The case for Judo as a self-defense system...

OP
T

TMA17

Black Belt
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
620
Reaction score
175
Classes — OSAGAME

"n our Free-Style Judo class, students will learn techniques that may no longer be legal in a modern, standard IJF Judo competition. Freestyle Judo is more similar to older versions of Judo than modern IJF rules. The main differences are that leg grabs are allowed, and competitors accumulate points within a match. Matches cannot be ended by pin; they end only by submission, Ippon, or by a 12 point lead. Further explanation of the rules can be given in class."

No contract too. :)
 

Hanzou

Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
6,395
Reaction score
1,030
While I have always admired Judo, if we're doing Judo vs BJJ for self defense, I'd have to give the edge to BJJ. Especially if we're talking about more traditional Gracie Bjj propagated by Rickson and Relson, or even MMA-focused BJJ.
 

JP3

Master Black Belt
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
696
Location
Houston
Having done both Judo and BJJ, as to the efficacy, or of the "style" in general, without any cross-training in anything else... which hardly ever happens in any decent school, dojo or program, personally I'd take Judo for one reason only. In the BJJ schools I trained in/at, the vast majority of the training time was spent on the groundwork elements of BJJ, which to me acted to exclude "how you got down there."

I'll grant you, two folks with similar athletic skills and training mindsets... one goes into Judo the other into BJJ. Average progression, and I'd have to take the BJJ person on the ground every time, if that's what the conflict is. But, if they start in any other configuration other than both kneeling, or back-to-back, or wrestling style start of session, I'd go with the Judo.


I know other BJJ schools have more emphasis on their stand-up to ground portion, which to me would be key for it's use as a SD option, I've just never trained at one, or even visited one, where the emphasis was on the well-rounded, rather than BJJ tournament, game. Note, nobody in these two schools did any MMA type stuff at all. It's a very small sample size, and I get it.
 
OP
T

TMA17

Black Belt
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
620
Reaction score
175
After 2 years of searching I finally found a school that teaches Judo & BJJ (Osagame in Philly). It's rare you see that.
 

Hanzou

Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
6,395
Reaction score
1,030
Having done both Judo and BJJ, as to the efficacy, or of the "style" in general, without any cross-training in anything else... which hardly ever happens in any decent school, dojo or program, personally I'd take Judo for one reason only. In the BJJ schools I trained in/at, the vast majority of the training time was spent on the groundwork elements of BJJ, which to me acted to exclude "how you got down there."

I'll grant you, two folks with similar athletic skills and training mindsets... one goes into Judo the other into BJJ. Average progression, and I'd have to take the BJJ person on the ground every time, if that's what the conflict is. But, if they start in any other configuration other than both kneeling, or back-to-back, or wrestling style start of session, I'd go with the Judo.


I know other BJJ schools have more emphasis on their stand-up to ground portion, which to me would be key for it's use as a SD option, I've just never trained at one, or even visited one, where the emphasis was on the well-rounded, rather than BJJ tournament, game. Note, nobody in these two schools did any MMA type stuff at all. It's a very small sample size, and I get it.

Yeah, I would highly recommend a Gracie JJ school. Those schools offer plenty of standup stuff. Also another advantage that BJJ has is no-gi training,and its rapid incorporation of modern wrestling.
 
OP
T

TMA17

Black Belt
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
620
Reaction score
175
I think I've posted this before but does taking down someone have to be so complicated? Judo is a beautiful art, but if one got reasonably good a just a handful of takedowns, I think that is sufficient to get 90% of people on the ground. Even a football tackle would work lol.
 

Hanzou

Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
6,395
Reaction score
1,030
I think I've posted this before but does taking down someone have to be so complicated? Judo is a beautiful art, but if one got reasonably good a just a handful of takedowns, I think that is sufficient to get 90% of people on the ground. Even a football tackle would work lol.

That's why the single and double leg takedown are banned in Judo competition, and in many Judo dojos. Some Judoka began to dominate Judo tournaments utilizing those type of leg attacks, negating the throws entirely.
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
26,625
Reaction score
8,077
Location
Hendersonville, NC
I think I've posted this before but does taking down someone have to be so complicated? Judo is a beautiful art, but if one got reasonably good a just a handful of takedowns, I think that is sufficient to get 90% of people on the ground. Even a football tackle would work lol.
With a limited toolset to defend (no strikes, etc.), it really doesn't need a wide range of tools to attack. But the concept, I think, was to require a wide range of abilities, so that it wasn't just about taking someone down. It was meant to require learning more than that, IMO.
 

frank raud

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
457
Location
Ottawa, ON
I can get you the volume and page number of the article in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts as one source for O'Neill's position
Is this the passage you are referring to?
Although O’Neill had a strong background in Judo, he knew that Judo
required several years of hard training to acquire the necessary skill to throw a
man who was resisting and fighting back. He elected to teach a basically simple
system, based on what he called Chinese Foot Fighting

