Japanese jujitsu vs jbrazilian jujitsu

[Kframe]

I don't want to be combative, so chriss, if came off that way, im sorry. Ok. I have been working on my home and thinking about this. Ok. im armored up, got my weapons and I head out on to the battle field. Im engaged with the opponent, what are my odds of either of us being pulled to the ground.. Secondly, I must rememeber this was a supplemental art, not a primary art, thusly its not going to cover all areas.. Lastly, as you said before, some schools focused on different things. As you said there were schools in all points in between the training spectrum of techniques. I was surprised to learn of striking in Jujutsu.

Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today. The question is, how technical it was or wasn't back then. Apparently this aspect of fighting was very informal, and more of a after thought if it was even brought up at all. I also feel that we don't know as much about the warriors back then. I doubt they only studied a few arts. I feel that perhaps in there own they may have explored that aspect. Maybe not, but honestly we will probably never know the whole truth.

Thinking of my own past experiences, I have been in 2 real fights. In both cases, the altercation went to the ground, were I lost. Of course one anecdotal story does not prove anything. I just remember being totally lost in those situations and not liking it. Not knowing how to escape while that bullie had his way with me was not a good thing. While, as I stated in my fight response thread, I don't think I need to devote a massive amount of time, I just want to have some sort of a plan, or way to deal with being there should I end up there again. I feel it at least a little bit prudent to do so. My coach tells us, to avoid it all times, though he teaches us how to survive there, incase we do. Tho honestly our primary training goal is to get back to our feet, only fighting on the ground if last resort.

There is a Bujinkan budo taijitsu school in my area. Some of the arts that make it up, have a long line back including some samurai arts. Im hoping to drop by and ask him some questions as well. Maybe he can shed some light on it for me in some way.


Chris what happens if you get into a altercation in real life and end up getting knocked or pulled to the ground, does your art prepare you to deal with that? If so, what is your arts plan? Im honestly curious, I would love to know what other arts take on this is.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today.

I'm not that qualified to comment on what was and wasn't included in historical battlefield arts, but I wanted to point out that not all "old" martial arts were battlefield arts in the first place. (In fact, I suspect that most of the martial arts we are familiar with today are not directly derived from battlefield arts. Some clues - the lack of practice on fighting in formation, small unit tactics, fighting on horseback, use of historical armor, use of common battlefield weapons such as spears and bows, etc, etc.) Arts of personal combat/self-defense and martial sports such as wrestling have existed for centuries in just about every culture. I suspect the origins of modern ground-fighting technique lie in those arts and sports rather than on the battlefield.

 

[Chris Parker]

Stupid page, wont load what I wrote.. type later.. Chris, your not being clear. At some point, those guys got tossed, and your telling me, they were taught no way to get back to there feet. Wow.

Right. First off, that's not what I'm saying. The ability to get back up is not indicative of a ground-fighting (ne waza) syllabus. Nor does the lack of a ne waza syllabus mean that the ability to recover from being thrown/taken down wasn't part of the system. And I think this is a big part of the issue here... frankly, I don't think you're understanding what ne waza actually refers to, nor understanding the context of these old traditions, or their curriculum.

I don't want to be combative, so chriss, if came off that way, im sorry. Ok. I have been working on my home and thinking about this.

No, not combative, really... I might just say that you're not really listening to what's being said, and aren't really looking past what you think things should be like.

Ok. im armored up, got my weapons and I head out on to the battle field. Im engaged with the opponent, what are my odds of either of us being pulled to the ground..

Very, very, very, very, very, very small. If that.

Secondly, I must rememeber this was a supplemental art, not a primary art,

In some systems, not in all... and more frequently it was a primary focus from the 17th Century onwards.

thusly its not going to cover all areas..

No martial art does.

Lastly, as you said before, some schools focused on different things. As you said there were schools in all points in between the training spectrum of techniques. I was surprised to learn of striking in Jujutsu.

I could probably show you a whole range of things that you wouldn't expect in "jujutsu" systems... large weaponry syllabus', for instance... not to mention combative actions that go almost completely against what you'd picture when you hear "jujutsu"... like this:

Now, that's actually a training exercise....here's some of their kata:

How close to what you'd call Jujutsu did that look?

How about this one?

Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today.

Uh... why would you think that?

The question is, how technical it was or wasn't back then.

No, the question is why you think it was there in any real form at all. Mainly as this started when you asked if the impression you were getting (that it really wasn't present in traditional Japanese systems) was correct, and you were told it was... since then, you've been arguing that you think it should have been, despite the fact (repeated a number of times now) that it just wasn't. Really. It wasn't there. What some (note here, SOME) systems had included methods of pinning (osae waza), but that was rarely involving both of you on the ground... more commonly, someone was held on the ground, and the performing partner was kneeling or standing above them... or a small range of "finishing" techniques applied on the ground... but not "ground fighting". That was more commonly from suwari waza (seated techniques), and would involve bringing someone down to finish them. Ne waza (ground techniques) are more about engaging someone on the ground... and that simply wasn't present in traditional Jujutsu arts. One more time here... it simply wasn't present there. Continually stating that you think it should have been, or asking something like "how technical it was or wasn't", with the assumption that you are in fact correct that it was there (despite being repeatedly told that you're not), is to firstly deny the reality, and secondly, to ignore the very answer you asked for.

