What is the most effective?

AJH40

White Belt
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Is Judo more effective or is Ju-Jitsu. I'm curious to know which art is the most effective for self-defense or a street fight. Interested in trying one of the two and I am not sure which one would give me practical application for real fight scenarios. Also, I heard that traditional Jujitsu is really only taught in Japan and that Ju-Jitsu taught here in the States is not genuine; is this true? It would great if you could give me resources such as websites to research into this more.

Thanks,
 

KydeX

Orange Belt
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
18
I am not an expert on either. You are probably gonna get a heated discussion out of this. Also there are a lot of different jiujutsu styles with different tactics. My opinion from what I know it's that both can work for self defense. Whether one is more effective than the other I am not really qualified to say anything about.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hi AJH40,

There's a lot to cover here, and honestly, I don't think you have enough of an idea yet to really get what the answers would be, so let's see if we can fill some gaps in...

Hello,

Is Judo more effective or is Ju-Jitsu.

No.

I'm curious to know which art is the most effective for self-defense or a street fight.

Neither.

Interested in trying one of the two and I am not sure which one would give me practical application for real fight scenarios.

None of the above.

Also, I heard that traditional Jujitsu is really only taught in Japan and that Ju-Jitsu taught here in the States is not genuine; is this true?

Nope.

It would great if you could give me resources such as websites to research into this more.

Thanks,

Oh boy... okay....

First things first, there is no such art as "Jujutsu". Jujutsu is a particular categorisation of martial arts, not a single approach itself. It refers to Japanese (or Japanese-sourced) combative arts, largely unarmed or lightly armed (small weapons) used against armed or unarmed opponents. Commonly, many Jujutsu systems and methods focus more on grappling methods (note: not BJJ/MMA ground work, the grappling here is largely standing, occasionally sitting as well), meaning throws, locks, and chokes. There may be some striking, lots of striking, or none at all. It might be purely unarmed, it might integrate some small weapons, or might be part of a larger syllabus which includes complete weaponry curriculums, and more. It might be a more over-arching approach, with most of the mentioned areas covered, it might be more restricted to focusing on joint locks to the exclusion of throws, or vice versa. There might be multiple syllabus' for different foci on different methods (such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who have four separate "jujutsu" sections in their methods), or just one amongst other sections (of weaponry or other topics).

Here are some examples of Jujutsu (traditional):

Takenouchi Ryu, the oldest extant Jujutsu-centric system in Japan, dating from about 1542. Takenouchi Ryu survives in three main lines, with a range of banpa ryu (branch, or ancestor schools) also existing, which teach their Jujutsu in a couple of syllabi, including a primarily unarmed method, and a kogusoku (small dagger) approach, as well as a comprehensive weaponry study.

Sekiguchi Ryu, also well known for their sword and Iai methods.

Shibukawa Ryu

Sosuishitsu Ryu, a banpa ryu of Takenouchi Ryu

Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, a source school for Judo

Kito Ryu, another primary source for Judo... in fact, this series of kata are preserved in Judo as the Koshiki no Kata (Ancient Methods)

Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who employ both solo and paired methods of training their kata... and have a heavy emphasis on striking strongly.

Yagyu Shingan Ryu again... with some of their more acrobatic counters (called Nigemi)

Asayama Ichiden Ryu, very little throws, primarily locks

Fusen Ryu, more of a "throwing" art...

When we get to more modern forms, the following are also realistically just other forms of Jujutsu:

Judo, here showing the Nage no Kata

Aikido

Hakko Ryu... like Aikido, this is a modern art derived from Daito Ryu.

Modern non-Japanese arts include:

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, derived from early Judo mixed with a few other influences

Miyama Ryu, based on a mixture of older and more modern methods

The WJJF... some questions as to where this actually comes from, other than some basic Judo... hmm...

Quantum Jiu-Jitsu... very modern, very flashy... not sure where this comes from....

So, as you can see, "Jujutsu" covers quite a lot... and Judo is Jujutsu, really. So which is more "effective"? Neither. They're just different approaches. And the thing to remember, especially as you look over these clips, is that each and every martial art is designed to deal with a particular context or environment... there's no point expecting one to cover all bases, as that just doesn't exist. What that means is that you need to first off understand what it is you're expecting the art to be "effective" at... simply being "effective" doesn't really mean anything.

Any other questions, just ask. I've only just started to scratch the surface of what's involved here so far....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

the8th_light

White Belt
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
15
Reaction score
12
Location
Michigan, USA
With all due respect, please note that the video clip chosen to illustrate Hakkoryu above is an extremely poor choice. What the people in that clip are attempting to demonstrate doesn't resemble or represent mainline Hakkoryu in any manner, nor are they affiliated with the school in any manner. Please dismiss it as unrelated.

