Japanese jujitsu vs jbrazilian jujitsu
- Thread starter Manny
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Manny, for crying out loud, you've asked this a number of times before. I suggest re-reading your own threads, starting with these two:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/93576-japanese-jujitsu-brazilian-jujitsu?highlight=
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/89688-can-anyone-tell-me?highlight=
If you have new questions, we'll be more than happy to answer, but you're just asking the same thing again.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/93576-japanese-jujitsu-brazilian-jujitsu?highlight=
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/89688-can-anyone-tell-me?highlight=
If you have new questions, we'll be more than happy to answer, but you're just asking the same thing again.
I've trained in Danzan Ryu Jujutus and BJJ and the biggest difference is the focus on groundwork. BJJ pretty much uses all of the techniques on the DZR Shime no kata in every variation you can think of. They also use many of the yawara no kata techniques, but rather then doing them standing up, they do them on the ground. There aren't very many throws or takedowns and NO ONE pulls guard in DZR. At high levels, BJJ strings sweeps, locks and escapes together very similarly to the DZR Oku no kata, but again, they do it on the ground.
One big difference is the focus on sparring and sport. BJJ is sport dominant and DZR tends toward the esoteric. I do not "roll" nearly as much as I did in BJJ and when we do it, we tend to have different objectives rather then just submitting the other guy.
One big difference is the focus on sparring and sport. BJJ is sport dominant and DZR tends toward the esoteric. I do not "roll" nearly as much as I did in BJJ and when we do it, we tend to have different objectives rather then just submitting the other guy.
OP
OP
Manny
Senior Master
Sorry to bother, but I think a refresh of this thing will be good to have some activity here, in the other hand not everyone on this forum (martialtalk.com) know so much of jujitsu japanese or brazilian.
I am a martial art fan and would like to know the diferences beetwen these martial arts, the only thing I know about BJJ is waht I see in the UFC and about JJJ is almost nothing.
Manny
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Well, the first thing is that it's spelt "Jujutsu" when talking about the Japanese art.... but really, Manny, I'm not buying the "I don't know anything about Japanese Jujutsu", as you've had it spelled out to you a number of times already. If you go to the links I gave, they all include links to other threads, all basically saying the same things over and over again in slightly different ways. Without getting into specific Ryu-ha (schools) and the individual traits of those, there's really not a lot more that can be explained to you, as the term by itself is quite a generic and wide-ranging one. Again, I'm going to suggest, if you want more insight, re-reading the linked threads, and the ones they link to themselves, and then, if you still have questions, ask.
punisher73
Senior Master
Short answer. Many schools of JJJ in Japan. Kano studied some and revamped the training and training methodology and created Judo. Kano challenges lots of other schools and no one can beat them standing. Kano comes across a JJJ school that specialized in ground fighting (ne-waza) and his students don't really know what to do when they flop down on the ground without being thrown. Kano then studies and adds the ne-waza to Judo. Fast forward and Maeda goes to Brazil and teaches Judo to a couple Gracie brothers, Maeda's specialty was to clinch/throw/submit in challenge matches. One of the Gracie brothers is very small and can't do many of the techniques (Helio), he reworks them and starts teaching students. The Gracies start with their own challenge matches and use the same formula (clinch/throw/takedown/submit). Eventually it becomes GJJ with their twists/refinements and emphasis on the ne-waza. It grows in popularity after the UFC and many others start learning and teaching and it evolves into BJJ with a strong emphasis on sport in many schools.
As time goes on, more and more techniques are created to add to the sport of BJJ that move away from the strong s-d component. If you look at Royce's book on self-defense, you will see that pretty much every technique in there is also in JJJ and other TMA's.
As time goes on, more and more techniques are created to add to the sport of BJJ that move away from the strong s-d component. If you look at Royce's book on self-defense, you will see that pretty much every technique in there is also in JJJ and other TMA's.
OP
OP
Manny
Senior Master
Thank you, you are a gentelman. Now I KNOW why BJJ emphatizes on groud techs more than in standing techs and it's because of Maeda sensei.
