A few questions about JJ

[drop bear]

Well, it's more correct to say that Chris started arguing with drop bear. I mean, if you go back and look at the actual posts.

Fraud busting?


No. That couldn't be right.

 

[Hanzou]

Have to back up Chris on this one....

His issue is that you have people combining Judo and Karate into eclectic systems and calling them Jujutsu in order to make a buck. They even give themselves fancy titles and even made up histories in order to draw people in.

In short, many of these "Sokes" are straight up frauds who are swindling people. Lineage is important because you're paying to learn an authentic system passed down through generations from one master to the next. Unfortunately a lot of these guys are simply passing along garbage that cheat students out of learning a real traditional martial art.

This is why I tend to avoid traditional styles and stick with more modern methods. It's pretty hard to be a phony in Bjj or MMA.

As for 10th Planet JJ, it's legit. Eddie Bravo is a Machado black belt and he tapped out Royler Gracie with a triangle. He knows what he's doing.

The names he gives his techniques makes me want to RNC a kitten though.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I'm getting a bit fed up with some of the idiocy found here…

I think you need to ask more questions about language and maybe take those answers on board, yeah? "Japanese" isn't even a Japanese word, much less "jujutsu." "Japanese" is an English word that describes someone who is from the country of Japan (in English). "Japanisch" is a German word, not a Japanese word. In Spanish, it's "japonés."

What the hell are you talking about?!?! No-one, not me, not you, not anyone at any time, in any place, on any thread, in any post, on any forum, in any way whatsoever, has ever, not even once, suggested anything even similar to the idea that "Japanese" was anything other than an English word.

You think I should be asking more questions on language, Steve? Seriously? Nihongo ga wakarimashitaka?

Go back and read properly. Without that chip on your shoulder… it's blocking your view.

For someone who revels in nuance when it serves your ego, you sure don't seem to pay much attention to details otherwise. I'm sure I thoroughly explained this to you before. Seriously, Chris. You need to take your own advice.

Garbage, Steve. You're not even paying enough attention to know which words you think you're arguing about. Tell you what… when you start being able to follow an actual discussion, I'll listen to your advice.

Here's a question. Is Chinese food really Chinese?

You think that's the same discussion?!? You have no clue what the actual discussion is, then.

My personal opinion is that the term "traditional" causes a lot of problems. People use this term in many ways and it often leads to trips down the rabbit hole. I think that people use the term "traditional" when they really mean "authentic." Traditional, in the context used often around here, is a term that is functionally meaningless.

That's an argument from both ignorance and arrogance… you can't grasp the definition, therefore it doesn't have one?!? Get over yourself. This is the same as your constant (incorrect) idea that no-one can define self defence (we can), so no-one can teach self defence (we do), and anyone who says they do are lying (we aren't), just because you refuse to listen to the people who actually do deal in the topic, and can't get your own head around the topic.

Definitions are used to provide consistency and clarity… but that doesn't mean that a definition, or term, has to be so restrictive that it can only have one, singular and individual expression. The term "traditional" does encompass a fair amount… so does "self defence"… as do many other terms… in this thread, "Japanese Jujutsu" covers quite an array of methodologies and expressions… but there is still some basic consistency to the term itself… one major aspect being that the system in question is actually Japanese. Your Chinese restaurant simile is far closer to claiming that drop bears example system is the same thing as actual Japanese jujutsu, based purely on the name used by the system itself… and, you're illustrating pretty clearly that, well, it's not, the same way that the food found in an American Chinese restaurant is not the same as you'd find in downtown Shanghai, despite the naming convention.

Traditional Chinese food in America is not authentic Chinese food. It is often cooked by people who are Chinese (or Chinese American), and it usually checks all of the traditional boxes. A traditional Chinese restaurant in America will serve General Tso's chicken, Chop Suey, Beef with Broccoli, egg rolls, Orange Chicken and several other dishes. This is traditional. I'd be shocked to go into a Chinese restaurant in America and NOT find these dishes on the menu. But they are not "authentic" Chinese dishes. And yet... they are Chinese dishes, because they are served in a Chinese restaurant.

