none of them really factor yoroi into it at all… while yes, there are systems that deal in yoroi, typically those systems themselves also employ yoroi… such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Kito Ryu, Take(no)uchi Ryu, and so on.
- Punching an armed and armoured opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner.
Yeah, you may want to explain that to the practitioners of Yagyu Shingan Ryu… which is a very atemi-heavy system of kattchu-bujutsu (armoured combative methods), including a quite sophisticated array of yawara methods (jujutsu)…
-… so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.
Well, Japan (as a culture) is more geared to prefer a grappling approach (note: stand up, not ground fighting as the term has, rather frustratingly, been adopted to infer), but exactly what that entails varies greatly from system to system… you simply can't be that general about an area with such a wide array of variables.
- The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind…
Oh, you're so close here! Yes, absolutely these systems were designed with specific contexts and purposes… but you need to extend that. What can you tell me about the context and application of Takenouchi Ryu, as compared to Fusen Ryu? How did Takagi Ryu develop, and why? Kito Ryu and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu were both instrumental in the formation of Kodokan Judo, but have very different contexts and purposes… can you address those? What is the difference in context between the differing areas of Yagyu Shingan Ryu Yawara (including the Gyoi no Kata)? You've mentioned Aikido and it's origins… what can you say about the history of Daito Ryu? Both claimed and more likely correct? There are different lines of Asayama Ichiden Ryu… what's the biggest difference there? Are there different contexts within a single art? If yes, doesn't that change your point? If no, why would you think that all these arts would then work towards a single context themselves?
This applies to almost all traditional MAs. Now the problem arises when you try to take these MAs out of that original context. You put an art designed for the battle field and tell the art that used small joint manipulation to disable a hand or a thrust to the eye to take down a bigger attacker "you can't do that" the art will be handicapped. As these arts evolved without those rules, MMA evolved into what we see today because they existed.
If you are going to study Martial Arts it should be because it suits your purposes. I do what you say, I actually study practice 3 techniques but I have practical reasons for doing so. I studied, and still practice, certain Aikido techniques because they are "softer" than many arts but still control and I don't want to injure a mental health patient and right out of the gate I don't want to be injuring suspects.
And your problem here is that you're looking at exactly the wrong thing… it's got little to nothing to do with techniques… they're simply the expression of what the real issue is. So no, limiting an art by not allowing certain "techniques" is not the problem for them (oh, and maintaining a few mechanical actions from a particular art is far from them still being "Aikido techniques"… for the record).
So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)
First: So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates. In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other. So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.
Er… no.
What defines a martial system, whether sporting or not, is the context and the tactical approach. This then gives rise to particular technical approaches… which can certainly be easily mistaken for the "art" itself (as they are then the physical, outward appearance of the system), but aren't actually the system itself. In this way, a wrist lock is not Aikido, but Aikido can be done with a wrist lock, if you follow.
What this means in this area is that, no, removing some technical aspects/approaches does not invalidate a system's applicability… to think it does is to too heavily rely on such aspects. Of course, that doesn't mean that all arts are going to be equally applicable to whatever context you want to apply them to (such as an MMA match)… an art who's tactical approach is to cause major damage to end a confrontation a soon as possible will find issues in a situation where that tactical approach is not suited… techniques, on the other hand, simply aren't the biggest factor there.
I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner. That's what PEDs are all about. It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.
Well, you've kinda missed how that works, then… the catch is in your last few words there…
Second:Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai?
Not overtly, no.
Again, you really need to look at individual systems, rather than thinking "jujutsu" is some kind of homogenous whole… very little in the world of jujutsu, particularly Koryu forms, have much in the way of consistency from one system to another… down to even what the form of combative methodology is called. While some systems did, indeed, use the term "jujutsu" (柔術), some would prefer the alternate pronunciation of 柔, "yawara"… then, you'd have variations on that (yawara-gi, yawara-gei)… alternate names, such as "wa", "wajutsu", "goho", "hade", "koshi no mawari" (which, in other arts, would refer to an armed section, rather than a jujutsu-like section), "gyoi-dori", "torite", "te", "tejutsu", "taijutsu", "tai no ken", and many, many more… including the usage of the term "judo" some 150 years prior to Kano by the Jikishinkage Ryu…
You also need to look at whether a system is dominantly a jujutsu ryu-ha, or if it's an art that focuses on something else, but contains jujutsu (or similar)… Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu and Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu are both very well known as sword systems… but both contain a jujutsu component to their teachings (known as yawara in both cases). Some of these sogo bujutsu systems (composite arts) would be more in line with the ideas you're putting forth, many jujutsu ryu-ha (as focused systems) simply weren't. Many classical jujutsu ryu-ha were based in the Edo jidai, a period of peacetime, which enabled the type of development necessary for the sophistication found, but also then took them away from the idea of armoured combat, as well as changing entirely the types of weaponry and attacks to be considered.
That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes.