Some time back I saw a Japenese Jujutsu and in the photos the book had I see trows, locks,submitions AND strikes (by hand) and kicks if this is right then JJJ is a more complete MA (for my untrained eyes) than BJJ that specialicies on groud work only, but then again, I have no training in BJJ or JJJ either so forgive me if I am wrong.
I am a striker who specializes on kicks (TKD) and have few techs borrowed from Hap Kido like some locks and sweeps for example, cero ground techs and submitions.
I would like to find in my area a more balanced martial art, a martial art that not only focos in one spot (like kicking) and learn a few techs that can be benefical in the street.
The only MA I have near by is Shotokan Karate, TKD ( I am a BB in TKD) only one old and beaten judo sensei and a couple of aikido senseis. I am not been unrespctful with the judo sensei when I wrote beaten, he is an old sick man and I respect him a lot.
Manny
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hmm, that's not entirely accurate, really. Judo was primarily developed out of two dominant systems, Kito Ryu (which does feature a relatively fair amount of striking, more than a number of other Jujutsu ryu-ha), and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. His major "revamping" was based around creating a syllabus/method of study with the ideal of it being for the betterment of society, using the principles of efficiency and flexibility (of mind, spirit, and technique). Some aspects, such as the Koshiki no Kata, were pretty much imported wholesale from Kito Ryu.
When it comes to the idea of challenging other schools, it was more that the early Judo (Kodokan Jujutsu) tournaments were open to other schools, but they had to abide by the rules that Kano had decided to employ, which gave the Kodokan membership a decided advantage, due to things such as Kano's favour for randori (shared by two of his teachers). Rules were made to emphasise safety for a range of reasons, one of which was Kano's philosophy of using the art for self development, and the injuring of opponents didn't feature in that. Another was his courting of the education system, where he wanted Judo to be a part of all Japanese schools, although that was a later aim. The school that beat the Kodokan on the ground, though, was not a ground-specialist school, it just happened that that's how the Kodokan guys were beaten a couple of times. That school was Fusen Ryu, a relatively small school with only a very limited syllabus, very little of which is ne waza.
This isn't the greatest quality, but it's one of my favourite clips of Fusen Ryu:
The complete syllabus isn't much more than is shown here, for the record.
On that note, it should be noted that there really aren't many Japanese systems that have much emphasis on ne-waza at all, especially when looking at the older systems, as it is generally a rather ill-advised plan of action. When looking at a system such as Kito Ryu (one of the base systems for Judo), it is supposed to dominantly be performed in armour... so rolling around on the ground wearing 20kgs of armour is just not advisable. What happened was that there was a greater emphasis put on ne-waza after the encounters with Fusen Ryu, but it was really more an exploration of the methods that already existed, rather than looking for more outside of their established methods.
With Maeda, he visited a number of places, including Europe, and was involved in quite a number of exhibition fights before coming to Brazil where he taught the Machados and Gracies. While there are quite a number of similarities between Kosen Judo and BJJ, Maeda left Japan before that development occurred (Kosen Judo is a sub-set of the rules for Judo which focuses on ground work. It pretty literally means "High School Judo", and the reason for the lack of throws, keeping things on the ground, is that it limits the risk of injury from the students landing badly from a throw). The emphasis on ground work seems to be equal parts Maeda's teaching and the preferences from the Brazilian practitioners.
All of which really just shows the development from some forms of Jujutsu, through Judo, to BJJ, rather than looking at the actual differences between them... which is fine, as it's not an easy question to answer. Firstly, you'd need to define what is meant by "Jujutsu", as there are a huge number of Ryu-ha that teach, or feature it, and the range of skills found are as broad as the number of systems themselves. For instance, we've already mentioned Kito Ryu, who focus on armoured combat, featuring striking, throwing, chokes, and joint locks, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu who have a large repetoire of throws, sacrifice throws, locks, and pins, as well as weapon defence, then there's Takenouchi Ryu, who include small weapons, such as daggers and short swords in their usage of Jujutsu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu who feature largely joint locks, commonly against the wrists, the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who began as striking forms, then developed grappling actions (stand-up, not ground fighting), and so on. Then you have the different approaches each have, so two systems that are seemingly very similar in content can have very different mentalities and approaches. From there you get the modern, typically Western systems, which are quite eclectic, and can range from good, solid approaches to random, haphazard messes.