So what? This has exactly what to do with misidentifying non-Japanese systems as representative of Japanese arts? You do realise that you're actually making my argument here, yeah? And who the hell talks about "traditional Chinese restaurants" meaning things like that? Seriously, who describes them as "traditional"?!?

In the same way, the broader labels within Martial Arts become very contextual. There is a difference between saying Jujutsu or referring to a specific style. Arguing that "Japanese Jujutsu" means something specific is like arguing that Chinese food means something specific. I don't know what Chinese food looks like in Mexico, but I expect it will be different than here or in China. Karate is a general term that means different things to different people. Goju Ryu means something specific. Ninjutsu (or ninjitsu) mean different things to different people, but Budo Taijutsu is specific.

Please tell me you're not actually trying to tell me about the distinction between categorisation of forms of martial systems and identification of individual ones, yeah? I mean… do you actually think you're in a position to do that? Really? Tell me, then, what do you know of Takeuchi Ryu Kogusoku Koshi no Mawari? How about Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu? You're familiar with Sho Sho Ryu Jujutsu, yeah? Sekiguchi Shin Shin Ryu? How about Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, know where that comes from? The makeup of Fusen Ryu? How about Iga Ryuha Katsushin Ryu? You are aware of the differing forms of jujutsu found within Chikuosha Yagyu Shingan Ryu, of course? And what the distinctions are? What the Gyoi Dori is applied to, as opposed to the Kattchu Yawara? You're cognisant of the jujutsu methodologies of sogo bujutsu arts, such as Kashima Shinryu, naturally?

But here's the most important thing. Karate will mean different things (specifically) to different people, based on the art they study, or if they study it at all… but no-one is going to watch an Escrima demonstration and think it's Karate. Similarly, "Japanese Jujutsu", while encompassing many different methods and approaches, is not the same as karate… or fencing… or Wing Chun… or BJJ, frankly. To claim that, just because it's not one, single, individual thing, therefore it can't be defined enough to mean something clearly is to be so woefully, wilfully ignorant of pretty much every level of the way martial arts are classified as to tantamount to deliberate idiocy.

Yes, "Japanese Jujutsu" means something specific. Most importantly, it means that things that are not Japanese Jujutsu are not classified or described as it. And I'm not talking about the marketing rhetoric of the particular systems here… they can claim to be whatever the hell they want… but if they're not actually what they claim to be, they're not actually what they claim to be. I'm talking about a community of interested, educated practitioners using their expertise to identify what things actually are. And, no matter what you, drop bear, or Tames D may think of it, when it comes to these areas, I am one of the people who bring some expertise to these discussions… you (collectively) do not.

As usual, we suffer from a stubborn refusal to budge on working definitions of general terms.

What?!? You're kidding, yeah? I'm providing working definitions, you're refusing to accept them because… honestly, who knows why… it's certainly not because you have any knowledge of the topic… so, if anything, the issue is not a "stubborn refusal to budge on working definitions", it's an even more stubborn, and ill-founded refusal to accept what the actual working definition is in the first place.

The solution is to be specific.

What the hell do you think I've done?!? Seriously, I want you to be able to answer this… I provided examples, and have done many times when these questions have come up, I gave drop bear a number of examples of hallmarks found in these systems, and have been applying a very simple, basic criteria for a Japanese Jujutsu system (namely that it actually is Japanese… there's more, obviously, but that's simply been my starting point… and I really didn't think there'd be resistance to the idea that a Japanese art actually be Japanese…)… but now you're saying I need to be specific?!?! When your comments are that "it's too vague to be meaningful"?!?!

What are you going on about?!?

And Chris, maybe a little less arrogance. It permeates every one of your posts like a guy wearing too much cheap cologne, son.

Steve, that wasn't me being arrogant… that was me being frustrated in the face of idiotic arguments from people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, yet continue to argue against the guy telling them what's what. The only arrogance you saw there was what you brought in with you, son.

You know you are pretty bloody white. To be making that distinction mate.

