Will Brazilian Jiujitsu eventually replace Japanese Jujitsu?

[Gerry Seymour]

compelling counterpoint.

I didn’t see a need for a counterpoint, given his post didn’t seem to be contrary to anything I said.

 

[Chris Parker]

Honest question; Would classical JJ practitioners fare as well as the Bjj practitioners did in that ground and pound test with boxing gloves?

I’m forced to say “no”.

Are you freaking kidding me?

Seriously?!?!?!

Dude. I'm going to say this one more time.

WE
DO
NOT
CARE

YOUR
VALUES
MEAN
NOTHING
TO
CLASSICAL
PRACTITIONERS

GET
OVER
YOURSELF

Seriously. We don't care if we'd handle a "ground and pound" the same... or better... or worse... it's NOT WHY WE TRAIN IN THESE ARTS!!!!!!

You've been told this from the first goddamn page.

Understand this. Your values mean nothing. They aren't even close to the metrics we use. Stop trying to assume that everyone works with your ideas, as we don't. Stop assuming that everyone has the same aims, as we don't. Stop assuming that all arts have the same ideas and aims, as they don't.

The reason that BJJ isn't going to "replace" classical jujutsu is that they aren't even competing with each other. It's like saying the vegan restaurant is going to put the steak house down the road out of business... they don't even have the same customers.

I'm going to be about as blunt as I can be here. Basically no-one in this thread, with maybe two exceptions, have the first clue what they're talking about... and, more importantly, most don't seem able (or willing in some cases) to listen to people who do. This has been explained thoroughly in the first couple of pages... the last 20 are just ridiculous. BJJ is not "replacing" traditional jujutsu. That's it. If you can't grasp that by now, then you never will, and go on with your delusions and wilful ignorance.

Hell, if anything, classical schools are in a much better place than they were 30 years ago... there are more branch dojo around the world (outside of Japan) than there were. And it has nothing at all to do with BJJ, so don't try taking credit again... it's more to do with people like Donn Draeger, Meik Skoss and Diane Skoss, Dave Lowry, Wayne Muromoto, Alexander Bennett, Karl Friday, Hunter Armstrong, Phil Relnick, and the Japanese teachers, Otake Risuke, Imai Masayuki, Kubota Toshihiro, Shimazu Takauji, Nishioka Tsuneo, Yagyu Nobutoshi, Seki Humitake, and far more.

But the main take-away is this... stop applying your values to these arts. Asking what the "self defence" properties of a Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu embu is just shows how little you grasp of martial arts in general, and classical arts in particular (as well as self defence, for that matter... and, while I'm here, I'm going to address something else below regarding Steve's lunatic comments). Suggesting that handling "ground and pound" is even a relevant metric also just shows a complete lack of anything outside your tiny little box... and there's a whole world out there you will remain completely ignorant of so long as you think everything should match your small idea of martial arts.

With all that said, Steve.

Son.

Grow the hell up.

You want to again (and again and again) imply something about my education, background, knowledge, skills, etc? Then listen when you are given answers.

The last time we did this dance, I made observational comments on a ludicrous video, and you decided to insinuate that my background didn't apply... I then gave you (again) my background, including classical, modern, competitive, non-competitive, reality-based, armed, and unarmed arts. I mentioned fights I'd been in. I backed up my opinion with my background, which supports my information. You then said "so you've never been in a fight?" and ignored the relevant arts in my background. In short, you were given the answers, and acted like a child with your fingers in your ears.

Here, again, you decide to attack my credentials in understanding self defence?!?! Seriously? No, I do not describe myself as an expert... I say I have some expertise in the area, and point out that my organisation focused strongly on self defence (frankly in ways that you don't grasp) for the close to 30 years that I've been involved in it, and that all the information I give is completely in line with people who ARE acknowledged experts in the field.

You seem to have a problem with me, and go out of your way to show it (to the point where you "thank" people for seeming to validate your delusional ideas in unrelated threads if you think what they say supports your opinion). Again, complete bluntness here.