I also might note that all of this information is in the threads that I linked for Manny already, save perhaps the mention of the specific emphasis/approach of some of the classical ryu-ha.
Not entirely, but really Manny, this is what I meant. You'd already asked this a year ago and more, and were already told all of this. As a result, you already had that information, so it's not like "NOW you know". You've already been told.
Again, it depends on the form of Jujutsu you're talking about.
Okay. But keeping in mind the way you've described yourself, I don't know that groundwork is really the best for you.
There's nothing wrong with specialist arts, though. What it means is that you'll need to work on turning every situation into your preferred range, but you'll be better in that range than someone who isn't a specialist there. Frankly, this idea of learning specialist skills from a range of sources to become a generalist martial artist is flawed from the outset. And the idea of learning some techniques that would be applicable is really not the best idea. Learning an approach that can be adapted and applied is the way to go. If you're interested in different ranges, cool, go for it, but that's a different thing entirely.
Hmm, so you're asking about arts that aren't available to you that you want to train in? If they're not available to you, why does knowing about the differences matter in this way?
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, the traditional self-defense curriculum for BJJ does include strikes. They're fairly basic and are more often than not used to set up grappling techniques, but they are there.
Traditionally, BJJ has three main components:
1) Self-defense (defense against typical untrained opponents)
2) Vale Tudo (full contact "dueling" against other trained martial artists - anything from dojo challenges to the UFC)
3) Sport BJJ competition (grappling only)
Numbers 1 and 2 include striking. However, many BJJ schools these days are focused on sport competition and don't teach the self-defense curriculum. In those schools that are focused on Vale Tudo (MMA), practitioners these days generally train in the more sophisticated striking methods of boxing or muay thai.
BJJ also includes throws and takedowns from judo and wrestling, but in many schools they are trained way less often than they should be. This may be a result of competition rules that allow pulling guard without penalty.
punisher73
Senior Master
Pretty close for a "short answer" without getting into specifics. It was only meant to give a very rough timeline of how BJJ arrived where is was at.
So do any of the Japanese Jujutsu schools have much in the way of ground fighting in them? You guys make it sound as if it is a rarity. IM not sure which system of jjj im doing, as my instructor learned his grappling in the military and then at a school on the east coast. We seam to have a near 50/50 mix of standing and ground grappling. Honestly we don't have many submissions, we just apply them in every way possible. So if ground fighting is a rare thing in Japanese JJ where did it come from? Were did the mounts and escapes, and guards and pass's come from? Was it more of a hey this stuff we do standing, lets try it on the ground at some point in the past, or did it all have a specific beginning? God I feel stupid for not knowing more about my art lol.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
By and large, ground work (as seen in BJJ etc) is a modern thing, not a traditional or classical one. In short, what you're describing sounds like a modern, eclectic (probably Western) form, not a traditional Japanese form.
In terms of where it came from, there's a range of different influences, and they vary depending on who you're looking at. Some develop it as a result of personal preference, or physical traits (such as the head of Fusen Ryu, who was a smaller practitioner, and naturally gravitated to fighting from the ground, as it wasn't easy for him to compete based on strength standing up), or of competition (Judo, BJJ), or just because, well, people think it's what Jujutsu is, so they add it in (despite not always understanding it). Most traditional forms might include suwari waza (sometimes called idori waza, or iai waza, depending of the system), referring to seated techniques, or some arts, such as Enshin Ryu, might include fighting from a position where you have been knocked down already, or (as in the case of Bokuden Ryu) for when being attacked in bed, or asleep. But they are quite removed from the ideas of "mount, guard, passing" etc as seen in modern systems.