Apparently this aspect of fighting was very informal, and more of a after thought if it was even brought up at all.

Where on earth did you get that from?!?!

I also feel that we don't know as much about the warriors back then. I doubt they only studied a few arts. I feel that perhaps in there own they may have explored that aspect. Maybe not, but honestly we will probably never know the whole truth.

Completely, thoroughly, totally wrong. Japanese society is one of the most complete with regard to documentation, and that goes triple for the official groupings, which, of course, included the samurai/warriors, who were the ruling group throughout most of Japan's history. Add to that the fact that many Daimyo (feudal rulers) would reward their samurai for attaining ranking in a variety of arts, and not documenting what they were training in would be the equivalent of not claiming working hours, so you don't get paid.

We have many, many records, from many, many domains, covering pretty much everything you might want. It could help to remember that, after the Tokugawa Shogunate began, the samurai were primarily administrative... and they wrote everything down.

Thinking of my own past experiences, I have been in 2 real fights. In both cases, the altercation went to the ground, were I lost. Of course one anecdotal story does not prove anything. I just remember being totally lost in those situations and not liking it. Not knowing how to escape while that bullie had his way with me was not a good thing.

Well, you're right in saying that two anecdotal stories don't really prove anything... I mean, I've been in four times as many fights, up to and including a five on one assault, and haven't had any of them go to the ground. But I will say that your use of the term "bullies" implies that these stories came from your youth... and, frankly, that doesn't really qualify to me as being representative of real violence (in terms of street assaults, or the contexts of martial arts), if that's the case. I can understand the feelings (and fear) that such a situation can generate, but it's really not indicative of the nature of violence, more representative of dominance play.

While, as I stated in my fight response thread, I don't think I need to devote a massive amount of time, I just want to have some sort of a plan, or way to deal with being there should I end up there again. I feel it at least a little bit prudent to do so. My coach tells us, to avoid it all times, though he teaches us how to survive there, incase we do. Tho honestly our primary training goal is to get back to our feet, only fighting on the ground if last resort.

Right... none of which has any bearing on whether or not 500 year old Japanese systems focus on, or really even have ground fighting in them. Again, I'm going to suggest that you leave your personal beliefs behind here, as they're leading you away from hearing the actual reality.

There is a Bujinkan budo taijitsu school in my area. Some of the arts that make it up, have a long line back including some samurai arts. Im hoping to drop by and ask him some questions as well. Maybe he can shed some light on it for me in some way.

Uh... have you seen the signature on the bottom of my posts? My organisation was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, and, although we left them in 2001, we base our methods in the arts taught there. I know the methods of all the Ryu (traditional schools) contained there, and there is absolutely no ne waza in any of them... Koto Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Togakure Ryu, and Kukishinden Ryu don't even have any seated techniques. Shinden Fudo Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu have some seated, but no ground work (other than the occasional pinning method as mentioned earlier, with the defender kneeling or standing over the attacker, or, even more rarely, utilizing a finishing action, such as a break or a choke [Shinden Fudo Ryu, Koto Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, with the forms found in Koto and Takagi there being from a standing technique, not a ground method). That said, the Bujinkan is very free, and many instructors add to these traditional methods, so some include some ground work... but that doesn't mean it's traditional, or from any of the arts taught there.

Chris what happens if you get into a altercation in real life and end up getting knocked or pulled to the ground, does your art prepare you to deal with that? If so, what is your arts plan? Im honestly curious, I would love to know what other arts take on this is.

Similar to the way you describe your coaches approach... but possibly with a different technical slant.

Look, I'm going to try to sum things up here for you. Traditional Japanese systems did not feature ground fighting. It would be a bad idea in the context of these arts. There was really no use for things such as the mount, as, combatively speaking, when in armour, it leaves you in a very immobile position, and would lead to the practitioners being killed. The only time it really becomes feasible is in a competitive arena, as there is not as much risk, and the time can be devoted to develop the skills. In fact, the better sources to look to for old, traditional ground work, are the Western ones... not for any combative applications, but for their tournament scene, where there were a large number of different competitive events, including grappling events, as well as competitive wrestling in many places throughout Europe. Japan just didn't really have that... Sumo would be the closest. And that has no ground work at all. Arguing that you think they should have them is, bluntly, pointless. They didn't. End of story.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Tony,

I'm not that qualified to comment on what was and wasn't included in historical battlefield arts, but I wanted to point out that not all "old" martial arts were battlefield arts in the first place. (In fact, I suspect that most of the martial arts we are familiar with today are not directly derived from battlefield arts. Some clues - the lack of practice on fighting in formation, small unit tactics, fighting on horseback, use of historical armor, use of common battlefield weapons such as spears and bows, etc, etc.)

Well, what should be understood (firstly) is exactly what is meant by a "battlefield" art... a number of the aspects you mention, such as the formation fighting and small unit tactics, are things that would be found in military (army) training, specifically for regular soldiers (although, I might point out that I do know of some arts that do cover such things as a regular part of their methods... such as Heki Ryu Kyujutsu), which is not the aim of even the old "battlefield" arts. Many of them are more concerned with what I would describe as "officer training"... and is more concerned with teaching strategies and tactics, through the medium of martial techniques. But, for the record, many arts (Japanese), especially prior to the 17th Century, included usage of armour, common battlefield weaponry, and, in a number of cases, combative horsemanship. All that said, yeah, threre really aren't martial arts that are designed for teaching regular soldiers... they'd just take far too long to get the soldiers ready.