Complex subjects are often reduced down to simple generalisations, as they're easier for people to get their heads around, but that doesn't make them true when you really look at it. As mentioned, you can't really have a single "history" of jujutsu, as there wasn't any single start point or single source school. You may look to the mythical origins of unarmed combative rituals in Japan, which would be the origins of sumo… or you might look to schools such as Takenouchi Ryu, often thought to be the first true jujutsu-centric art (although it has quite a large weaponry contingent as well), and, indeed, a large number of ryu-ha trace themselves to that school in different ways… but they then develop independently themselves, moving away from the construct you've described. And then you get other schools, such as the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who don't trace to Takenouchi Ryu at all...
When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor. He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu.
Really? It "must" include the history of jujutsu? A history that, by definition, cannot exist as a single entity? The best he could do would be to look at the history of his own systems… which line of Aikido, and which ryu of Jujutsu would be the question…
Oh, and for the record, I've come across a large number of people who are "huge" on history… but rarely actually know much beyond basic, and somewhat misguided, understandings… often even of their own systems…
It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.
I'm sorry, what? What was "even integrated into Samurai training"? Jujutsu? Er… I don't even know where to start with how little sense that makes…
The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established, namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent. But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book, Google is our friend.
I go a fair bit beyond Google, you know… and you really should get by now, there is no "it" here…
Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc. It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue. WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list. You are correct in that the removing of simply one or two isn't a big deal but the more you remove the greater effect it has and the art designed with these fouls in mind eventually gains a noticeable advantage. That advantage actually becomes more pronounced when you get to the highest levels as well. Why because once you are fit enough, experienced and well trained enough, the number of tools in your arsenal becomes all the more important and the more tools that get removed by the rules the more disadvantaged you become.
Nope. Not the reason that WC (and others) are ill suited to MMA competition… it really has got nothing to do with techniques in this sense…
Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon" and I would say "if I wanted to fight in the Octagon I would."
Sure, and that's valid.
I have no desire to do so however and take away those rules, the gloves, the limits the Octagon itself creates, suddenly many traditional arts find themselves on far more even terms with MMA.
And that's a rather false assumption… it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements.
As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles.
Lovely. How many are you familiar with?
The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent.
Er… can you detail the "styles from which Aikido descended from"? Cause… arguments can be made…
You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent, and if you are just walking down the street minding your own business I would say you are correct. If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in.
Well, let's clear up a couple of things… typically a "Japanese soldier serving under a samurai" (ashigaru) would not be trained in any form of jujutsu… so that will take that idea out… as far as the samurai themselves, one thing to realise is that many ryu-ha weren't really for mass-soldiering… a number were more for what would be better thought of as "officer training"… some would focus more on battlefield usage (such as some lines of Jigen Ryu, which were very much for mass training), but they typically had little to no jujutsu at all.
In other words, what you're describing was minimalist if anything in terms of being an accurate depiction of the development of jujutsu and jujutsu-like systems. What was more common would be a slight element of some taijutsu elements as part of the weapon usage… but again, it will depend on the system itself. But the bulk of martial systems prior to the Edo jidai were weaponry based… jujutsu, although existing prior to it, was much more a non-battlefield peacetime development.
Were you still at a disadvantage? Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance. The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.
Lovely romanticised impressions you have… thing is, none of this is particularly true. On either side.
Your failure to accept a universal principle of competition between humans, the aggregation of marginal losses or gains is kinda odd. Let's say the marginal losses only = 5%-10% disadvantage, when everything else is equal it is a game changer. Ask any professional athlete.
But we're not talking about professional athletes, are we? If we were, then we'd be discussing similar skill sets, skilled (trained) responses, a different form of preparation, different timelines, and more. For these reasons you can't simply say "WC is let down by not having it's ability to strike this target"… because it's simply not the same thing on any other level either.
I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence.
No, it shows that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing… or, really, a lacking and misleading thing… oh, and that's not directed at Kirk, of course…
Anything can happen in warfare. Let's say I am a Samurai and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword,
No, you've lost the end of your naginata… you now have a bo…
And, before you think that's me being facetious, that's actually the explanation/origin of bojutsu in many sogo bujutsu systems… it isn't a weapon by itself, it represents a broken naginata or yari.
yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well. Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well.
Some did, some didn't… and some were based around what you'd typically have on you in yoroi, others had other "weapons" at hand (Takenouchi Ryu would include things like an umbrella, or the lid to a cooking pot, and so on…)… it really, really, really depends on which ryu-ha you're trying to discuss.
Why? Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon. I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.
Ha, no. While a common tactic when armed with a shorter weapon is to close distance, the preference is still for the longer weapon.
Anything can happen in real life or death combat.
Sure…
The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place.
Yeah… I wouldn't be so quick to discuss the purposes of such arts here…
I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat?
You want to know something fun? There are a number of military around the world who only have hand-to-hand training for certain specialist groups… in basic they don't do any anymore, as it's considered not a high enough likelihood of usage to justify the loss of training time for other areas.
Police, on the other hand, have very particular need for unarmed methods… but to consider that the same as jujutsu (as described in these posts) is very inaccurate…
They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons. They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.
Hang on, are you saying that martial arts are only unarmed combat? And anything that is unarmed combat is martial arts? Hmm…