In terms of where it came from, there's a range of different influences, and they vary depending on who you're looking at. Some develop it as a result of personal preference, or physical traits (such as the head of Fusen Ryu, who was a smaller practitioner, and naturally gravitated to fighting from the ground, as it wasn't easy for him to compete based on strength standing up), or of competition (Judo, BJJ), or just because, well, people think it's what Jujutsu is, so they add it in (despite not always understanding it). Most traditional forms might include suwari waza (sometimes called idori waza, or iai waza, depending of the system), referring to seated techniques, or some arts, such as Enshin Ryu, might include fighting from a position where you have been knocked down already, or (as in the case of Bokuden Ryu) for when being attacked in bed, or asleep. But they are quite removed from the ideas of "mount, guard, passing" etc as seen in modern systems.
So im assuming that Traditional JJJ ground work, for the most part, was focused on getting back up and to a standing position. Im assuming that by modern you mean 1800's up right? I have read some of the links in this thread and apparently Fighting on the ground, was systemized at around that point. Prior to that it was survive and escape from the ground correct? I can tell the western influences in my grappling system. From what I have read ground fighting and western grappling go way way back.
I imagine that ground grappling was already in most of the JJJ systems, just not emphasized. Kinda like judo has them, but not regularly practiced.(at least at the commercial judu gym here in town, I avoided them) I liken it to how as armor systems became more and more useless(thanks to guns) personal carry swords shrank in size. At the end of the personal carry sword era, you had rapiers and short swords for civilian carry, and smaller thrusting swords(tho heavier and thicker to better deal with what ever armor was there) for the military.
Im honestly happy with grappling system, its not one thing or the other. My coach has techniques from western grappling and Judo/jujitsu. All in all, a good system for me.
I imagine that ground grappling was already in most of the JJJ systems, just not emphasized. Kinda like judo has them, but not regularly practiced.(at least at the commercial judu gym here in town, I avoided them) I liken it to how as armor systems became more and more useless(thanks to guns) personal carry swords shrank in size. At the end of the personal carry sword era, you had rapiers and short swords for civilian carry, and smaller thrusting swords(tho heavier and thicker to better deal with what ever armor was there) for the military.
Im honestly happy with grappling system, its not one thing or the other. My coach has techniques from western grappling and Judo/jujitsu. All in all, a good system for me.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
I'll take this bit by bit, because most of it's actually backwards...
No. There just wasn't anything like what is currently thought of as "ground work" in many/most traditional Japanese systems. It's not that their ground work had a different focus, it just didn't have it. And what little they did have focused on ending the fight, rather than getting up and away, as shown below.
Late 1800's, early 1900's, not really much before that.
No, not really. Suwari waza, sure... that'd been around (in Jujutsu terms) for a good two centuries or so... but not ground work (ne waza). Tanabe Mataemon (head of Fusen Ryu) was considered a specialist in this area, and was brought in to teach the early Kodokan guys ne waza, but his system (Fusen Ryu), although credited as supplying Judo with it's ne waza, actually contains none itself. The earliest "systematized" form is probably Judo itself, taken from what Tanabe taught... and even there, it wasn't particularly systematized, more a loose grouping of principles. When Kosen Judo (a subset of Judo competition rules, really, designed for High School students, with a scoring system based around ne waza, rather than the more dangerous, and risky nage waza, therefore safer for the kids to compete with) was being formulated, in about 1915 or so, would be the earliest I would consider a "systematized" approach to ne waza. Before that, the main usage for ne waza was as a finishing technique after a throw, or at the end of a suwari waza technique (ie both of you are seated, the opponent grabs you, you push them back to unbalance, then drop back and down onto your back, and apply a juji gatame arm-bar. Technically, that's a ne waza finish to a suwari waza technique).
No, not really. One thing that needs to be made clear here is that you can't generalize Jujutsu systems in this way... each is unique, and have their own set of principles, approaches, desired aims and outcomes, tactics, strategies, and so on. So while one system would look to defence, with the aim of getting back up, another would use it exclusively to finish an opponent off... and another would do both (depending on the context of the kata), while yet another would take things in a completely different direction. Some will only utilize it as a last-resort, some will deliberately take people into that area, and so on. I mean, no two Jujutsu systems are the same... some are almost nothing but throws, others have almost none, others in between... some have a large striking syllabus, others are almost completely joint locks, many involve weapons and weapon defence, some don't have any, and much, much more. In other words, there's no such single art or approach called "Jujutsu".