What?!?!? What on earth are you talking about?!? I'm "too white" to say that a Japanese art should be actually Japanese?!?!

Is that what you're saying? Are you going to say that… you know what, I can't even think of something so stupid as your comment there… it doesn't even make any sense within the context of this discussion. I never claimed that the practitioners need to be Japanese, just that the art did… so… what?

And your words make no sense. Make more sense.

The words make perfect sense if you're familiar with the topic. That was part of the point. If I start getting into what makes something easily identifiable as a Japanese art, you have to look at it in Japanese terms, and have a familiarity with the topic in the first place… if you don't have that, I can understand you being unsure… which is why I was giving the information in the first place. But the main concern here is that I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

Theoretically yes. Mabye. If your linage claims are correct.

Yeah, you've gone off the deep end again… you're not listening to the actual argument. There is no "maybe", and it's got nothing to do with if "lineage claims are correct", as the whole point is in correct identification, not which is "better"…

Practically no. Because if i go on line and find myself a Japanese jujitsu school i am likley to experience pretty much what i described. Same as if i go in to a bottle shop and ask for a champagne.

No. If you find a school that claims to be Japanese jujitsu (to use that spelling), and you see what you've described, then you're not actually training in Japanese jujutsu… which is the damn point of all of this in the first place.

Now i may get some super traditional school run by a modern day (white) samurai. And perform nasi goreng or whatever it is they do. And that is fine as well.

Do you go out of your way to be insulting? I mean… the terminology you're using, at once dismissive of what you're imagining things to be like (and being completely ignorant of it, and off base), and simultaneously poking fun at the practitioners of such arts… is nothing but a disrespectful act. I get that you want to treat everything like a joke, with a "why so serious" attitude, but recognise that it makes you look like a disrespectful jerk. And, frankly, I feel that's mainly because you are one.

You go to different schools and do different things.

Completely irrelevant. The only relevance is in the schools are all actually schools of Japanese jujutsu… if not, who cares what they do? Of course it's going to be different… it's not even the same type of system.

But your expectation of what should be. May not be what is.

Dude. It's nothing to do with my expectations or anything of the kind… it's to do with what is. Your entire argument simply screams that you don't know what you're talking about, and yet want to argue with someone who does. It's not a good plan.

Gentlemen, this forum is labeled Japanese Martial Arts Talk. This is the proper place to discuss what is and isn't a Japanese martial art. If y'all don't like that discussion, it is very easy to avoid the Japanese martial arts forums completely.

THIS.

If you are interested in Japanese arts, feel free to post here. If you have questions on Japanese martial arts, feel free to post here. If you have no interest, and refuse to listen to the answers to questions, or information that is far better than you currently possess, then, simply, get the hell out. Frankly at this point, you're simply trolling.

Yeah. But he isn't Japanese.

So what?!?! Is Steve Brazilian? Can he then not talk about BJJ, because he's "too white" to be saying such things?

Can you see how your argument is completely idiotic? This is about knowledge, not ethnic background. Understand that.

And that is an actual thing isn't it?

I vaguely recall having that discussion with my jjj instructor that to get it you have to have be brought up in the culture or don,t bother.

Kancho Barry Bradshaw… got at least 3rd Dan legitimately in Judo, the rest is highly questionable, and was not Japanese, was not brought up in the culture, or anything similar… but he still peddled that tired idea to you? And you believed it? Tell me, can you not "get it" in BJJ if you're not from Rio de Janiero? If you didn't grow up in Sao Paulo, should you simply "not bother"?

I was looking up wabi wabi. And yeah it is not really a concept that can be explained.

So you can see why I didn't give an English translation, yeah? As I said, it's something that you become aware of… and something that makes perfect sense when you understand the topic.

Aren't we discussing what is and isn't a Japanese martial art? I thought that was precisely what we were discussing.

No, I'm saying what it is, and you and drop bear are arguing against it. With no actual clue of what you're arguing against.

Well, it's more correct to say that Chris started arguing with drop bear. I mean, if you go back and look at the actual posts.