That's a question of time constraints, not efficacy. It's also not a quote, but the writing of my good friend Steve Brown.
 

frank raud

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
457
Location
Ottawa, ON
I've posted this before; Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill was the highest ranked non-Japanese Judoka in his era. William Fairbairn had his Judo BB certs signed by Kano himself. When WWII Combatives was created and implemented during WWII, no Judo was incorporated into the system. According to O'Neill, Judo is useless in combat unless the enemy is wearing a heavy gi. Don't get mad at me, that was their opinion when developing WWII combatives which is a highly effective, and brutal combat system. Gross motor skill simple and retained in long term memory.
So, these figureheads of modern combatives spent years mastering an art that has no application in real life? Yet in Fairbairn's Scientific Self Defense, you can see a variety of throws including de ashi barai (foot sweep) and Kani basami (crab takedown). O'Neill felt it was necessary to include breakfalls and rear naked strangles, which can be seen in his works up until the 1971 FM21-150. Feldenkrais' Practical Unarmed Combat, which he taught to the Home Guard, is compromised of basically one technique, the rear naked choke. The 1942 FM21-150 acknowledges the teachings of Jigoro Kano as one of the major influences (and the shorter man in the photograghs is Anthony Flores, a judo lack belt). Throws were removed due to time constraints of teaching and the possibility of injury. I have a Canadian Army memo explaining why they refused the offer of Gordon Perrigard to teach Arwrology to the forces. It was because of the risk of injury to the troops, and the special equipment (mats) that were required to practice. The army continued to do Bacon wrestling, as it required no mats, and stopped when a person was lifted off the ground, so risk of injury was low and could be done anywhere.


PS. We could include James Hipkiss, Stan Bissell, Francois D'Eliscu and others who taught WWII combatives with a basis in judo.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,722
Reaction score
5,618
So, these figureheads of modern combatives spent years mastering an art that has no application in real life? Yet in Fairbairn's Scientific Self Defense, you can see a variety of throws including de ashi barai (foot sweep) and Kani basami (crab takedown). O'Neill felt it was necessary to include breakfalls and rear naked strangles, which can be seen in his works up until the 1971 FM21-150. Feldenkrais' Practical Unarmed Combat, which he taught to the Home Guard, is compromised of basically one technique, the rear naked choke. The 1942 FM21-150 acknowledges the teachings of Jigoro Kano as one of the major influences (and the shorter man in the photograghs is Anthony Flores, a judo lack belt). Throws were removed due to time constraints of teaching and the possibility of injury. I have a Canadian Army memo explaining why they refused the offer of Gordon Perrigard to teach Arwrology to the forces. It was because of the risk of injury to the troops, and the special equipment (mats) that were required to practice. The army continued to do Bacon wrestling, as it required no mats, and stopped when a person was lifted off the ground, so risk of injury was low and could be done anywhere.


PS. We could include James Hipkiss, Stan Bissell, Francois D'Eliscu and others who taught WWII combatives with a basis in judo.

Which to me makes a bit more sense. But also highlights the level of Chinese whispers that can occur within these communities.
 

frank raud

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
457
Location
Ottawa, ON
I think I've posted this before but does taking down someone have to be so complicated? Judo is a beautiful art, but if one got reasonably good a just a handful of takedowns, I think that is sufficient to get 90% of people on the ground. Even a football tackle would work lol.
Most judoka only use a handful of takedowns or throws consistently. It is finding out which ones work for best for you that is complicated. You learn the entire curriculum to have knowledge of it, then develop your favorite techniques, and use others when the opportunity presents itself. Kibisu Gaeshi (ankle pick) will never be a popular throw, but it has its place.
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,218
Location
In the dojo
Most judoka only use a handful of takedowns or throws consistently. It is finding out which ones work for best for you that is complicated. You learn the entire curriculum to have knowledge of it, then develop your favorite techniques, and use others when the opportunity presents itself. Kibisu Gaeshi (ankle pick) will never be a popular throw, but it has its place.
Same with practitioners in every other art. Between the hands and elbows, there’s a ton of different ways to hit someone. I use very few different ones. Same for kicks, blocks, etc.

I knew a lot of throws, takedowns, reversals, and pinning combinations in wrestling. In almost 10 years of competing I consistently used very. I used many others once or twice when the situation dictated it.
 

frank raud

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
457
Location
Ottawa, ON
Same with practitioners in every other art. Between the hands and elbows, there’s a ton of different ways to hit someone. I use very few different ones. Same for kicks, blocks, etc.

I knew a lot of throws, takedowns, reversals, and pinning combinations in wrestling. In almost 10 years of competing I consistently used very. I used many others once or twice when the situation dictated it.
Absolutely. Much as I love the various hip throws in judo, when I do randori with a 6'4" 300lb brown belt named Rocque, foot sweeps make much more sense:pompus:
 

Latest Discussions

Top