Arts of personal combat/self-defense and martial sports such as wrestling have existed for centuries in just about every culture. I suspect the origins of modern ground-fighting technique lie in those arts and sports rather than on the battlefield.

Yep. But the Japanese really didn't have much... there was Sumo, as mentioned, and some forms of what was referred to as "jacketed wrestling", but that was again, quite different. It involved starting from a seated position, and trying to put your partner on the ground... there wasn't anything on the ground itself.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Well, what should be understood (firstly) is exactly what is meant by a "battlefield" art... a number of the aspects you mention, such as the formation fighting and small unit tactics, are things that would be found in military (army) training, specifically for regular soldiers (although, I might point out that I do know of some arts that do cover such things as a regular part of their methods... such as Heki Ryu Kyujutsu), which is not the aim of even the old "battlefield" arts. Many of them are more concerned with what I would describe as "officer training"... and is more concerned with teaching strategies and tactics, through the medium of martial techniques. But, for the record, many arts (Japanese), especially prior to the 17th Century, included usage of armour, common battlefield weaponry, and, in a number of cases, combative horsemanship. All that said, yeah, threre really aren't martial arts that are designed for teaching regular soldiers... they'd just take far too long to get the soldiers ready.

Just to clarify - are you saying that military training for regular soldiers of the period should not properly be considered a "martial art"? Or are you saying that the surviving martial traditions of the period are just the ones aimed at "officer training."?

I am aware that some of the older Japanese arts do include use of armor and battlefield weaponry, although you'd have to admit they are a distinct minority compared to all the various martial arts widely practiced today. I was wondering - do you know of any art that actually covers fighting in formation? It really does require a different set of skills, tactics, and techniques from fighting one-on-one.

Yep. But the Japanese really didn't have much... there was Sumo, as mentioned, and some forms of what was referred to as "jacketed wrestling", but that was again, quite different. It involved starting from a seated position, and trying to put your partner on the ground... there wasn't anything on the ground itself.

Do you think that the ne waza in judo was an entirely new creation without historical antecedents or was it derived from foreign influences?

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey, Tony,

Just to clarify - are you saying that military training for regular soldiers of the period should not properly be considered a "martial art"? Or are you saying that the surviving martial traditions of the period are just the ones aimed at "officer training."?

Uh, yeah. Pretty much spot on.

Like today, the bulk of the "ordinary soldiers" would get, essentially, a form of basic training... and that was about it. Many were basically conscripted farmers and peasants, who would be outfitted with fairly minimalist armour (typically little more than a breast-plate, called a hara-ate, and a rudimentary helmet), given a spear (or, in larger armies, sometimes just a sharpened length of bamboo, when actual spears were scarce), and pretty much pointed at the enemy... What training they received really wouldn't be anywhere near the level of a martial art, which is realistically not so much about combative techniques, but about a military (and beyond) education.

I'll put it this way... the common time-frame to study a martial art, in order to have your training considered "complete", to the point where you can rely on the art the way it's designed, was 15-20 years (Menkyo Kaiden)... even during wartime, that length would shorten, but to between 7 and 10 years (typically). If you need to field an army, in response to aggressive actions made by your neighbours, you can't wait even another 5 years for your army, can you?

Bluntly, no martial art is, or was, designed for the regular soldiers.

I am aware that some of the older Japanese arts do include use of armor and battlefield weaponry, although you'd have to admit they are a distinct minority compared to all the various martial arts widely practiced today. I was wondering - do you know of any art that actually covers fighting in formation? It really does require a different set of skills, tactics, and techniques from fighting one-on-one.

Well, the Satsuma Heki Ryu I mentioned earlier still maintain their practice of formation training, with advancing and retreating lines of archers, as seen in this old clip:

Other than that, I am aware of teachings that deal with how to manage groups of soldiers, how to form and maneuvre groups, as well as castle fortification, siege tactics (both pro- and anti-), and far more in a large number of systems. But it should be remembered that, by and large, the combative methods of samurai on a battlefield were geared around personal performance, rather than group tactics... that was left for the regular soldiers. So the commanders would need to know how to arrange and organize them, but it wouldn't fit (contextually) for most martial arts to contain them in their syllabus (as techniques). Archery would be the notable exception.

Do you think that the ne waza in judo was an entirely new creation without historical antecedents or was it derived from foreign influences?

Judo's ne waza comes primarily from the explorations, experimentations, and skill of Tanabe Mataemon, of the Fusen Ryu (but the ne waza does not come from Fusen Ryu), combined with the explorations and developments of Kano and the early Kodokan guys (often working with what Tanabe showed them), which was influenced by locking and choking techniques taken primarily from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (and some others), and things like Western Wrestling, by Kano, all sorted through through the crucible of randori. So yeah, it was essentially a fairly new creation which naturally came out of randori, not combative experience or need, as well as foreign influence.

 

[frank raud]

Approximately what year did Tanabe Maetemon originally have contact with the Kodokan?