Really? Let's look at that… drop bear made a comment ostensibly describing what "Japanese jujutsu" was like… his description doesn't match what I understand it to be, so I asked where he got his ideas from, and, sure enough, it was from a modern, Western art cobbled together from a number of mechanical aspects of others (not the actual arts, but that's a deeper conversation), so I pointed that out, and gave a single, basic idea of one of my most essential criteria for Japanese Jujutsu… namely, that it's actually Japanese. Drop bear then started making accusations about my being "weird about this lineage thing" (missing the point, again), and then continuing to argue, telling me that his non-Japanese art is what people entering into a Japanese jujutsu dojo are likely to actually find…

So… I was the one that started arguing? You do realise that, if drop bear simply said something like "oh, okay, we were told it was Japanese jujutsu at the time, I guess it wasn't", the last 3 pages would have been avoided… but he didn't.

Fraud busting?

Huh? How can you possibly come to that idea? What part of any of that was fraud busting?

No. That couldn't be right.

Well, that at least is correct (although you do seem to be saying it sarcastically… which is ironic in and of itself, as it's the only correct thing you've said in this thread…), as there is no fraud busting in this thread. What there is, though, is borderline trolling. From you, and from Steve.

Once again, if you want to know about this topic, ask questions. We don't mind if you don't know, provided you actually listen to the answers. If you insist on arguing against the information you're given, though, that's where we have issues. Particularly when those arguments come from a complete lack of knowledge and insight, and are based more on personal agendas than anything else.

If you don't want to actually learn, then get the hell out. Staying to argue in this fashion is simply trolling. And I'm sick of it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Steve]

Hi Chris. I think you've misunderstood my points, here and clearly in other threads as well. I don't doubt you are very knowledgeable. The issue is that you cannot distinguish between fact and opinion, and that you cannot distinguish between what you know a little bit about and what you know a lot about. You continually assert that your position is the only position, and that usually isn't the case. And you are not at all reluctant to speak with authority on things you clearly only know about academically. Some of the discussions about grappling were just bizarre, but you remain undeterred, and I've noticed that you are just as likely to speak with authority about styles in which you've never trained as you are to call other people out for doing the same.

And when pushed, you react by intentionally demeaning people and bullying them into, often, leaving the site. Which, frankly, I believe is pretty despicable.

You mentioned self defense. I've never said (or at least intended to say) that self defense is undefinable. I've read with interest dozens of threads on the topic of self defense over the last decade or so. I've asked questions and listened to the answers. I've read other peoples' questions and answers. And I've concluded that the term "self defense" means different things to different people. It's a term that is so generic in nature, it can be used in the same conversation by two knowledgeable people and mean something completely different to each. The same can be said for the term "kata" based upon the many threads we've seen on the topic where people who are knowledgeable and credible actively disagree on the subject.

Related to this thread, words are contextual and mean different things to people depending upon where they are. Tez3 often points out that words don't mean to Americans what they mean to her. A simple example was her confusion in this thread about eggplants. Was she wrong?

I have suggested that self defense instruction that focuses almost entirely on physical skills is not likely to help the average person be safer, but that's a different discussion.

As a quick aside, I laughed out loud when you wrote to Drop Bear, "Do you go out of your way to be insulting?" Knowing, as we do, that you actually do go out of your way to be insulting. You even once explained why you do it. Something about trying to shock the person, if I remember correctly.

 

[drop bear]

So what?!?! Is Steve Brazilian? Can he then not talk about BJJ, because he's "too white" to be saying such things?

Can you see how your argument is completely idiotic? This is about knowledge, not ethnic background. Understand that.

Steve hasn't mentioned anything Brazilian. If he did. I would suggest he isn't. I am pretty sure not one whit of traditional Brazilian culture came up.

But you want to decide what is and isn't Japanese.

That is about ethnic background. You cant adopt that. It makes you look silly (which is why most people dont try)

You were the one that raised what is and what isn't authentically Japanese. Not me. And when it comes to representing a culture knowledge isn't the end point. You really have to be pert of that culture.