Ground work seems to be most prevalent when the art is developed in competition... Western systems that focus on ground work are competitive, Japanese are the same. BJJ is identical as well. But systems designed for combat? No, they'll typically eschew such positions as limiting and dangerous. So the real key to look at is, was the art developed for, or through, a competitive arena. If so, then ground work is great, and works a treat. If not, don't expect to see a lot of it.
Uh... no. Not at all. Why would you think that? It really has little purpose in the context of these old systems.
Judo, again, focuses (mainly) on competition. And, to score in competition, throws are considered better. You can't Ippon someone with a choke, although you can win with one, so throws are emphasized. Again, it just comes down to the context of the art itself. And why is the fact that it's a "commercial" Judo dojo (whatever you mean by that) a reason to avoid them?
Hmm. Nope, don't know that I'd agree that that was the reason for changing weapon sizing... nor do I agree with the analogy, as I think it was flawed at the outset.
I'm happy it's something you're happy with. At the end of the day, that's the most important thing. But I wouldn't be expecting it to be something it's not. There's no problem with it being a modern, eclectic, Western system... there are some very nice ones around... but there is an issue thinking it's a form of Japanese Jujutsu.
No. There just wasn't anything like what is currently thought of as "ground work" in many/most traditional Japanese systems. It's not that their ground work had a different focus, it just didn't have it. And what little they did have focused on ending the fight, rather than getting up and away, as shown below.
Late 1800's, early 1900's, not really much before that.
No, not really. Suwari waza, sure... that'd been around (in Jujutsu terms) for a good two centuries or so... but not ground work (ne waza). Tanabe Mataemon (head of Fusen Ryu) was considered a specialist in this area, and was brought in to teach the early Kodokan guys ne waza, but his system (Fusen Ryu), although credited as supplying Judo with it's ne waza, actually contains none itself. The earliest "systematized" form is probably Judo itself, taken from what Tanabe taught... and even there, it wasn't particularly systematized, more a loose grouping of principles. When Kosen Judo (a subset of Judo competition rules, really, designed for High School students, with a scoring system based around ne waza, rather than the more dangerous, and risky nage waza, therefore safer for the kids to compete with) was being formulated, in about 1915 or so, would be the earliest I would consider a "systematized" approach to ne waza. Before that, the main usage for ne waza was as a finishing technique after a throw, or at the end of a suwari waza technique (ie both of you are seated, the opponent grabs you, you push them back to unbalance, then drop back and down onto your back, and apply a juji gatame arm-bar. Technically, that's a ne waza finish to a suwari waza technique).
No, not really. One thing that needs to be made clear here is that you can't generalize Jujutsu systems in this way... each is unique, and have their own set of principles, approaches, desired aims and outcomes, tactics, strategies, and so on. So while one system would look to defence, with the aim of getting back up, another would use it exclusively to finish an opponent off... and another would do both (depending on the context of the kata), while yet another would take things in a completely different direction. Some will only utilize it as a last-resort, some will deliberately take people into that area, and so on. I mean, no two Jujutsu systems are the same... some are almost nothing but throws, others have almost none, others in between... some have a large striking syllabus, others are almost completely joint locks, many involve weapons and weapon defence, some don't have any, and much, much more. In other words, there's no such single art or approach called "Jujutsu".
Ground work seems to be most prevalent when the art is developed in competition... Western systems that focus on ground work are competitive, Japanese are the same. BJJ is identical as well. But systems designed for combat? No, they'll typically eschew such positions as limiting and dangerous. So the real key to look at is, was the art developed for, or through, a competitive arena. If so, then ground work is great, and works a treat. If not, don't expect to see a lot of it.
Uh... no. Not at all. Why would you think that? It really has little purpose in the context of these old systems.
Judo, again, focuses (mainly) on competition. And, to score in competition, throws are considered better. You can't Ippon someone with a choke, although you can win with one, so throws are emphasized. Again, it just comes down to the context of the art itself. And why is the fact that it's a "commercial" Judo dojo (whatever you mean by that) a reason to avoid them?
