- Nov 7, 2018
- Reaction score
Old sensei seke used to say them words meaning they all are the same ppl just took it in slightly different focused directions and I agree much can be learned from any style imho
Yes and no, IMHO.i don’t know about ju jitsu or jui jitsu, but jujutsu and jiu jitsu are pretty different now.
I think what they were is one thing. What they are is another.Yes and no, IMHO.
I watched a terrible movie the other day. It was a war movie that involved a lot of Japanese angst, right around July 1945.
Brazilian jiu jitsu is great. But Japanese jujutsu was once employed to drive Kaiten torpedoes.
For those not aware, those were manned torpedoes. An abomination now, sure, but once upon a time they were the epitome of jujutsu.
Yeah... there is no difference (on a technical level) between "jujutsu", "jiu-jitsu", "ju-jitsu", or other iterations. The older "jiu-jitsu" was a popular transliteration in the early 20th Century, before much was settled in terms of standardisation. Later, the Hepburn romanization took precedence as the most universally accepted form for transliterating Japanese symbolic written language (hiragana, katakana, kanji) into a form that could be pronounced easily by English speakers. In this sense, the only accurate transliteration/pronunciation is "ju-jutsu".
There are a number of Western arts who maintain the older pronunciation, but the word is still the same one, as a result, any differences are between individual systems, not the specific pronunciation of the word itself.
If we’re going to be picky about accurate phonetic spelling based on pronunciation in the country which originated an art, then the proper spelling of BJJ should be something like “zhoo zhitz”.Linguistics wise, the only big deal here is Japanese language puts more emphasis on spoken consonants and in this case, vowels. There's domo arigato and then there's domo arigato
The IPA key sums it up.
dʒ = Badge, giant, Ju. You might not catch the i in U, but it's always there.
Well.... no, actually.If we’re going to be picky about accurate phonetic spelling based on pronunciation in the country which originated an art, then the proper spelling of BJJ should be something like “zhoo zhitz”.
Well.... no, actually.
There's a few issues to cover. Firstly, it's more about the origin of the language that provides the terminology, not the origin of the art... secondly, if we look at the term as being a corrupted Japanese term introduced into Portuguese in Brazil, rather than a strict loan-word (which is what it should be), then we need to ask whether or not Portuguese is a phonetic language, which it isn't. So, we have an art developed in Brazil, based in a Japanese art (let's be clear on that, it's a highly refined and specialised art based on a relatively minor aspect of a larger Japanese art, being Judo and it's ne-waza), who apply an older transliteration of a Japanese term to what they do, introducing the term and incorporating it into their Portuguese lexicon, which is not a phonetic language... so... no.
When they do apply the Japanese, though, they universally use the kanji 柔術... which, written phonetically in Japanese (in hiragana) is written じゅうじゅつ (taken bit by bit, that would be read "j(y)u-u j(y)u-tsu"). The argument for the first kanji being read as "jiu" is not far off, but is missing the extended vowel sound of the additional "u", and transliterates the character "ゆ" as "iu" instead of the more standard "yu", giving "jyu"... but the second kanji cannot be read "jitsu" at all. For that to be correct, the hiragana would read じつは, instead of じゅつ, and would be most commonly in kanji 実 instead of 術. Completely different words.
So, if we're going to be picky and accurate, then the phonetic spelling can only be based on the Japanese term, as Portuguese is not a phonetic-based language... South American accents don't change that. If we're being picky and accurate, that is...
Hmm... that's both correct, and not correct at the same time.His main point sensei seke was that it's all the same you can only do so many things to the body alot ppl want to differentiate the art to there liking or maybe region teaching or maybe sport rule set they compete frequently under but it's all the same esp if that's how you as a individual decide to train just my opinion or take on it
To the lay person, both styles you describe would be indistinguishable from each other. At first glance, the differences may appear very subtle. Yet, as you clearly explain, the fundamental approach and tactics are very different. Would you go so far as saying they are two different arts or are they just two different applications of the same art based on the combat situation?Hmm... that's both correct, and not correct at the same time.
It's true that we all share relatively similar body structures and similar ranges of motion, and utilise the same scope of potential body mechanics, but that's kinda where it ends... different systems are differentiated more in how they approach these consistencies, which is influenced by the cultural packaging and environment, the context in which it is aiming to be used, the aims of the system itself, certain philosophical and social influences from the history, personalities, and culture the art comes from (time and place), and so on.
I was asked today how I manage to avoid cross-over in two Japanese sword arts I teach and study, and the answer was that it's actually fairly easy with those two particular systems, as they are, in many ways, almost directly opposite each other. Sure, they're both sword arts from pre-modern Japan, using very similarly designed and built weapons, however they are separated by approximately 200 years in their founding, one is geared up for armoured and non-armoured fighting, emphasises footwork based on leading with the toes/ball of the foot, relies on moving first to gain an advantage, seeks to prevent an opponent from attacking by controlling the mid-line, uses one step at a time, has a wide array of other weapons, and so on... the other is almost entirely unarmoured one-on-one combat (duelling), emphasises footwork based on the heel, relies on the opponent attacking first, so controls them by providing particular openings, takes two steps at a time each time, and has a limited array of other weapons... are they the same? Sure, but only in a few, more superficial ways... in other ways, they could not be further apart... and it's even more pronounced when we look at the variety of arts that use the body rather than a weapon or other tool.
To the lay person, both styles you describe would be indistinguishable from each other.
At first glance, the differences may appear very subtle.
Yet, as you clearly explain, the fundamental approach and tactics are very different. Would you go so far as saying they are two different arts or are they just two different applications of the same art based on the combat situation?
I have a few other questions I'd like to ask you.
I'm curious as to the practical usage of toe vs heel stepping; how one may be better for battle vs dueling.
Also, is there a difference in the manner of cut execution?
And lastly, is there a difference in the mental/spiritual attitude one has between the two?
I found the subject interesting. Thanks for your post and response.