You have, maybe, 10% of the martial arts background I do.
You have, maybe, 5% of the understanding of them.
You have, maybe, 2% of a clue about self defence, and what the topic actually entails.
Your ideas regarding this topic (and your bizarre "can you be an expert" idea which is where this comes from) are based in a deeply lacking understanding of all of this.

And I'm sick of it.

There is no support for your ideas. There is no support for your attacks and insinuations. Stop. Be an actual man. Or, if not, accept what you're being told... as you've been given all the answers you constantly ask for again and again. You don't deserve them again.

 

[dunc]

Nah, the classical JJ stuff. Classical JJ guys don't consider Sport JJ to be "real" Jujitsu.

As someone with experience of both I’d say that anyone with a good understanding of the classical systems would look at say Roger Gracie, Marcelo Garcia etc and say that their movement embodies the principles within the concept of Ju

People on both sides would also make the distinction between sporting technique and martial technique

The classical guys would argue that these principles are more readily (or perhaps more purely) expressed in a martial context than in a sporting context

And of course for marketing or egocentric purposes people sometimes disrespect this obvious truth and talk in absolute terms

 

[drop bear]

Are you freaking kidding me?

Seriously?!?!?!

Dude. I'm going to say this one more time.

WE
DO
NOT
CARE

YOUR
VALUES
MEAN
NOTHING
TO
CLASSICAL
PRACTITIONERS

GET
OVER
YOURSELF

Seriously. We don't care if we'd handle a "ground and pound" the same... or better... or worse... it's NOT WHY WE TRAIN IN THESE ARTS!!!!!!

You've been told this from the first goddamn page.

Understand this. Your values mean nothing. They aren't even close to the metrics we use. Stop trying to assume that everyone works with your ideas, as we don't. Stop assuming that everyone has the same aims, as we don't. Stop assuming that all arts have the same ideas and aims, as they don't.

The reason that BJJ isn't going to "replace" classical jujutsu is that they aren't even competing with each other. It's like saying the vegan restaurant is going to put the steak house down the road out of business... they don't even have the same customers.

I'm going to be about as blunt as I can be here. Basically no-one in this thread, with maybe two exceptions, have the first clue what they're talking about... and, more importantly, most don't seem able (or willing in some cases) to listen to people who do. This has been explained thoroughly in the first couple of pages... the last 20 are just ridiculous. BJJ is not "replacing" traditional jujutsu. That's it. If you can't grasp that by now, then you never will, and go on with your delusions and wilful ignorance.

Hell, if anything, classical schools are in a much better place than they were 30 years ago... there are more branch dojo around the world (outside of Japan) than there were. And it has nothing at all to do with BJJ, so don't try taking credit again... it's more to do with people like Donn Draeger, Meik Skoss and Diane Skoss, Dave Lowry, Wayne Muromoto, Alexander Bennett, Karl Friday, Hunter Armstrong, Phil Relnick, and the Japanese teachers, Otake Risuke, Imai Masayuki, Kubota Toshihiro, Shimazu Takauji, Nishioka Tsuneo, Yagyu Nobutoshi, Seki Humitake, and far more.

But the main take-away is this... stop applying your values to these arts. Asking what the "self defence" properties of a Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu embu is just shows how little you grasp of martial arts in general, and classical arts in particular (as well as self defence, for that matter... and, while I'm here, I'm going to address something else below regarding Steve's lunatic comments). Suggesting that handling "ground and pound" is even a relevant metric also just shows a complete lack of anything outside your tiny little box... and there's a whole world out there you will remain completely ignorant of so long as you think everything should match your small idea of martial arts.

With all that said, Steve.

Son.

Grow the hell up.

You want to again (and again and again) imply something about my education, background, knowledge, skills, etc? Then listen when you are given answers.

The last time we did this dance, I made observational comments on a ludicrous video, and you decided to insinuate that my background didn't apply... I then gave you (again) my background, including classical, modern, competitive, non-competitive, reality-based, armed, and unarmed arts. I mentioned fights I'd been in. I backed up my opinion with my background, which supports my information. You then said "so you've never been in a fight?" and ignored the relevant arts in my background. In short, you were given the answers, and acted like a child with your fingers in your ears.

