Will Brazilian Jiujitsu eventually replace Japanese Jujitsu?

Yeah. North Americans and South Americans. People are called Africans, Asians, Europeans, etc. Folks in the US sort of robbed the term "American" from other people in the western hemisphere.

Interestingly, only US citizens being commonly considered "American" in popular vernacular is similar to what we're talking about with Jujutsu.

 

Alright. I'm with you. I live close enough to Canada to have heard them whining when we call ourselves Americans. "We're Americans, too." I just generally ignore them.

 

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And it has "McDojo" written all over it.

I'm retired military, so I definitely would have heard of this if it was a thing.

 

But there's photographic evidence!

 

There's 10th Planet...

 

They're NORTH Americans.

 

So are Mexicans but you know what they call people from the U.S.?
"Norte Americanos"

 

Americans call them many things I won't repeat here, but that doesn't change the official demonyms.

 

Yeah... you missed the point entirely. Again. Firstly, again, "being an expert" is not claimed... you stated that your friend could run away faster than I could, regardless of context or circumstances... as you'd failed to grasp the first set of examples I gave, I went a bit further... but the point is not the idea of running faster than someone with broken legs, it's that there can be any number of reasons that make running away a bad plan... or an impossibility. And to think that having this one skill set is all it takes is, well, failing at understanding what is being discussed.

One more thing.... it's not about "beating" someone... that, again, is a failure to understand the situation... which comes from only having one frame of reference.

No, but knowingly, and continually, denying the evidence presented in order to insinuate (or outright claim) a false description of one in order to damage their reputation really, really, really is. The only thing preventing it is the lack of impact on a professional level... if we're going to get technical.

That, Steve, is complete and utter garbage. I have, continually, consistently, and often (when in these discussions with you) cited multiple examples and occurrences of myself having "real world experience" with self defence usage (in fact, when asked, I stated that I use my self defence training constantly, all day, every day... but you don't grasp what that means, and think it only refers to physical confrontation). You insisted that "no-one can teach self defence, as no-one has experience with it", and failed entirely to quantify what you meant by that... myself, and others, recounted their encounters, and you ignored them. You were asked how many violent encounters were required, and you said "more than none", so we recounted them again. You said that learning it needed to be from someone who had "done it", I recounted violent encounters my teacher had had, that I had had, and that my students had had... giving you three generations of experience (my teachers, who taught me, and my students who I taught). You, again, have ignored that entirely.

I have recounted them, yet again, in this very thread. You are, again, stating (falsely) that I have claimed no experience with violence, and claiming that I have no experience with real violence. Steve, let me be very clear.

I have dealt with real world violence. I have employed the teachings of my school in situations ranging from escorting friends from danger, to applying non-violent restraint techniques on both friends and strangers, through to handling sudden assaults, and a five on one assault. I have dealt with drunk people, I have dealt with people on drugs, and I have dealt with a (at that point undiagnosed) schizophrenic having a psychotic violent episode. I have not yet (and hope not to) dealt with an opponent armed with a weapon, however my teacher and my students have. They have also dealt with muggings. They have dealt with drunk fools at parties who decide to start a fight. And all of this is the lowest level of self defence.

I say again. You have been told this repeatedly. Stop with the false insinuations. Now. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Genuinely, based on your responses, even in a thread based in historical matters, as you continue to attack and troll as listed above, I doubt that. You have done this for years, and it's time you were called on your behaviour.

Please. I'd say you have no idea of my skills, except you've had them detailed to you multiple times over. The real problem is you have no idea what is either skill or knowledge in this field.

I will say again... when it comes to self defence, you, despite being told multiple times by many, many people, don't grasp what entails "experience" in this topic. It is largely an academic concept and construct (well, actually a legal one), with a minor physical aspect. You only seem to have any grasp on the physical (and not from your own experience), with no willingness to expand from there. And that is far from my failing, as I've certainly provided you with the knowledge over the years.

Yeah... just echoing the term to me doesn't work when you don't see why it was applied in the first place... that's just a childish attempts to "one-up".

For years, you have slighted me. You have derided my experience, you have denied my experience, you have ignored every time you have been corrected, you have refused to acknowledge anything you've been told, and you have derailed multiple threads where I am involved in order to further this lunatic agenda you seem to have against me.

If we're discussing a concept of defending against attack, what precisely do you think my behaviour should be?

Honestly, I'm celebrating alongside you there... so I'm going to let those last digs slide. This time.

I get that. That's your value. And, for the 19,000th time... that's fine. Great, even. But expecting all martial arts to share the same value is where you get it completely wrong.

That's the point.