 

[Kframe]

Chris, I want to apologize for not listening, and not being clear when I spoke. I accept that ground fighting was not present. When I was referring to it past that point, I was actually trying to talk about "recovery" tactics. More like Rapid Ascension tactics incase you end up on the ground. Which if read your post correctly is different then ground fighting. Honestly, i was using ground fighting to cover any and all things relating to the ground, including getting back to your feet. Which is not ground fighting at all.

If you don't mind, do you know of any books, or books translated into English that i could read on this subject? The only martial arts i have any real knowledge of is, boxing only because i love it lol. ( to bad no one teaches the old bare knuckle boxing techniques, id be all over that.)

Man there is so much i don't know. Half the crap i do know is wrong...

Edit to add.

Chris, I was watching the Second video, and on the first two, he did a spin to left and to the right. Now that spin combined with the big circular arm movements, was that a grip breaking technique or a off balancing technique? I ask because i looked to my, apparently modern grappling novice eyes, as to much movement, with no apparent effect on the Uke. I will watch it again, but i didn't see the grip break nor he off balance. Im missing something ill keep watching it..

 

[Chris Parker]

Approximately what year did Tanabe Maetemon originally have contact with the Kodokan?

Not quite sure where you're going with this, Frank, but... The earliest contact I've seen between Tanabe and the Kodokan was in a match (or series of matches) in 1899/1900. He was brought in as a teacher after that, and was recognized as a Judo teacher (Kyoshi, from memory) in 1906.

Chris, I want to apologize for not listening, and not being clear when I spoke.

Not a problem.

I accept that ground fighting was not present. When I was referring to it past that point, I was actually trying to talk about "recovery" tactics. More like Rapid Ascension tactics incase you end up on the ground. Which if read your post correctly is different then ground fighting. Honestly, i was using ground fighting to cover any and all things relating to the ground, including getting back to your feet. Which is not ground fighting at all.

Yeah, that wasn't really there, either. As I said, you'd take someone to the ground to pin them, or to apply a finish (a break, or a choke), and that's about it. Occasionally there might be a reversal against such actions, but really nothing like a "rapid ascention"....

If you don't mind, do you know of any books, or books translated into English that i could read on this subject? The only martial arts i have any real knowledge of is, boxing only because i love it lol. ( to bad no one teaches the old bare knuckle boxing techniques, id be all over that.)

Look to BJJ, Judo, books on Catch Wrestling, that kind of thing. Not old traditional Japanese Jujutsu.

Man there is so much i don't know. Half the crap i do know is wrong...

Ha, yeah... that's not a problem, though. It only becomes a problem if you don't realize, and don't listen to the answers you get...

Edit to add.

Chris, I was watching the Second video, and on the first two, he did a spin to left and to the right. Now that spin combined with the big circular arm movements, was that a grip breaking technique or a off balancing technique? I ask because i looked to my, apparently modern grappling novice eyes, as to much movement, with no apparent effect on the Uke. I will watch it again, but i didn't see the grip break nor he off balance. Im missing something ill keep watching it..

Yeah, Yagyu Shingan Ryu is an interesting system... there's a lot hidden within the techniques, and really, is only for those trained in it. But, to give you a clue, the kata (in this system) are more a series of responses, rather than a single one... in other words, if the first action doesn't break the grip, you have the second, and so on. In training, the partner continues to hold to make the last action the "effective" one.

 

[frank raud]

If the first contact with Fusen-ryu is approximately 1899, how do you explain the Katame no kata, the first kata developed by Jigoro Kano, from the period 1884-1887?

 

[Kframe]

Chris, I do want to read up on Old Japanese jujutsu. I want to know the history and a some insight into there techniques. I honestly would love to meet someone in my neck of the woods that is skilled in one of the systems. I firmly believe each Art has something I can learn and apply to my situation.

What kind of defenses were taught? Watching the videos, I see some solid striking defense, but what about take down defense? I know what im taught, which is Sprawl, or get low and wide or the default of moving out of the way.

Were they taught any thing in relation to "recovery" techniques. What I mean is, not grappling, or any thing combative relating to the ground but, how to quickly get back to your feet?
Here is a video of someone demonstrating some techniques my coach teaches us.

Im guessing that a lot of the get back to your feet techniques are probably going to be used in conjunction with Breakfall techniques correct? I would love to see some breakfall techniques.

The more I watch videos on Real Japanese Jujutsu, the more I wish I had found it earlier. The closest thing I have to it is The Bujinkan taijitsu place, and they are out of my price range, and I like were I am. Oh well, I can always day dream about it.

 

[Chris Parker]

If the first contact with Fusen-ryu is approximately 1899, how do you explain the Katame no kata, the first kata developed by Jigoro Kano, from the period 1884-1887?

Ah, gotcha.

Well, the first thing I'd say is that the Katame no Kata deals really with osae komi, and other finishing aspects, rather than true ne waza, although obviously much of it can (and is) incorporated into ne waza. Next, I'd say that, as that and the Nage no Kata combine to form the Randori no Kata, it shows that the forms are designed for, and came from, randori, rather than older systems. Many of the principles are taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, but the application (and a few other aspects) are fairly altered. But, mainly, that it deals more with suwari waza and sutemi waza (or, at least, the after-effects of such) than ne waza.