Here, again, you decide to attack my credentials in understanding self defence?!?! Seriously? No, I do not describe myself as an expert... I say I have some expertise in the area, and point out that my organisation focused strongly on self defence (frankly in ways that you don't grasp) for the close to 30 years that I've been involved in it, and that all the information I give is completely in line with people who ARE acknowledged experts in the field.

You seem to have a problem with me, and go out of your way to show it (to the point where you "thank" people for seeming to validate your delusional ideas in unrelated threads if you think what they say supports your opinion). Again, complete bluntness here.

You have, maybe, 10% of the martial arts background I do.
You have, maybe, 5% of the understanding of them.
You have, maybe, 2% of a clue about self defence, and what the topic actually entails.
Your ideas regarding this topic (and your bizarre "can you be an expert" idea which is where this comes from) are based in a deeply lacking understanding of all of this.

And I'm sick of it.

There is no support for your ideas. There is no support for your attacks and insinuations. Stop. Be an actual man. Or, if not, accept what you're being told... as you've been given all the answers you constantly ask for again and again. You don't deserve them again.

Did anyone else notice the massive contradiction from those two responses?

Can you show some live sparring or drilling or a fight or anything at all to give an indication that you have produced anyone capable of defending themselves?

 

[drop bear]

As someone with experience of both I’d say that anyone with a good understanding of the classical systems would look at say Roger Gracie, Marcelo Garcia etc and say that their movement embodies the principles within the concept of Ju

People on both sides would also make the distinction between sporting technique and martial technique

The classical guys would argue that these principles are more readily (or perhaps more purely) expressed in a martial context than in a sporting context

And of course for marketing or egocentric purposes people sometimes disrespect this obvious truth and talk in absolute terms

Yeah but martial context is drills in a real practical sense. I mean it sort of tries to claim fight but we generally don't ever get in to fights. So the end result is drills or kata or board breaking, Mabye an essay or two.

Martial arts is most correctly expressed through contest with another person. The greatest understanding of a technique is to be able to repeatedly do that technique to every in the room regardless if they want you to or not.

 

[Chris Parker]

Did anyone else notice the massive contradiction from those two responses?

Can you show some live sparring or drilling or a fight or anything at all to give an indication that you have produced anyone capable of defending themselves?

Christ, you're kidding, right?

Learn to read. The first part is saying, quite loudly, that we don't have the same metrics you do, we don't have the same values you do, and what you think shows skill is not what we think shows skill. We have no footage of something that is just there to match your bizarre, off-base, uninformed, ill-educated, and incorrect expectations.

The second part is addressing a consistent issue with Steve and a problem he seems to have with me, indicated here in his posts 295 and 324... if it was just those, I wouldn't have bothered, but it's hardly unusual from him, and I'm fed up with it. The two are not related at all (which is the main point), at least not in the way you think it would be, and the self-defence focus of my organisation is distinct and separate from the traditional work... which itself is not my classical training, although it is related.

Yeah but martial context is drills in a real practical sense. I mean it sort of tries to claim fight but we generally don't ever get in to fights. So the end result is drills or kata or board breaking, Mabye an essay or two.

You don't have the first clue what classical arts "try to claim". Nor do you have the first clue about kata, it's structure, and the way they're designed, or their purpose and application... hell, you're not even thinking of what is meant by kata here, you're thinking of something else entirely (that you don't understand, bluntly).

But, say, here's a quote from someone... "3 years randori, 3 months kata"... that, by the way, was said by a student of Ueshiba Morihei, and of Kano Jigoro, as well as Shiina Ichizo... so he knew about randori, and kata, quite intimately. In fact, his dojo was originally a judojo, which added aikido later (actually the first Aikikai associated dojo outside of the hombu), then koryu later. And what it means, simply, is that, in order to install specific skills, it takes three years of randori (random application) to generate the same skills as you can develop in a targeted fashion through koryu.

Martial arts is most correctly expressed through contest with another person. The greatest understanding of a technique is to be able to repeatedly do that technique to every in the room regardless if they want you to or not.

And you think the idea of application regardless of opponent is something not in classical arts?