Apparently it is only important to a certain level you can achieve.

 

[drop bear]

Huh? How can you possibly come to that idea? What part of any of that was fraud busting?

Are you accusing a club of lying about their origins?

And lying about the style they do?

basically calling them frauds.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Chris. I think you've misunderstood my points, here and clearly in other threads as well.

Honestly, I don't. I simply think you have been unable to take on board anything that anyone else has said to you… and it has continued for years, now.

I mean… the following threads are simply evidence of that:
Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?
Sport And TMA....Again (go to page 47 onwards for most of it…)
Can You Be An Expert?
Is being a cop self defense

and there are more that I'm missing here, of course. As well as our PM conversation on the topics, and your taking on board what was being said… which you still seem unable to do.

I don't doubt you are very knowledgeable.

And yet… you're arguing against me in the very area I'm knowledgable about? Can you see the incongruity in what you're saying here?

The issue is that you cannot distinguish between fact and opinion, and that you cannot distinguish between what you know a little bit about and what you know a lot about.

To be frank, it seems more to me that you cannot distinguish between someone giving you facts that go against your original ideas… and you dismiss them as "opinion". I rarely give opinion, you understand.

You continually assert that your position is the only position, and that usually isn't the case.

No, I assert that, when I'm speaking factually, I'm talking about facts. Facts aren't based on what's convenient, or suits a position, you understand.

And you are not at all reluctant to speak with authority on things you clearly only know about academically. Some of the discussions about grappling were just bizarre, but you remain undeterred, and I've noticed that you are just as likely to speak with authority about styles in which you've never trained as you are to call other people out for doing the same.

Well, here's where you get to have your fun… if I do say things that are "bizarre", call me on it, and present better evidence than my own. I am curious as to what you're referring to, though…

And when pushed, you react by intentionally demeaning people and bullying them into, often, leaving the site. Which, frankly, I believe is pretty despicable.

Again, bring forth some evidence. I start gentle (albeit serious), and get more harsh as the resistance continues.

You mentioned self defense. I've never said (or at least intended to say) that self defense is undefinable.

Are you serious? You've said pretty much that, word for word, in multiple threads, over and over again… even when presented with actual definitions and explanations, you continue with the same statements… regardless of what else you're told. I mean… in Tony Dismuke's recent "SPFV" thread, it was literally nothing but a definition of "self defence" when it came to teaching and training it, and you again said that it was a meaningless, vague term that couldn't be defined adequately in your eyes…

Need examples? Sure! The following all comes from a single thread (Can You Be An Expert?), with links left so you can double check your context:

I do agree that the term self defense is too broad. It's hopelessly abstract.

Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful.
………..
Why is this? I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.

Self Defense is vague. It's like saying "love." Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense." People don't train self defense. People train in systems.

My opinion is that the term "self defense' is so abstract as to be worthless.

As I've said many times, the term is so vague as to be worthless.

Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love." In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract.
…………
In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense. But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.

Over the course of this thread, I've said many times that the term "self defense" is so broad as to be unhelpful.
…………
There are a lot of problems that come about simply because people are using an abstract term to refer to something very specific. "Self Defence" when they mean "situational awareness" or "de escalation techniques" or "how to fight x number of ninja in a dark alley."

Because we're specifically discussing a physical activity (self defense), can we agree that you are not referring to "academic" expertise? We're talking about physically doing the thing. Right?

Someone earlier said that "self defense" was a term used to get people through the door. I agree. There are people on this forum and throughout the martial arts world making a living teaching self defense, despite having little to no experience on the subject. Would certainly affect their bottom line if their students understood this.

But, of course, you've never said, or meant to say, that it's undefinable… sure…

I've read with interest dozens of threads on the topic of self defense over the last decade or so. I've asked questions and listened to the answers.

That is not reflected in any of the threads linked above.

I've read other peoples' questions and answers. And I've concluded that the term "self defense" means different things to different people. It's a term that is so generic in nature, it can be used in the same conversation by two knowledgeable people and mean something completely different to each.