You value a particular approach to martial arts... which will have you drawn to a particular type of martial art (competitive)... that is how you decide what you want to train in. If another martial art appeals to someone else who doesn't share your values, what skin off your nose is that? It's the reason there are other martial arts. The problem is you want all martial arts to be the same... they're not. It's time you came to terms with that.

Yes, but that's not the values we're discussing here. That would get you to value certain techniques/tactics/attacks etc. What we're discussing is the first thing you said... it's you valuing the competition as a testing method in the first place.

You're really not getting it.

What I mean when I talk about metrics is that, while competition is used as a way to measure performance in a competitive system, it's not used to measure a non-competitive one. Using a framework of "self defence" is pointless when looking at a school that doesn't deal in it at all.

You seem to be unable to process the idea that people train martial arts for different reasons... and keep trying to insist on asking how a school not designed for, trained for, or applied as a self defence system works in self defence. It's not meant to.

Your "healing crystal vs medicine" analogy is not apt.

No.

What I have said is that you have your own set of values, which then guides you towards a particular approach to martial arts. And that's great, as that's what your values are meant to do. What they aren't meant to do, though, is to be falsely applied to an alien context with no regard for that context itself.

Look, there's an old quote often attributed to Einstein on the nature of intelligence... if you judge a fish by it's ability to ride a bicycle, it will spend it's life believing that it is stupid. And that is obviously just a bad way to apply a metric that's not appropriate. Which is exactly what you're doing.

No, I understand it perfectly. Your values are fine, they just don't apply in this case.

That's not testing, that's measuring.

To break this up, you're correct, then you're just... wrong. Not even wrong, really. Not even in the ballpark.

Yes, you have no requirement to value Japanese history or authenticity of classical arts or anything similar.... unless that is what you are studying. Yes, you can value what you want, but applying it where it doesn't apply is just, well, stupid. Like a fish trying to ride a bicycle. And the argumentum ad absurdum is simply another indication that you are failing badly at just grasping what is being said.

Please stop trying to apply reducto ad absurdum, as you simply can't do it.

No, values are not made up beliefs. I've told you that before. Understand it.

Values are what you find worth in. For you, it's competitive training and what you gain out of that. That's fine. It has nothing at all to do with non-competitive systems.

It's this simple. If you're training in a Classical Japanese system, you will obviously value the way that system operates, which is different to the way a modern art does. It makes neither "better" or "worse" than the other... just different. I really don't get why this is hard for you to understand.

What are you talking about? You don't understand classical arts, as you've never done them and they are completely alien to you, so it's a matter of made up fantasy beliefs?!?!? No.

Classical martial arts instruction is far more detailed, precise, efficient, focused, directed, and effective than most modern systems. It is really not a case of "anyone can do it".... in fact, the criteria of being a respected teacher are significantly higher than you have any idea of.

Here's the real problem with your initial thesis... there's no such thing as "jujutsu". Really. There's not.

There are many, many, many systems who have curriculums (or parts of their curriculums) that can be identified as jujutsu in one way or another... but are so distinct from each other that there really can never be a "dominant form". Just many different (in many cases, unrelated) arts who share some basic commonality of terminology (although even that is nowhere near what you might think it is).

At the end of the day, BJJ really is not jujutsu... so how can it be the "dominant form"? It can only be so in the minds of people who are largely ignorant of jujutsu itself. You may as well as if muay Thai or TKD is the dominant form of kung fu... or of boxing. They're all striking dominant forms of martial arts, but they share very little beyond that. It's the same here.

Do most people imagine BJJ when you say "ju jitsu"? Sure. Does that mean it's dominant? Only in popular imagination. But then again, those people who think of BJJ, are they actually thinking of BJJ? Or are they just thinking of any kind of ground fighting seen in MMA, and wouldn't know the difference between it, Catch-as-catch-can wrestling, Greco-Roman wrestling, Shui Chao, Chin-na, Freestyle Wrestling, or Professional Wrestling? Okay, today, hopefully they'd be able to identify the last... but still, I wouldn't be shocked.

After all, can you recognise the different strains of karate? Or is it all just "karate"? Before you started martial arts, could you spot the difference between that and TKD? Could you tell what was Japanese and what was Okinawan? Or American? Or was it all "karate", regardless?

The point is that popular imagination is not everything... it's just that. Imagination. It's an image, not necessarily, or even likely based in knowledge or reality... just an image that kinda stuck. It doesn't mean that other jujutsu systems are going anywhere. There's still an audience/market for them as well. Hell, there's a market for all the low-level, McDojo, fraudulent, delusional fools of "teachers" out there as well. Those, in particular, seem to do really well... especially as all they have to do is kinda look like the popular image... and not worry about accuracy or authenticity or skill... just put on a show, and cash the cheque. Are they going anywhere thanks to BJJ? Nope.