Please, both yourself and Hanzou... if you don't want to learn, that's okay... stop trying to ask questions in areas you don't want answers to, that's easy. But if you're going to ask these questions, please listen to the answers... as you will learn so much more if you just shut up and listen once in a while. What I will say, though, is "most correctly expressed through contest with another person" might be a good way to view some arts, and most particularly competitive ones, but it's hardly true across all martial arts... to assume it is is to again apply your values where they're simply not valid.

 

[Hanzou]

Are you freaking kidding me?

Seriously?!?!?!

Dude. I'm going to say this one more time.

WE
DO
NOT
CARE

YOUR
VALUES
MEAN
NOTHING
TO
CLASSICAL
PRACTITIONERS

GET
OVER
YOURSELF

Seriously. We don't care if we'd handle a "ground and pound" the same... or better... or worse... it's NOT WHY WE TRAIN IN THESE ARTS!!!!!!

You've been told this from the first goddamn page.

Understand this. Your values mean nothing. They aren't even close to the metrics we use. Stop trying to assume that everyone works with your ideas, as we don't. Stop assuming that everyone has the same aims, as we don't. Stop assuming that all arts have the same ideas and aims, as they don't.

So you guys don't care about self defense? Someone on top of you trying to sock you in the face is a valid SD situation.

 

[Chris Parker]

So you guys don't care about self defense? Someone on top of you trying to sock you in the face is a valid SD situation.

Firstly, it's not really a huge SD situation... but we're not getting into that.

Secondly, NO. We are concerned with the lessons that are culturally and contextually embedded in the kata and methods of the school, which are concerned with a particular context removed from a modern, Western self defence context.

Is it really that hard to come to terms with the fact that these arts are different, and the reasons for training in them, as well as the structure of them, is different?

Edit to add:

These arts are, more often than not, involving weapons... weapons that are culturally related to the country and time of their origin. This is what Brendan was getting at when he was asking how many of you guys trained with weapons... that absolutely none of you had a clue what he meant by, and went on some bizarre and irrelevant tangent involving knife defence and encounters...

Which means this: what, exact, do you think the modern self defence appeal is of training with a naginata? Or a spear? Or kusarigama? Yes, we're talking jujutsu arts, but the vast majority of them include quite a degree of weapon methods as well... and the presence of weapons informs the jujutsu itself. As does the cultural forms of violence, which is removed from what would be seen in, say, a mugging in a Western developed country.

I really can't believe it's taken 25 pages for you to start to get what was said on page one....

 

[lklawson]

GET
OVER
YOURSELF

He can't. He's a Religious Zealot and his religion is MMA. You must either be Converted, Killed, or quieted & isolated from everyone else (while preferably paying your jizya).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[dunc]

Yeah but martial context is drills in a real practical sense. I mean it sort of tries to claim fight but we generally don't ever get in to fights. So the end result is drills or kata or board breaking, Mabye an essay or two.

I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight
And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)

As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria

Martial arts is most correctly expressed through contest with another person. The greatest understanding of a technique is to be able to repeatedly do that technique to every in the room regardless if they want you to or not.

There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset
Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches

For example I would say that for me (putting my classical hat on for a minute) martial arts are most correctly expressed by surviving a dangerous encounter
In this case the mindset (maybe strategy?) is far more important than the technique. Musashi's life story is a good example of this concept I feel

 

[Steve]

Are you freaking kidding me?

Seriously?!?!?!

Dude. I'm going to say this one more time.

WE
DO
NOT
CARE

YOUR
VALUES
MEAN
NOTHING
TO
CLASSICAL
PRACTITIONERS

GET
OVER
YOURSELF

Seriously. We don't care if we'd handle a "ground and pound" the same... or better... or worse... it's NOT WHY WE TRAIN IN THESE ARTS!!!!!!

You've been told this from the first goddamn page.

Understand this. Your values mean nothing. They aren't even close to the metrics we use. Stop trying to assume that everyone works with your ideas, as we don't. Stop assuming that everyone has the same aims, as we don't. Stop assuming that all arts have the same ideas and aims, as they don't.

The reason that BJJ isn't going to "replace" classical jujutsu is that they aren't even competing with each other. It's like saying the vegan restaurant is going to put the steak house down the road out of business... they don't even have the same customers.