Hang on… didn't you just say that you've never said, or intended to imply, that the term "self defence" is indefinable… yet you then say that it's so generic that it means completely different things?

The same can be said for the term "kata" based upon the many threads we've seen on the topic where people who are knowledgeable and credible actively disagree on the subject.

Most arguments come from people not so knowledgable or credible, frankly.

Related to this thread, words are contextual and mean different things to people depending upon where they are. Tez3 often points out that words don't mean to Americans what they mean to her. A simple example was her confusion in this thread about eggplants. Was she wrong?

Words can be. As can terminology. However, the context points you in the direction of the appropriate definition, working or otherwise… and, honestly, many of Tez's comments are simply ways of informing that English has as many cultural variants as anything else… but no, there was no confusion about eggplants. She was saying they are commonly known by a different word in England… not that "eggplants" means "pumpkin" in England (which would be the same as your argument).

I have suggested that self defense instruction that focuses almost entirely on physical skills is not likely to help the average person be safer, but that's a different discussion.

You've suggested much more than that. You've suggested that no martial arts instructor can be an expert in self defence, you've suggested that no martial arts school can actually offer instruction in self defence, you've suggested that self defence itself can't be defined, you've suggested that instructors teaching self defence are lying to their students, and more. And, when informed of just how wrong you were in every case there, you continued with the same ideas, and put them out again.

But, of course, you were "listening to the answers" on all those self defence threads, weren't you?

I recently sent Tony Dismukes a breakdown of my self defence teachings (rather than post them in his thread, mainly to avoid a few posters there who I consider to be completely lacking in knowledge in the area, and simply drag the conversation down). Maybe you can ask him if what I sent would qualify as an actual self defence curriculum? And if, by following it, I could actually be teaching self defence? Frankly, I don't think you'd hear it if I was to tell you yet again.

As a quick aside, I laughed out loud when you wrote to Drop Bear, "Do you go out of your way to be insulting?" Knowing, as we do, that you actually do go out of your way to be insulting. You even once explained why you do it. Something about trying to shock the person, if I remember correctly.

You know, I almost regret telling you, as it's patently obvious you couldn't follow what I was saying, and have (since then) decided that you should give me some of my own medicine… which only works when you understand what the medicine is for, and how the dosage works.

Steve hasn't mentioned anything Brazilian. If he did. I would suggest he isn't. I am pretty sure not one whit of traditional Brazilian culture came up.

But you want to decide what is and isn't Japanese.

Are you completely incapable of understanding what is written? All I've said is that, in order to be Japanese Jujutsu, it has to actually be Japanese! Nothing about my being Japanese, nothing about my being part or arbitrator of the culture, just that the damn art has to be Japanese!!

To look at it another way, if I was to start a school, teaching some basic judo, with some arnis stick work, and call it Gracie Jiujitsu, would you have to be a Gracie to call me out on that? That's what I was saying. Your whole idea of "you're pretty white to be saying what is and isn't Japanese" is sheer idiocy, and is based on your inability to actually follow a simple discussion.

That is about ethnic background. You cant adopt that. It makes you look silly (which is why most people dont try)

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'd say that that makes you look silly, but most of your posts do that already.

You were the one that raised what is and what isn't authentically Japanese. Not me.

Which is entirely to do with the heritage of the system, not what culture I am. If it's classed as Japanese, it should come from Japan… not be made up by some guy in the West.

And when it comes to representing a culture knowledge isn't the end point. You really have to be pert of that culture.

You have absolutely no clue.

Apparently it is only important to a certain level you can achieve.

That doesn't even make any sense. What?

Are you accusing a club of lying about their origins?

And lying about the style they do?

basically calling them frauds.

I'm not calling them frauds, I'm sure they think they're doing what they think Japanese jujutsu is like… sadly for them, they don't have any clue. I'm leaving off the multiple questions about Barry's ranking for now.

 

[Steve]

Thanks for linking to those threads. Very interesting discussions, Chris.

 

[Steve]

Pretty much sums it up for me.