I think perhaps a clarification from my end might be in order, as that might clear up the distinction I'm making.

I suppose the biggest thing is the difference between ne waza and, say, osae komi waza. Really, the distinction I make is based on whether or not both practitioners are required to be on the ground from the beginning of the technique. If not, then it's not ne waza. Additionally, I'd say that ne waza is more about fighting back from the ground, rather than having one or both start from either seated or standing positions, or moving in to finish someone you've just thrown (for instance). As I said in my first response to Kframe's questions, in older arts, you just don't see "ground work (as seen in BJJ)". It's this idea of two people engaging on the ground that I've been discussing (and stating that it's not in the older systems).

Chris, I do want to read up on Old Japanese jujutsu. I want to know the history and a some insight into there techniques. I honestly would love to meet someone in my neck of the woods that is skilled in one of the systems. I firmly believe each Art has something I can learn and apply to my situation.

Cool. The first port of call is www.koryu.com, and to read the articles there... as, if you're interested in the old Jujutsu systems, it'll help a lot to get a sense of the context for them. But a word of caution... the mentality of koryu (old schools, almost literally) are quite different to what you're used to. You'll be very hard pressed to find much in the way of description of techniques, and, as a general rule, the application of the techniques (of a koryu) outside of the context of their system isn't something most are that interested in. I mean, when a particular kata from a system is based in the historical culture of that Ryu (school), including local cultural aspects unique to that system and weaponry that has little to no place in a modern context, why would they be interested in trying it against something that is that alien to it? There's really nothing in it for them.

The most basic thing to understand about koryu is that they are dominantly concerned only with preserving their art... not with contrasting it, or competing with any others. They need to be effective and powerful within their context... and only within their context.

What kind of defenses were taught? Watching the videos, I see some solid striking defense, but what about take down defense? I know what im taught, which is Sprawl, or get low and wide or the default of moving out of the way.

Yeah... again, the sprawl is a competitive application, and a fairly modern method, all things considered (it was in ancient wrestling competition, of course, but not really in any combative methods). Essentially, it's a response to a form of attack that is very rare outside of such competitive formats, so don't expect it in old Jujutsu systems. That said, there absolutely are throw defences... but they don't really look much like the sprawl... and they can range from striking the opponent when they come in, to moving around the thrower, to dropping with a sacrifice action (sutemi waza), to responding after the throw has been begun/applied. But what each art does is dependent on the context of the system itself... there's no single skill-set, let alone single universal approach across these systems. Oh, and the "strike defence" might not actually be against what you think it is...

Were they taught any thing in relation to "recovery" techniques. What I mean is, not grappling, or any thing combative relating to the ground but, how to quickly get back to your feet?

Hmm, in a way, but then again, no, not really. To understand that, you'd need to have an understanding of zanshin, and kata practice as it pertains to Japanese systems... and that's a very long conversation...

Here is a video of someone demonstrating some techniques my coach teaches us.

Look, being gentle here, I wouldn't advise any of that at all... most of the time the guys completely open to being kicked, controlled, entered against, and more. Add to that the wasted energy, and the habit in a couple of ending up coming up with the back to the opponent, and I'm really not fond of any of it. The best "get to your feet" method I've learnt was from BJJ, and involved posting with the opposite foot and hand (say, left hand and right foot), then swinging your lead leg (left, in the example) back underneath you to the ground. This ensures that you get up aware, balanced, facing the opponent, and backing away (not moving forward into a potential attack). During a seminar with Royce Gracie, he insisted that every time everyone got up, they had to use this method... whether in a technique, or from sitting down while watching a demonstration. The first person to not get up properly had to do 2 pushups... the second, 4... the third, 8, the fourth, 16, the fifth, 32, and so on...

Im guessing that a lot of the get back to your feet techniques are probably going to be used in conjunction with Breakfall techniques correct?

No, not really. The first thing you need to address is what the point of the breakfalls are... and are they really "breakfalls" at all...?

I would love to see some breakfall techniques.

Let's take this back to Yagyu Shingan Ryu, then...

There are two distinct groupings of methods used to counter throws and joint locks. They are referred to as ukemi and nigemi. Ukemi, as a term, is one that many people are familar with, and refers to receiving an attack. This is what most think of when they talk about breakfalls and rolling methods. But, when you really get down to it, that's not really what ukemi is about, at least in a classical, koryu sense. Nigemi is a rarer term, and is to do with, often more acrobatic, methods of escaping from locks and throws. The following clip is Yagyu Shingan Ryu, and showcases some of their nigemi (note - these guys also do this in full armour...):

The more I watch videos on Real Japanese Jujutsu, the more I wish I had found it earlier. The closest thing I have to it is The Bujinkan taijitsu place, and they are out of my price range, and I like were I am. Oh well, I can always day dream about it.

While it has a certain romantic appeal, you might find that it's not really what you're after... especially based on the assumptions and questions you've presented here. That's not a bad thing, or a criticism in the slightest, of course... if everyone liked the same stuff, the world would be rather boring! And the most important thing is that you enjoy what it is you do, so really, I'd say you're probably in the right place right now. At least, for now that is.