I'm going to be about as blunt as I can be here. Basically no-one in this thread, with maybe two exceptions, have the first clue what they're talking about... and, more importantly, most don't seem able (or willing in some cases) to listen to people who do. This has been explained thoroughly in the first couple of pages... the last 20 are just ridiculous. BJJ is not "replacing" traditional jujutsu. That's it. If you can't grasp that by now, then you never will, and go on with your delusions and wilful ignorance.

Hell, if anything, classical schools are in a much better place than they were 30 years ago... there are more branch dojo around the world (outside of Japan) than there were. And it has nothing at all to do with BJJ, so don't try taking credit again... it's more to do with people like Donn Draeger, Meik Skoss and Diane Skoss, Dave Lowry, Wayne Muromoto, Alexander Bennett, Karl Friday, Hunter Armstrong, Phil Relnick, and the Japanese teachers, Otake Risuke, Imai Masayuki, Kubota Toshihiro, Shimazu Takauji, Nishioka Tsuneo, Yagyu Nobutoshi, Seki Humitake, and far more.

But the main take-away is this... stop applying your values to these arts. Asking what the "self defence" properties of a Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu embu is just shows how little you grasp of martial arts in general, and classical arts in particular (as well as self defence, for that matter... and, while I'm here, I'm going to address something else below regarding Steve's lunatic comments). Suggesting that handling "ground and pound" is even a relevant metric also just shows a complete lack of anything outside your tiny little box... and there's a whole world out there you will remain completely ignorant of so long as you think everything should match your small idea of martial arts.

With all that said, Steve.

Son.

Grow the hell up.

You want to again (and again and again) imply something about my education, background, knowledge, skills, etc? Then listen when you are given answers.

The last time we did this dance, I made observational comments on a ludicrous video, and you decided to insinuate that my background didn't apply... I then gave you (again) my background, including classical, modern, competitive, non-competitive, reality-based, armed, and unarmed arts. I mentioned fights I'd been in. I backed up my opinion with my background, which supports my information. You then said "so you've never been in a fight?" and ignored the relevant arts in my background. In short, you were given the answers, and acted like a child with your fingers in your ears.

Here, again, you decide to attack my credentials in understanding self defence?!?! Seriously? No, I do not describe myself as an expert... I say I have some expertise in the area, and point out that my organisation focused strongly on self defence (frankly in ways that you don't grasp) for the close to 30 years that I've been involved in it, and that all the information I give is completely in line with people who ARE acknowledged experts in the field.

You seem to have a problem with me, and go out of your way to show it (to the point where you "thank" people for seeming to validate your delusional ideas in unrelated threads if you think what they say supports your opinion). Again, complete bluntness here.

You have, maybe, 10% of the martial arts background I do.
You have, maybe, 5% of the understanding of them.
You have, maybe, 2% of a clue about self defence, and what the topic actually entails.
Your ideas regarding this topic (and your bizarre "can you be an expert" idea which is where this comes from) are based in a deeply lacking understanding of all of this.

And I'm sick of it.

There is no support for your ideas. There is no support for your attacks and insinuations. Stop. Be an actual man. Or, if not, accept what you're being told... as you've been given all the answers you constantly ask for again and again. You don't deserve them again.

I should "be an actual man?" Really? That's completely uncalled for, son. It's rude, and it's also pretty sexist. Look, all you have is your arrogant bluster, and the internal validation of your training. Notable that your rant above reinforces that. You seem to be stressed out about something, kiddo. Take a deep breath and come back when you're ready to act like an adult.

 

[lklawson]

I should "be an actual man?" Really? That's completely uncalled for, son. It's rude, and it's also pretty sexist. Look, all you have is your arrogant bluster, and the internal validation of your training. Notable that your rant above reinforces that. You seem to be stressed out about something, kiddo. Take a deep breath and come back when you're ready to act like an adult.

You know he was replying to Hanzou, not you, right?

 

[Steve]

You know he was replying to Hanzou, not you, right?

Err... did you read his entire temper tantrum? He cast a wide net. Honestly, though, I don't blame you for not reading it carefully. I think he's under a tremendous amount of stress or something. Acting a bit hysterical.