LOL... sorry about this. Autocorrect got me last night. I meant who don't train in BJJ.

Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts. They train to the test. In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box. If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling. The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.

Non-competitive arts also have some advantages. The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art. If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition. This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset. For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.

It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style. However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense. What if he has a knife? What if he has a friend? What would I do if this happens or that happens? )

And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful. You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler? Try it. Hook up with some grapplers and find out. Maybe make some friends in the process.

Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.

Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense. It's just not. But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.

I'll post more about what I think expert means when I have a real keyboard. When it becomes important is when one presumes to teach. There are a lot of "self defense experts" who little to no practical experience who make their living teaching self defense . Like a golf pro who's never hit a ball outside the driving range.

Otherwise, I think you said pretty much what I said, but somehow made it sound as though you disagreed with me. Maybe I'm missing your point.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It sounds like you have a definite idea of what "the test" is, and you're applying the filter of self defense to that test. When I say that a sport art teaches to the test, what I mean is a pure sport art, such as Western Boxing or freestyle wrestling, does not purport to be a self defense art. While you can easily see some self defense application, they aren't teaching you self defense. You're learning to box or to wrestle within the rules of the sport.

My point is that this is a double edged sword. The down side is that you are very likely learning habits that could be great for the sport but terrible for self defense (ie, pulling guard in a street fight.) The up side, though, is that you are building skills and technical ability that can provide a solid foundation for self defense. A boxer is not learning self defense. The test that the boxer is training for is a boxing match. And what does that mean? It means that a boxer KNOWS that he or she can execute a straight jab, a cross, a hook or an uppercut, with good head movement and footwork against people trained to stop them from doing so. He or she knows how powerful each technique really is. "Oh, that punch REALLY knocks people out, and I have the timing and experience to make it work." Sport does this for you. If a technique is too deadly to ever execute it against a real person at full speed, you will not really know if you can pull it off.

Bottom line is that a boxer can become an expert boxer. A jiu-jitiero can become an expert jiu-jitiero. A bujinkan taijutsu practioner can become an expert at taijutsu. But NONE of those equal expertise at self defense. But, try to remember that this isn't strictly a thread about self defense. If self defense is your goal, than it would be a great idea to cross train or at least spend time widening the scope of your training. Once again, it seems as though you are defaulting to a filter where effectiveness for self defense is the measure. I used "well rounded" as a way to suggest that self defense ISN'T everyone's goal in training. However you define it is important, and maybe the lesson to be learned here is that knowing what you want out of training is important. A self defense school may not be the best school for everyone.possibly, but sport provides objective feedback. If you have a clear focus on your training, and you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you expect to learn about your training from the sport, I don't believe it can be anything but positive. If self defense skills are your goald, sports can be a way to hide bad training ("I'm great at deep half guard, so it's my go to in a street fight"). But lack of sport is also a terrific way to hide bad training. Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.

This is not to say that your system doesn't work. It may. But it doesn't create self defense experts. It creates Parker-fu experts. Its' been around long enough that it's not a fad. There are schools popping up all over the world. It's not a competition. I'm not opening a school in Australia. I get that Hanzou is ruffling some feathers, and frankly, saying that BJJ "isn't a big deal" sounds to me to be a petty attempt to take Hanzou down a notch or two. When I said, "who gives a rip?" what I mean is, "This is completely irrelevant."

 

[drop bear]

I'm not calling them frauds, I'm sure they think they're doing what they think Japanese jujutsu is like… sadly for them, they don't have any clue. I'm leaving off the multiple questions about Barry's ranking for now

You are saying that their claim of being a Japanese jujitsu school is false.

Which part of that is not calling them a fraud?

 

[drop bear]

Are you completely incapable of understanding what is written? All I've said is that, in order to be Japanese Jujutsu, it has to actually be Japanese! Nothing about my being Japanese, nothing about my being part or arbitrator of the culture, just that the damn art has to be Japanese!!