 

[frank raud]

Uyenishi had no connection that I am aware of either to the Kodokan or Fusen-ryu, yet was brought by Barton-Wright to England to battle the wrestlers in the music halls. In his Text book of Ju Jutsu, he writes"Another analogous system, known as tori in some parts of Japan and as shime in others. was an extension of ju-jutsu in the department of groundwork, and it is more than possible that many of the locks and holds of ju jutsu were originated by exponents of tori. The last-named system cannot, however be compared with the "soft art" as a method of self defense, as but slight importance was devoted to "throws", the modus operandi being mainly confined to falling to the ground yourself and then pulling your opponent down, there to struggle for the victorious lock." Later on, he writes"The Kata and ground work need such a full and careful explanation that I propose to leave this to a future volume in which they can be fully dealt with, and in which I shall have space also to go into advanced tricks of combat and display." Uyenishi trained in Osaka prior to moving to England, a fair distance from the Okayama prefecture where Fusen-ryu was based.

 

[Kframe]

Chriss, that Standing techinique you mentioned, posting with the hand and opposite leg, is the first and primary method I was taught. We do it as part of a defensive exercise. To tell you the truth tho, im still not very good at it. That will change as my fitness continues to improve. Im still a little bigger then I need to be.

You mention that strike defense, might not be a strike defense at all. I was watching the shingan ryu video number two you posted a while back, and they clearly deflected some punches. Wonder what else those could be?

I think its great the Koyru want to preserve there arts. That is a noble goal. At least someone is trying to preserve them, as opposed to changing and altering them to suit there needs..

 

[Chris Parker]

Uyenishi had no connection that I am aware of either to the Kodokan or Fusen-ryu, yet was brought by Barton-Wright to England to battle the wrestlers in the music halls. In his Text book of Ju Jutsu, he writes"Another analogous system, known as tori in some parts of Japan and as shime in others. was an extension of ju-jutsu in the department of groundwork, and it is more than possible that many of the locks and holds of ju jutsu were originated by exponents of tori. The last-named system cannot, however be compared with the "soft art" as a method of self defense, as but slight importance was devoted to "throws", the modus operandi being mainly confined to falling to the ground yourself and then pulling your opponent down, there to struggle for the victorious lock." Later on, he writes"The Kata and ground work need such a full and careful explanation that I propose to leave this to a future volume in which they can be fully dealt with, and in which I shall have space also to go into advanced tricks of combat and display." Uyenishi trained in Osaka prior to moving to England, a fair distance from the Okayama prefecture where Fusen-ryu was based.

Hi, Frank,

Uyenishi was believed to have trained at the Yataro Handa dojo in Osaka, along with Yukio Tani. Tani was also a Fusen Ryu practitioner (under Tanabe Mataemon), and it's sometimes thought that the Yataro Handa dojo was also associated with Tanabe's methods. There has never really been any definite account of what Ryu-ha was taught there, but it's said to have been closer in relation to Koryu than Judo (Gendai budo), which implies to me that it was more similar to a study group than a particular Ryu's official dojo.... more likely that the instructor there was a student (at least at one point) of Tanabe's. After all, the methods described there match Tanabe's personal approach to randori far more than the methodology of any Ryu-ha, and there has been more than a passing connection between the Handa dojo and Tanabe made. So I'm not sure that I'd say there's no connection... after all, Okayama and Osaka aren't really that far apart... and Osaka is pretty much halfway to Tokyo, where Tanabe and other members of his groups had travelled for competitions a number of times (as an aside, in checking my research on this, I came across an earlier account of Tanabe meeting Kodokan members.... in 1891 and 1892, both featuring Tanabe himself against a Judoka known as Tobari. Tobari, in the first match, attempted to remain standing, as Tanabe tried to take the fight down to the ground, eventually managing to succeed, and winning with a choke. Tobari then researched and focused on the ground for the next year [at the Kodokan], and in the second match, it was both competitors that went to ground... and Tanabe won again. Incidentally, this account mentions this as being the origin of Tanabe's fame, as well as the origin of Judo's belief that a Judoka needs to be well rounded on the ground, as well as stand-up, and is the origin of the famous "ne waza of Kansai"... which includes Osaka, but not Okayama).

All in all, this still supports my contention that groundwork is based in competitive methods, rather than combative ones, and that it (in Japanese art terms) is a modern event. It also supports the idea that much of what is seen today owes at least it's popularity, if not it's technical methods, to Tanabe, as well as Judo, rather than any Koryu methodology.

Chriss, that Standing techinique you mentioned, posting with the hand and opposite leg, is the first and primary method I was taught. We do it as part of a defensive exercise. To tell you the truth tho, im still not very good at it. That will change as my fitness continues to improve. Im still a little bigger then I need to be.

Good. I would have been shocked and dismayed if you weren't taught that as a primary method! As I said, it's the best I've come across, and is one that I insist my guys use as well. There are a number of good methods to develop the fitness and other attributes for it, if you ask your coach, hopefully he'll have some for you.

You mention that strike defense, might not be a strike defense at all. I was watching the shingan ryu video number two you posted a while back, and they clearly deflected some punches. Wonder what else those could be?