And that's the last point. BJJ's popularity doesn't come at the expense of other arts. More people training in BJJ means just that. More people training in BJJ. It doesn't mean less people training in other things. More people playing guitar doesn't mean less people playing drums. It just means more musicians.

You can find it unbelievable, but it's accurate. Firstly, as mentioned, physical violence (and dealing with it) is the lowest level of "self defence". Second, the only study that suggested a relatively high likelihood of it came from a study of police engagements, where they wrestled the suspect to the ground in order to control and arrest them... which is not self defence, nor is it an accurate view of violence outside that context.

Actually, yeah. A lot of sexual assaults are far from the "pin a woman down and rape her". Many/most are standing. I don't want to start listing them, as I don't want to inadvertently trigger anyone who may be reading this, but yes. The fact you are unaware of this just further supports my comment about HAOV being the first step to understanding this topic.

Have you seriously not read a word that's been written?

Okay, I suppose you haven't....

For the last time... classical martial arts aren't concerned with demonstrating ability outside of their art. We don't care about the "cage". We don't care about competition. We don't care about anything you think is important. We don't need to demonstrate anything to your satisfaction, as we aren't even in the same arena. For that matter, BJJ hasn't ever been objectively demonstrated in our context. Which is because that's not where it works.

Stop trying to apply the way you think things are supposed to work, and you might start to learn how they actually do.

Oh, I understand completely what the essential tactical methodology of BJJ is. But you haven't been describing the concept of principles (as that's a tactic, not a principle), and have not given different contexts, just different applications of a basic technical approach.

Sure... but the point is more that the semantics are indicative of a larger issue.

HA!!!!

No. Really, minimalist "forms" of evidence, when it comes down to it... and largely self-supportive. But that's okay as well. It's how the marketing works for BJJ, and really, more power to it in that regard. But the fact is, it's still marketing.

Are you genuinely unable to get this?

No, we do not "culturally appropriate" anything. We use the proper (appropriate) terminology and methodology to the practice. Are ballet dancers "culturally appropriating" being French when they describe doing a pass-de-deux? Is anyone "culturally appropriating" America when saying they're practicing "lay-ups" in basketball?

Oh, for god's sake.....

Point out once, just once, where I have said that, for self defence, the best choice is classical jujutsu. Seriously. I have, instead, said repeatedly that we do not train for self defence, particularly in a modern context. Are you truly unable to read what is written?

I consider that quite... yeah, look, the words aren't approved of here... but pompous, arrogant, bull-headed, foolish, unwilling to learn, unwilling to read... that's getting closer...

No, it says that the audience he was talking to considers BJJ as "jujitsu" and "jujitsu" as BJJ, using the terms interchangeably.

It's a rather interesting thing, but not for the reason you think... it's the bizarre case of a loanword being altered, then brought back to the country of origin in it's altered state as a secondary loanword... so, yeah... they'd probably think of BJJ if you asked about "jujitsu" in Japan... accompanied by a slightly quizzical look... of course, this is assuming the person you spoke to had any reference at all.

Well, Rusty, I don't know what to tell you.... perhaps your military background failed you if it didn't teach civilian defensive and protective methods, such as escape?

But with a bit less of a quip, are you seriously suggesting that the idea of learning how to hide effectively, rather than having no tactic at all and getting run down by a larger, faster aggressor, is a bad thing? And you equate it to a "McDojo"? You may have a bit to learn about how RBSD methods work, then...

 

Or perhaps you're running your mouth about things you know nothing about, if you're going to talk out of your *** about things the military "should be" teaching if you yourself have never served.

I'm seriously suggesting this is all a bunch of crap you made up on your own.

I just spent some time on both Google and DuckDuckGo, trying to find what you're talking about. If you look up "tactical escape," all you'll find is websites and references to escape rooms. I even modified the search to eliminate the word "room," and all it did was weed out the escape room sites that use the word "room." If you try "tactical running," all you get are combat boots and hiking shoes.

Here's a chance to prove you're not full of ****: I need to see some videos, taking place in a martial arts club, showing training on this. I also need to see martial arts club websites, showing running - specifically the for the purpose of training on how to run away from danger (i.e., not for the purpose of physical conditional) - as part of the curriculum.

I also need to see enough of these, so we can establish that's it's not a few fringe McDojo's selling BS.

The ball is in your court.