 

[Steve]

I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight.

I agree, but would put a finer point on it. I think anyone who wishes to be a credible fighter should be able to fight. It's really that simple. Anyone who wishes to be credible in any complex skill set should be experienced within that skill set.

And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)

Really? I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on this?

As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria

There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset
Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches

Personally, it's not about the differences of objective and context. It's that the two are inextricably linked (context and training objectives). Some martial arts styles have a consistent and obvious relationship between context and training objectives. Others have conflict between the two. Where there is conflict, the skills get muddled up and people start learning things that are inconsistent from what they think they're learning. Styles that have a congruous objective and context build very reliable, predictable competency on a very consistent timeline. Styles that are incongruous produce inconsistent proficiency, if at all, over a very unpredictable timeline.

 

[Hanzou]

Firstly, it's not really a huge SD situation... but we're not getting into that.

Secondly, NO. We are concerned with the lessons that are culturally and contextually embedded in the kata and methods of the school, which are concerned with a particular context removed from a modern, Western self defence context.

So you guys are more focused on situations that are more likely to happen in medieval Japan, than the modern world. Okay, but you're far more likely to be in a situation where someone is on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger than a guy trying to attack you with a katana.

Is it really that hard to come to terms with the fact that these arts are different, and the reasons for training in them, as well as the structure of them, is different?

Aren't you offering JJJ as a method for self defense? The BJJ school I attended was also offered as self defense.

Edit to add:

These arts are, more often than not, involving weapons... weapons that are culturally related to the country and time of their origin. This is what Brendan was getting at when he was asking how many of you guys trained with weapons... that absolutely none of you had a clue what he meant by, and went on some bizarre and irrelevant tangent involving knife defence and encounters...

Which means this: what, exact, do you think the modern self defence appeal is of training with a naginata? Or a spear? Or kusarigama? Yes, we're talking jujutsu arts, but the vast majority of them include quite a degree of weapon methods as well... and the presence of weapons informs the jujutsu itself. As does the cultural forms of violence, which is removed from what would be seen in, say, a mugging in a Western developed country.

I really can't believe it's taken 25 pages for you to start to get what was said on page one....

Actually, I got that in your first response. My question is why do you admit that that's what you do, and then get offended when someone says that what you're doing is no different than dressing up as a knight at a renaissance faire?

 

[lklawson]

Err... did you read his entire temper tantrum? He cast a wide net. Honestly, though, I don't blame you for not reading it carefully. I think he's under a tremendous amount of stress or something. Acting a bit hysterical.

'Bout what I expected.

 

[dunc]

I agree, but would put a finer point on it. I think anyone who wishes to be a credible fighter should be able to fight. It's really that simple. Anyone who wishes to be credible in any complex skill set should be experienced within that skill set. Really? I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on this?
Personally, it's not about the differences of objective and context. It's that the two are inextricably linked (context and training objectives). Some martial arts styles have a consistent and obvious relationship between context and training objectives. Others have conflict between the two. Where there is conflict, the skills get muddled up and people start learning things that are inconsistent from what they think they're learning. Styles that have a congruous objective and context build very reliable, predictable competency on a very consistent timeline. Styles that are incongruous produce inconsistent proficiency, if at all, over a very unpredictable timeline.

yeah probably we agree

You can develop and test pretty much any technique with specific sparring and safety gear
You do have to triangulate around it a bit for safety. eg spar the set up of a dangerous throw, but don’t complete it, then spar the situation when you’ve yet to stabilise the position after the throw, add counters and various adaptions to the exercise and so on

In principle this is the same way we train at my BJJ academy

 

[drop bear]

Christ, you're kidding, right?

Learn to read. The first part is saying, quite loudly, that we don't have the same metrics you do, we don't have the same values you do, and what you think shows skill is not what we think shows skill. We have no footage of something that is just there to match your bizarre, off-base, uninformed, ill-educated, and incorrect expectations.