To look at it another way, if I was to start a school, teaching some basic judo, with some arnis stick work, and call it Gracie Jiujitsu, would you have to be a Gracie to call me out on that? That's what I was saying. Your whole idea of "you're pretty white to be saying what is and isn't Japanese" is sheer idiocy, and is based on your inability to actually follow a simple discussion.

You mean would I fraud bust your fake style?

I don't think I am allowed to.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks for linking to those threads. Very interesting discussions, Chris.

Did you even pay attention to why I linked them? At all?

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Sums what up? The topic here isn't anything to do with any of that… if you want to rehash that tired debate, where you constantly ignore anyone not agreeing with you, start yet another thread on it… the topic here is Japanese Jujutsu. You don't know anything about that? Then you have nothing to add. Don't have any questions? Then you can't further the conversation. Want to bring in topics from other, old threads? You're off topic and trolling.

You are saying that their claim of being a Japanese jujitsu school is false.

Which part of that is not calling them a fraud?

We covered this a while back, if they are deliberately, and knowingly presenting themselves as a historical tradition, all the while being aware that they're not, that's fraud. However, in this case, we have a group who are presenting what they think Japanese jujutsu is like… sadly, they have nowhere near the requisite exposure or understanding to know just how foolish they look. In other words, they're not so much frauds, as fools.

You mean would I fraud bust your fake style?

I don't think I am allowed to.

I don't think you quite get how fraud busting works…

 

[Steve]

Yeah. It's pretty clear why you posted those links. I hope people read the threads. They were interesting threads and will provide some context to my opinions about snake oil salesmen who peddle self defense training without any practical expertise.

Regarding the other stuff, I'm not sure what you think continued back and forth will accomplish. At this point, I think you're arguing just to argue.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah. It's pretty clear why you posted those links.

Sure.

I hope people read the threads. They were interesting threads and will provide some context to my opinions about snake oil salesmen who peddle self defense training without any practical expertise.

And the counter that those "snake oil salesmen" are not the only ones who claim to be teaching self defence, not even the majority. Your ill-founded bias notwithstanding, the threads show that you, frankly, cannot listen… and are in denial about even what you've said.

Regarding the other stuff, I'm not sure what you think continued back and forth will accomplish. At this point, I think you're arguing just to argue.

No, I was hoping that you'd have the integrity to actually respond to what has been said. So far, you've ignored, or at least opted to avoid responding to anything I've put forth… instead trying to back someone who also doesn't know what what they're talking about in this context, and taking things off topic. I was hoping that you'd either actually answer, or at least have the integrity to say you are out of your depth here… especially as you acknowledge that I'm "very knowledgable" in this area. But no, I suppose that's a bit too much to hope for…

 

[Gerry Seymour]

]At this point, I think you're arguing just to argue.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Steve]

Oh, the irony.

Sarcasm.

 

[Steve]

Sure.



And the counter that those "snake oil salesmen" are not the only ones who claim to be teaching self defence, not even the majority. Your ill-founded bias notwithstanding, the threads show that you, frankly, cannot listen… and are in denial about even what you've said.



No, I was hoping that you'd have the integrity to actually respond to what has been said. So far, you've ignored, or at least opted to avoid responding to anything I've put forth… instead trying to back someone who also doesn't know what what they're talking about in this context, and taking things off topic. I was hoping that you'd either actually answer, or at least have the integrity to say you are out of your depth here… especially as you acknowledge that I'm "very knowledgable" in this area. But no, I suppose that's a bit too much to hope for…

oh brother. You hope to keep this going as long as possible.

I really think the threads you posted say it all, and if anyone is interested, they can check those threads out.

Regarding questions, as a general rule I avoid answering questions that are loaded.

 

[Chris Parker]

Then bow out. It's pretty obvious you aren't here to actually discuss the topic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sarcasm.

Actually, no. It's ironic that you made a comment about someone arguing just for the sake of argument.

 

[Steve]

Actually, no. It's ironic that you made a comment about someone arguing just for the sake of argument.

Lol. I get it. And was pointing out that it was intentionally so. I'm self aware and understand how I'm perceived.