 

Okay, well, shoot. If working with folks who are mentally ill and/or chemically impaired is the measure of experience, than I probably have more real world experience than you by orders of magnitude. I worked for about a decade 40 plus hours each week with people who are homeless, physically and mentally disabled, and often struggling with addiction to both illicit and prescription drugs. I've been physically threatened hundreds of times. Heck, I've had to give them bad news from time to time. And for the last 2 dozen years I've taught people how to do that job. So, I mean, if dealing with folks is all you've got, I think you're padding your resume. But, I guess you do make the point that you don't have any experience, which is what you've led us all to believe in the past. Still, though, I'm entirely unimpressed by your resume.

The point you've missed over the years is that, if you're talking about the soft skills side of self defense, your experience is superficial (at best), based even on your padded summary above. And if you're talking about being able to fight, the odds are against you there, as well. Which, as I've said many times, is fine if you're just plunking around and having a good time. But you're teaching other people things which may or may not even work. I think that's very irresponsible.

To the best of my knowledge, it's all true, and everything you say just reinforces that. You lack the experience to see that you are inexperienced. But you do know a whole heck of a lot about ancient Japanese martial arts. Or at least, I guess you do. I don't have the experience to evaluate your claims in that area.

I say again. You've been told this repeatedly. Stop alleging to be an expert in something you've never done. Son. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Oh look, more semantics...

I'm well aware of that. The point is that if there was a martial art called "American Kung Fu", and it was extremely popular, had a reputation of being highly effective, and was penetrating markets around the world including China, then eventually when people think "Kung Fu" they'll immediately think of American Kung Fu and not the other forms of Kung Fu.

Considering that BJJ came directly from Kano Jiujitsu, I would say it's a bit closer to Japanese Jujutsu than TKD or Muay Thai is to Kung Fu.

Except the more people training in BJJ means less people training in other martial arts. That's simply a fact.

Yes, we know that de-escalation and avoidance is important in self defense, and no one said anything differently. I was talking about the physical violence, because that is the aspect that drives people into martial arts schools in the first place. Secondly, we can simply go to youtube to see multiple incidents where someone is physically attacked and then dragged to the ground to be brutalized further. The idea that only cops need to worry about being on their back while someone is either on top or standing over them looking to attack them further is utter nonsense.

Oh? Please provide the source of your statistics.

Do you care about self defense training?

You believing it's minimalist is completely your opinion, which you're welcome to expressing. However, the fact remains that we have evidence to back the belief that BJJ is effective, and that supports its marketing. We have no evidence, minimalist or otherwise of what you're doing is effective in comparison.

I never said that. *I* said that you would instruct a woman to go to a classical JJ school over a BJJ school, which would hinder her ability to defend herself, since she'd be learning about how to properly do a medieval tea ceremony instead of how to deal with an attacker bigger and stronger than she is.

 

You are suggesting there is a specialist system to running away that has worth over just being fast And I assume you are some sort of expert in this system.

And it relies on the other guy being unable to run.

Rather than this guy out running you regardless of your system, regardless of your expertise in any environment you want to put him. And that you would have to break his legs to practically beat him.

And that these systems are low percentage niche systems when compared to this high percentage broad concept of being just really fast.

So if we tested your escape and evasion system that you trained and advocate against this guy who has no escape and evasion system. You will fail that test.

So if you tried to mug this guy and he ran away. He would be un mugged. If the roles were reversed he would catch you.

If you were both being chased by a lion. You would be the one eaten.

If he is faster than you he has the advantage under almost any condition over a specialised knowledge of self defence running.

 

Self defence is a competitive dynamic though.

If you don't deal with a competitive dynamic you are not addressing self defence very well.

So exactly like healing crystals. Which also don't deal with the fundamental concepts of how to heal people.

 

Ok. Because this is not all about ragging on Chris. I assume the comparison would be sere training.



But it would still need to be outcome based.

 

Wait. Here we go.



I have no idea if this would be good or larptastic.

 

Not quite.

SERE training is about long-term survival when escaping enemy captors. Where and how to hide, how to signal friendly forces, how to find food, etc.

It's not about the 101 ways to run away from a guy who wants to kick your ***.

 

Man, I'd look the berries wearing that outfit out in my yard. Sans the handgun and wearing a mask, I'd wave at tourists all afternoon.

 

I get the impression that to a certain degree ninjitsu is considered by themselves as a civilian version of special forces.

 

I mean, in one day, you can learn all of the following:

• Survival Mindset
• lockpicking
• restraint escape
• social engineering
• cache
• use of disguise
• urban evasion
• navigating using the sun and moon
• meeting contacts
• street craft

And then on day 2, you participate in a "live exercise through the city using your techniques while being chased by captors." They have people who will pretend to be friendly sympathizers, and also people who will pretend to be bad guys, and if they capture you, they take you to a location that is further away from your objective.

I mean, that is literally Live Action Role Play.123