Hmm. Nope, don't know that I'd agree that that was the reason for changing weapon sizing... nor do I agree with the analogy, as I think it was flawed at the outset.
I'm happy it's something you're happy with. At the end of the day, that's the most important thing. But I wouldn't be expecting it to be something it's not. There's no problem with it being a modern, eclectic, Western system... there are some very nice ones around... but there is an issue thinking it's a form of Japanese Jujutsu.
Chris, Im kind of confused. You just spent a whole post basically telling me that Ground fighting did not exist prior to the modern era. How can fusen ryo teach judo its ne waza if it self contains none? How can one teach something they themselves do not know?
Fighting since the dawn of time, fights have ended up on the ground. I understand and agree that in a battle situation you do not want to be on the ground. Your making it sound like these systems contained nothing for surviving and escaping if you happen to get drawn down into fight on the ground. That makes no sense. You have to atleast be able to escape from the ground. I find it hard to believe these old systems would just throw you to the wolves if you happened to get dragged down to the mud. That they didn't teach a way to get the hell out of that situation is amazing.
I remember the first time I rolled on the ground, I felt like a deer in the head lights.
I disagree with ground fighting being only about competition. I was on the ARMA website, and they are recreating medieval martial arts, and grappling at all ranges, including ground fighting both armed and unarmed were taught at the time. They have plenty of fight manuals and manuscripts detailing such things.
I don't think ground submission fighting is necessary, but being taught how to escape the mount or side mount or pin and how to either get on your feet or end the fight is paramount. How the heck could it not be?
AS to the swords thing, sorry, but I feel you are mistaken. Broad swords and large 2 handers did not even meet on the field of battle in the same era's as each other. From a certain point on, people stopped wearing plate and ring armor. No need for a heavy sword anymore. Thanks to the efforts of Some Italian masters, the popularity of the thrusting sword rose. Its use as a Civilian personal carry sword makes sense.
Fighting since the dawn of time, fights have ended up on the ground. I understand and agree that in a battle situation you do not want to be on the ground. Your making it sound like these systems contained nothing for surviving and escaping if you happen to get drawn down into fight on the ground. That makes no sense. You have to atleast be able to escape from the ground. I find it hard to believe these old systems would just throw you to the wolves if you happened to get dragged down to the mud. That they didn't teach a way to get the hell out of that situation is amazing.
I remember the first time I rolled on the ground, I felt like a deer in the head lights.
I disagree with ground fighting being only about competition. I was on the ARMA website, and they are recreating medieval martial arts, and grappling at all ranges, including ground fighting both armed and unarmed were taught at the time. They have plenty of fight manuals and manuscripts detailing such things.
I don't think ground submission fighting is necessary, but being taught how to escape the mount or side mount or pin and how to either get on your feet or end the fight is paramount. How the heck could it not be?
AS to the swords thing, sorry, but I feel you are mistaken. Broad swords and large 2 handers did not even meet on the field of battle in the same era's as each other. From a certain point on, people stopped wearing plate and ring armor. No need for a heavy sword anymore. Thanks to the efforts of Some Italian masters, the popularity of the thrusting sword rose. Its use as a Civilian personal carry sword makes sense.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Ha, yeah, that happens...
Well, the first thing to understand is that Fusen Ryu didn't teach Judo it's ne waza... Tanabe Mataemon did. Now, yeah, he was the head of Fusen Ryu at the time, but that's not where the ne waza came from. It came from Tanabe Mataemon, who developed his through his randori with the other members of Fusen Ryu, due to his personal preference (which came about due to his smaller stature, as he naturally gravitated towards it, finding that he couldn't avoid being caught, so he'd fight back after the throw). So Tanabe was quite experienced in ne waza, but it wasn't Fusen Ryu. Yeah, it's something that takes a lot of people a while to get their heads around...
Uh... nope. The oft-repeated stat of percentages of fights that go to ground came from a Police survey, and was very artificially raised, due to the Police's need to tackle offenders and suspects to the ground in order to arrest them.... street assaults don't actually work that way. Additionally, you need to understand that there is no such thing as a martial art that is designed for everything... each art is designed around it's particular context... and battlefield contexts simply don't have a real need for ground fighting, by and large. It's too slow, leaves you too vulnerable, and is too limiting... as a result, when it's covered, it's very basic.