Here's where it gets a little vaguer, so forgive that. I'm not saying that they aren't strike defences, but at the same time, I'm not saying they are. What they are exactly will come down to the Ryu itself, and how they interpret them... for example, many "strike defence" techniques are really teaching you about the mechanics for weapon defence, just in a safer method (for early training and beginners). Some are quite literally short blade defences with the short blade removed. Others are for using weapons. Yagyu Shingan Ryu, at least, the branch I've been picking clips from, are known for using their basic unarmed techniques as a basis for using a variety of weapons.

So the strike defences might be strike defences. Or they might not be. It depends on the Ryu.

I think its great the Koyru want to preserve there arts. That is a noble goal. At least someone is trying to preserve them, as opposed to changing and altering them to suit there needs..

Sure... but you need to understand what that means.

To train a Koryu, you are training to adopt a particular mindset, a particular thought process, and a particular (specific) method of movement. As a result, the Ryu is not served by having people bring in other methods, other ways of thinking, other ways of moving etc, so a number of these Ryu don't allow cross-training (although even that is open to the Ryu itself, and the interpretation of the teachers in question). As a result, they really don't lend themselves to the ideas of "learning what you can from them", or taking aspects of their systems to "apply what you can". The Ryu are complete approaches, so to take a bit of this, and a bit of that is to completely miss what the Ryu teaches, and, to that end, completely pointless.

 

[frank raud]

I know of the Handa dojo connection, never heard of it being associated with Fusen-ryu. Uyenishi's statement about Tori doesn't state that groundwork is a contemporary thing, putatively developed by Tanabe, but is a subset of ju jutsu. Uyenishi is not the only one who writes about newaza, (this is a cut and paste from a similar thread I was involved in a few years back)
EJ Harrison's description from the 1914 edition of Fighting Spirit of Japan is slightly different than in the more common 1955 edition(I have both of them near by) 1914 edition"with the help of the newspaper translator, I found out a local dojo, or school of jujutsu referred to elsewhere in these pages, its proprietor, a small Japanese named Hagiwara Ryoshinsai, being a disciple of the Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and a wonderful little man in his way. Although in stand-up wrestling, known technically as randori, he would have been no match for the black-belt brigades of the famous Kodokwan of Tokyo, yet in what foreign followers of the art have designated "groundwork" he possessed remarkable skill."

In the 1955 edition, the reference to foriegn followers is shortened to followers, and the following passage is included"I should add that my jujutsu activities were by no means confined to the Tenjin shinyo-ryu dojo.Reports of my very modest prowess in the"soft art" having reached the ears of the Yokohama police I was invited to practice with them.......There to I usually got the better of the rank and file without much difficulty but did not fare quite so well when trying conclusions with visiting police yudansha(black belt holders) from Tokyo some of whom no doubt graduated from the Kodokan Moreover the chief instructor of the Kagacho police station dojo, although not a disciple of the Kodokan but the product of another ryugi or school of jujutsu the name of which I cannot recall, was none the less a decidedly formidable customer and especially adept in Newaza, otherwise "ground work"

EJ Harrison trained in Tenshin Shinyo-ryu prior to joining the Kodokan, and was the first foriegner to be awarded a black belt by the Kodokan. In the original edition of his book, he references Maeda, comparing his skills to Yukio Tani(third rate), so is obviously familiar with at least some of the major players. Curious that he is able to compare the ground fighting skills of his Tenshin Shinyo sensei with that of the Kodokan and of a third school of jujutsu in a time frame (prior to 1897) when these skills apparently did not exist, or were only recently developed by one man.

 

[frank raud]

By the way, Chris, here is something you wrote about a year ago, what has changed your mind on the dominant influence of Fusen-ryu?

As Frank said, the thrust of the newaza in Judo comes from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. The other primary influences are said to be Fusen Ryu (not that they contributed any methods, but the story goes that a Fusen Ryu practitioner was beating the Judo guys with newaza, so there was more of an emphasis put on newaza afterwards) and the development of Kosen Judo (essentially "High School Judo"), which had/has a higher emphasis on newaza over nagewaza due to the relative lower risk of injury (with kids not throwing each other headfirst into the ground).

 

[Chris Parker]

Interesting.

I know of the Handa dojo connection, never heard of it being associated with Fusen-ryu. Uyenishi's statement about Tori doesn't state that groundwork is a contemporary thing, putatively developed by Tanabe, but is a subset of ju jutsu. Uyenishi is not the only one who writes about newaza, (this is a cut and paste from a similar thread I was involved in a few years back)

Personally, I'd be a little wary of how much is read into the phrasing... For one thing, the reference to "tori" and "shime" seem a little odd... "Tori" means to "capture", and "shime" is "to constrict", but to state they're used interchangably I think is a little mistaken. For one thing, the term that seems to be meant is "torite" (capturing hands), rather than just "tori", and is sometimes used to refer to osae komi waza (pinning techniques), whereas shime often refer to chokes, or, sometimes, immobilizations (related to osae komi, but slightly different). Additionally, it reads (to me) that the second half of the passage you quoted refers to a direct contrast between a particular systems approach, and Judo's (the "soft art") for self defence, stating that it "couldn't be compared with (Judo) as it doesn't focus on throws; instead, it seeks to pull an opponent down, and defeat them there". None of that really states anything one way or another about how old that approach was, though.