The second part is addressing a consistent issue with Steve and a problem he seems to have with me, indicated here in his posts 295 and 324... if it was just those, I wouldn't have bothered, but it's hardly unusual from him, and I'm fed up with it. The two are not related at all (which is the main point), at least not in the way you think it would be, and the self-defence focus of my organisation is distinct and separate from the traditional work... which itself is not my classical training, although it is related.



You don't have the first clue what classical arts "try to claim". Nor do you have the first clue about kata, it's structure, and the way they're designed, or their purpose and application... hell, you're not even thinking of what is meant by kata here, you're thinking of something else entirely (that you don't understand, bluntly).

But, say, here's a quote from someone... "3 years randori, 3 months kata"... that, by the way, was said by a student of Ueshiba Morihei, and of Kano Jigoro, as well as Shiina Ichizo... so he knew about randori, and kata, quite intimately. In fact, his dojo was originally a judojo, which added aikido later (actually the first Aikikai associated dojo outside of the hombu), then koryu later. And what it means, simply, is that, in order to install specific skills, it takes three years of randori (random application) to generate the same skills as you can develop in a targeted fashion through koryu.



And you think the idea of application regardless of opponent is something not in classical arts?

Please, both yourself and Hanzou... if you don't want to learn, that's okay... stop trying to ask questions in areas you don't want answers to, that's easy. But if you're going to ask these questions, please listen to the answers... as you will learn so much more if you just shut up and listen once in a while. What I will say, though, is "most correctly expressed through contest with another person" might be a good way to view some arts, and most particularly competitive ones, but it's hardly true across all martial arts... to assume it is is to again apply your values where they're simply not valid.

Well my values are valid they just are not shared by you.

The value of practical application of martial arts being the ability to make someone do what they don't want to and prevent someone from doing that to you. Is a very common martial arts value.

And so I want to learn stuff that ultimately works from people who are tried and tested making it work.

This is self defence this is industry training this is sport or games. Anything really where you might want to use this skill in almost any context.

Now there is no evidence of practical application in your system. And you are suggesting that you don't value practical application so therefore makes it comparable.

But if I can value what I want. Then I could be a traditional Japanese master of martial arts as well. Because I don't have to value tradition or Japanese culture or martial arts. And now we sit on equal standing both of us masters of traditional martial arts according to our own values.

 

[drop bear]

I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight
And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)

As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria



There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset
Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches

For example I would say that for me (putting my classical hat on for a minute) martial arts are most correctly expressed by surviving a dangerous encounter
In this case the mindset (maybe strategy?) is far more important than the technique. Musashi's life story is a good example of this concept I feel

The issue is people with no martial arts survive dangerous encounters. So is martial arts having an effect at all? or is this expression of martial arts purely luck?

Many sports martial artists have a grounding in self defense. So the cross purposes there are not necessarily as crossed as people would like to believe.

So for example we had a group from integrated martial arts in the Sunshine Coast come up for the weekend. Now they are sport guys. But one of those guys runs a security company, another trains all their bouncers, half those guys bounce and regularly fight people. I have bounced i have regularly fought people.

I am going to a seminar this weekend and the guy who trains the Australian army in self defense will be there.

So when we discuss context I do have a deep pool of practical experience in self defense to draw from.

Otherwise what form of pressure testing do you feel is credible? And can you find a video?

Because for me fully resisted with intent is the best test. And MMA is about the best mechanic for that test.

So for example. Say I wanted to drill a handbag snatch. I could do that with the MMA mechanic. And I feel I would get more realistic feedback than any other method.

 

[drop bear]

He can't. He's a Religious Zealot and his religion is MMA. You must either be Converted, Killed, or quieted & isolated from everyone else (while preferably paying your jizya).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Or an opinioned sceptic. Which kind of sound the same.

At the end of the day BJJ does work functionally better than a lot of systems. We don't have to like it. We don't have to participate in it but that is just the case.

For MMA, I do a different version which is colloquially known as wrestle jitsu. And I feel that tweek is more in tune with self defence because it prioritises stand ups and striking defence.

But I still can't beat or escape from a really good BJJ guy.

And we could do tests and find evidence. We could put other systems in to a cage with a top BJJ guy and see what happens. And most systems would come up short.

So to suggest BJJ is some objectively better system isn't really wrong.