Not exactly... but you really do need to look at the context of these systems.
I'll put it this way: The particular section of the particular old Jujutsu system I'm currently teaching is focused on suwari waza... and the technique last week involved the opponent grabbing your lapel. The response was to raise up on one knee, while barring their arm (to stop them escaping or continuing an attack), followed by a kick to the body, then diving forward (past the opponents shoulder), ending with them on their back, and you lying across them, as you applied a different arm-bar to break it, then disengaged and moved away. Now, the end part of that technique could be seen as being ne waza, but there isn't any formal ne waza in the Ryu... just suwari waza. But really, ne waza is just not anything that there was much need for... ground work on a battlefield isn't practical, nor is devoting a lot of time to it's study. If you did end up on the ground in a pitched battle, you were as likely to get trampled to death as anything else... combative techniques didn't have much place.
Yeah, it's like that for most. But you really do need to understand the difference in the contexts between these traditional systems and the rolling you've done.
No, what I said was that it tended to be developed in competitive systems. Mainly as it's only in competitive systems that there really is the opportunity and freedom to develop the skill set, as well as the context to allow it.
As to the ARMA side of things, I'm familiar with them, and their methods, but I think you'll find that the majority of ground work is the same as the Japanese traditional approach... in other words, dominantly as a finishing aspect to techniques that start standing.... or from more "competitive" training methods. In fact, going through their entire site, I found one picture (of free-sparring), and one mention in a single article that mentioned ground work. But the thing to remember with ARMA (and related groups) is that what they're doing is, realistically, their "best guess" at what things were like... supplemented by a range of other methods in many cases... and they don't always get it right. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for them, but I've seen enough clips with guesswork that simply doesn't pan out, even from some of the most well-regarded in their field, to take things as correct from them without checking it myself.
Well, firstly because such positions (in armour, battlefield combat) wouldn't be encountered... it'd be too dangerous to try. Besides that, there just wasn't any call for it.
The problem is you're thinking that the way it is now is the way it's always been, and that's simply wrong. It's a common misunderstanding, but it's still wrong. Realistically, especially with the development of BJJ, and the way it's grown over the last few decades, I feel that ground work (as found there) is at it's highest development yet. Ground fighting now is more sophisticated than it has ever been, and is far more prominent than it's ever been, mainly as it has a much larger variety of contexts now than there has been before, which are, primarily, competitive, or borne from competitive sources. Modern eclectic systems that have a lot of ground work take their technical methods from competitive systems... it really is that simple.
I'm not disagreeing that the change in context (armour to no armour) changed the types of weapons, and design of swords, just that it made them smaller... the size of a full-length rapier is quite an impressive piece of metal... and considerably longer and larger than, say, a Roman Gladius....
Chris, you and I both agree that prolonged fighting on the ground is not advisable in a battle. What im asking is, and I don't know if im not communicating poorly or what, is in regards to what happens if your pulled to the ground and entangled with your opponent. Yes in armor your not going to be fighting on the ground, I agree, everyone does. What im saying is, those 2 warriors in that battle are in close combat, one goes and throws the other but somehow the other pulls the thrower down with him. They will inevitably begin some kind of struggle on the ground. In a battle they need to get back to there feet, but there now grabbing and othe wise struggling on the ground. Do any of the systems do anything for the situation of being on the ground when your not supposed to be there.
Im not talking about trying to submit them. Im talking in context of the battle, not getting stabbed on the ground, and extracating your self from the entanglement and back to your feet and weapons.
I am having difficulty spelling out what im talking about. The concept in my mind is clear, but I cant find the words. Im not talking about UFC on the ground im talking about I just got thrown down, and this guy is ontop of me trying to stab me. that is the situation im talking about... Or others similar...
Im not talking about trying to submit them. Im talking in context of the battle, not getting stabbed on the ground, and extracating your self from the entanglement and back to your feet and weapons.