EJ Harrison's description from the 1914 edition of Fighting Spirit of Japan is slightly different than in the more common 1955 edition(I have both of them near by) 1914 edition"with the help of the newspaper translator, I found out a local dojo, or school of jujutsu referred to elsewhere in these pages, its proprietor, a small Japanese named Hagiwara Ryoshinsai, being a disciple of the Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and a wonderful little man in his way. Although in stand-up wrestling, known technically as randori, he would have been no match for the black-belt brigades of the famous Kodokwan of Tokyo, yet in what foreign followers of the art have designated "groundwork" he possessed remarkable skill."

I'd be very interested to know exactly what was meant by those comments... as randori doesn't refer to just stand-up methods (it'd be interesting to know if it did then), as well as knowing who Hagiwara's Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu instructor was... As I'm sure you're aware, Kano had two different Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu teachers himself, with the first being very keen on randori, and the second not so much (he left the instruction of randori to senior students, such as Kano, focusing on the kata himself). That said, I'm not aware of any real ne waza in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu either.... might double check that with some friends who are even more familiar with the system than I am.

In the 1955 edition, the reference to foriegn followers is shortened to followers, and the following passage is included"I should add that my jujutsu activities were by no means confined to the Tenjin shinyo-ryu dojo.Reports of my very modest prowess in the"soft art" having reached the ears of the Yokohama police I was invited to practice with them.......There to I usually got the better of the rank and file without much difficulty but did not fare quite so well when trying conclusions with visiting police yudansha(black belt holders) from Tokyo some of whom no doubt graduated from the Kodokan Moreover the chief instructor of the Kagacho police station dojo, although not a disciple of the Kodokan but the product of another ryugi or school of jujutsu the name of which I cannot recall, was none the less a decidedly formidable customer and especially adept in Newaza, otherwise "ground work"

Again, I'd be interested to know a lot more about the details here... such as what exactly was referred to as "ne waza"... was it just osae komi, or are we talking rolling around (as in BJJ)? And what was the other Ryu-ha? I'm not thinking we'll get answers, but I'm just pointing out that our current definition might not fit the way it was used then, which is why I clarified what I meant by "ground work" above.

EJ Harrison trained in Tenshin Shinyo-ryu prior to joining the Kodokan, and was the first foriegner to be awarded a black belt by the Kodokan. In the original edition of his book, he references Maeda, comparing his skills to Yukio Tani(third rate), so is obviously familiar with at least some of the major players. Curious that he is able to compare the ground fighting skills of his Tenshin Shinyo sensei with that of the Kodokan and of a third school of jujutsu in a time frame (prior to 1897) when these skills apparently did not exist, or were only recently developed by one man.

Again, I'd want to know exactly how the term was being used... as well as knowing where exactly the skills came from. At that point in time, inter-school competitions weren't uncommon, and randori was a fairly common training method in Jujutsu ryu-ha, as well as competition being part of demonstrations at various levels... so, honestly, I'd be surprised if Tanabe was the only person to have come up with anything. But he was still a pivotal figure in the development of Judo's, and Judo's popularity is where a lot of the expansion and popularity of ne waza comes from (most modern systems, particularly Western ones, all the way to BJJ, are, at the least, influenced, if not outrightly based on Judo).

 

[Chris Parker]

By the way, Chris, here is something you wrote about a year ago, what has changed your mind on the dominant influence of Fusen-ryu?

As Frank said, the thrust of the newaza in Judo comes from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. The other primary influences are said to be Fusen Ryu (not that they contributed any methods, but the story goes that a Fusen Ryu practitioner was beating the Judo guys with newaza, so there was more of an emphasis put on newaza afterwards) and the development of Kosen Judo (essentially "High School Judo"), which had/has a higher emphasis on newaza over nagewaza due to the relative lower risk of injury (with kids not throwing each other headfirst into the ground).

Ha, yeah, good find...

Mainly, more research. I think the osae komi waza and kansetsu waza are primarily taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, mechanically speaking, although Tenjin Shin'yo doesn't employ them necessarily as ne waza methods. The methods of set-up for them, though, is not really Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu.

 

[frank raud]

Ha, yeah, good find...

Mainly, more research. I think the osae komi waza and kansetsu waza are primarily taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, mechanically speaking, although Tenjin Shin'yo doesn't employ them necessarily as ne waza methods. The methods of set-up for them, though, is not really Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu.

Here's my take on this, and Tanabe's contributions. With contemporary accounts making reference to groundwork, newaza, pulling opponents down, etc., we need to admit these techniques were in the common domain at the time. If they did not come from the battlefield arts, they may have come from the Edo perod arts. Descriptions of Tanabe resisting his opponents armbars and chokes to such an extent that he got the nickname newaza Tanabe, says to me, while others were doing newaza as part of their repetoire, he specialised in it. Countering a standing choke by dropping to the ground doesn't make much sense, and defeinitely haven't survived in the judo curriculum as such. Tanabe may have developed his newaza to a greater extent than others, and opened eyes to the possibilities of some combinations previously unseen, but he didn't develop it. It is curious that some reports have him defeating the Kodokan representatives by "butt scooting", yet that is not considered a judo technique, yet is seen in BJJ. If that is what he used to win, why was it not incorporated into the techniques the Kodokan amalgamated Fusen-ryu? I don't believe we will ever get the answers to many of these questions, but I doubt one man can be pointed out as responsible for all the grappling techniques in Judo, not even Kano.