I am having difficulty spelling out what im talking about. The concept in my mind is clear, but I cant find the words. Im not talking about UFC on the ground im talking about I just got thrown down, and this guy is ontop of me trying to stab me. that is the situation im talking about... Or others similar...
I train in a system of Jujutsu called Danzan Ryu jujutsu. One of the systems that Okazaki trained in as his base was Yoshin Ryu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yōshin-ryū
The vital point striking is interesting. My sensei says it's the same as they teach in Okinawan Karate and that they may have a shared connection through China, but that isn't really the point of my post.
Our third list of techniques, a list students learn at green belt, is pretty much all ground fighting techniques. I can't imagine that no system of jujutsu in Japan contained these arts. Pinning, locking, and hold down techniques would be useful to samarai in many situations. They would also be useful in certain unencumbered combat situations, which is what many samurai would have faced after the Tokugawa shogunate took over. Anyway, we call the list Shime. It's not as sophisticated as BJJ, but it's not designed to contain the fight to the ground. The techniques describe grappling but they always have an escape hatch so tori can escape at any time with an ukemi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yōshin-ryū
The vital point striking is interesting. My sensei says it's the same as they teach in Okinawan Karate and that they may have a shared connection through China, but that isn't really the point of my post.
Our third list of techniques, a list students learn at green belt, is pretty much all ground fighting techniques. I can't imagine that no system of jujutsu in Japan contained these arts. Pinning, locking, and hold down techniques would be useful to samarai in many situations. They would also be useful in certain unencumbered combat situations, which is what many samurai would have faced after the Tokugawa shogunate took over. Anyway, we call the list Shime. It's not as sophisticated as BJJ, but it's not designed to contain the fight to the ground. The techniques describe grappling but they always have an escape hatch so tori can escape at any time with an ukemi.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Here's the big issue here, though... it really doesn't matter what you think should be there, because, well, bluntly, it's not there. And it's not there for the reasons I've given. Battlefields weren't about close combat, nor was self defence anything to do with ground work (it still isn't). Any system designed with combative usage as a primary focus will simply not have a focus on ground work. It's only real usage is to finish a fight, not to engage there, so why would any of them focus on engaging on the ground?
Hmm, I'm going to try to tread delicately here, because I'm quite fond of Danzan Ryu, on the whole, but some things need to be mentioned. Firstly, the Yoshin Ryu referred to in that link was a dead art before Okazaki was born, so no, that one was not part of the system. I'm not saying there wasn't a "Yoshin Ryu", but it wasn't from the line of Akiyama Shirobei. The only form left from his art is the Naginatajutsu. Additionally, there are a number of other arts listed that Okazaki said he learnt alongside this Yoshin Ryu (Iwaga Ryu, Kosogabe/Kosogabu Ryu, Namba-Shoshin Ryu etc) which don't seem to be listed anywhere other than in Okazaki's history... in other words, these arts don't seem to have existed. The primary basis of Danzan Ryu seems to be dominantly Judo, a number of traits (which separate them out from older Jujutsu forms) are present in the Danzan Ryu methods. In other words, Danzan Ryu is a modern system based on other modern systems. That's fine, there's no issue with that at all, in fact, it's a quite solid art, but it's not really representative of traditional arts, or traditional Japanese Jujutsu systems (there are a number of other reasons I have to doubt a range of the traditional claims, but I won't get into them here).
Possible, but most likely due to the fact that another major influence, particularly on the striking aspects, was the karate systems Okezaki was exposed to from the Ryukyu kingdom. There's also an amount of influence from Western wrestling, amongst other things.
Pinning (osae komi, osae waza) were well known, in a large range of systems, but that's not ground work (ne waza). You might also be surprised to learn that there was little occasion for samurai to face each other, or others, in unarmed, unarmoured combat, even after the Tokugawa took control, in fact, for a range of reasons, more so after that event. Shime waza, by the way, typically refer to choking techniques, but literally refer to "constricting" methods. Oh, and I don't quite follow what you mean in your last sentence... are you meaning grappling to only refer to ground work? That's really not any definition of grappling, other than an inaccurate and incomplete one...
Similar threads