Devon Smith, Secretary
Hakkoryu Jujutsu & Koho Shiatsu, North America
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Cool, thanks for the heads up on that one. In that case, it can still be watched as relevant to the initial question, but as more of a semi-traditional take on Jujutsu (to show the range of what Jujutsu can refer to), while not a good (or accurate) example of Hakko Ryu.

Thanks again.
 

the8th_light

White Belt
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
15
Reaction score
12
Location
Michigan, USA
OP
A

AJH40

White Belt
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Thanks for telling me about the range of Ju-jitsu approaches. How has Judo and BJJ evolve from classical JJ? How has the environment you use them in changed?
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I'm not quite following what you're asking there... both Judo and BJJ are derived from (evolved from) older forms of Jujutsu (with BJJ being derived in a large part from early Judo, really)... are you asking what the exact specific evolutions/changes that came up are? When it comes to the environment, well, the development/evolution of the differing systems is in a large part due to them being used in a different environment/context... that's why they've evolved/developed, really.
 
OP
A

AJH40

White Belt
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Sorry about misunderstanding of my question, I meant say what are the appropriate environments to uses Judo & BJJ?

Thanks
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.
 
OP
A

AJH40

White Belt
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
So You wouldn't say that BJJ and Judo would be well suited for some kind of street fighting environment ?
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.

Look, the real issue here is that you're asking a question that can't be answered... none of them are "best", or "most effective" in comparison to any other. How well trained in the system are you? How well do you understand how it needs to be adapted? How naturally skilled are you? What's your training been like? All of that is far, far more important than "which system"... as "which system" really means nothing.
 

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
5,915
Reaction score
4,494
Location
Lexington, KY
Hmm... well, the appropriate environment for Judo is a Judo tournament... for BJJ, it's BJJ competition.... sure, they can be used in other situations, but that's what they're really best suited for, when all's said and done.


Given that BJJ sport competition wasn't even invented until the art had been around for 40 years or so and many practitioners still don't train for it, I'd say this statement is at best a partial truth.

Chris Parker said:
No, I wouldn't. I would, however, say that they can be applied quite successfully in that environment, depending on the exact particulars, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're really about, or designed for.

For a much more in-depth examination of what BJJ is "about" or "designed for", take a look at my post on page 4 of the "Modern vs Antiquated Self-defense" thread.
 

Mr. President

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Few things -

1) Calling it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is somewhat of a misnomer. First of all, you're not supposed to pronounce it as "Jiu Jitsu". That's just how the Brazilians handled Japanese forms of pronunciations, but I'm a traditionalist in that regard. It's supposed to be pronounced "Brazilian Jujutsu".

2) It's also a misnomer because it's actually much more Brazilian Judo than it is Jujutsu. Sure, the arts have plenty in common, but Judo is a more sport-appropriate synthesis of traditional forms of Japanese unarmed combat, and BJJ came directly from Kodokan Judo.

3) I think the problem Judo and BJJ have is the same problem Taekwondo (and to some extent - Karate) have - In today's world, these methods are primarily practiced as combat sports, and most schools have neglected various martial applications.

4) So yeah, you can learn how to toss people around in Judo and how to choke them in BJJ, but those schools might not teach you how to get into that position where you can apply these moves in the first place without being bombarded by fists, kicks and elbows first. In other words - They'll teach you the mechanisms of the moves themselves, but not so much how to apply them.

5) These are problems you won't encounter with Krav Maga, for example, because there is no sport Krav Maga. Every school focuses solely on real life self defense. Many Filipino and Indonesian Martial arts are the same way, except they also teach you how to use weapons, as well as disarming your opponent of them.

6) But I digress. Bottom line - You'll only learn what you're taught, so if you have your heart set on Judo and BJJ, you need to be 100% certain that the school you're giving your money to, will focus on self defense (disarming, multiple opponents, different environments, unpredictable encounters etc). If they will, then you'll be fine. Just make sure that's what they teach before you give them one single dollar.

7) In order to be sure - Ask the students of that school, not the instructors. Why? Because the students aren't after your money. Just make sure that the students aren't beginners. If they are, maybe they simply weren't exposed to that yet.
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,515
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
I'm with Tony here in that BJJ at least the sport side has not been around as long as the self defense/personal protection side of the system. BJJ can be very effective in a one on one physical confrontation. The way I was taught in each class was starting in the first hour with a self defense application then moving to the ground and covering maybe three techniques then we would roll for anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour. Overall conditioning in BJJ is fantastic. You will be in shape which is a cornerstone in my opinion for being able to protect yourself. Plus BJJ has been proven very, very effective in a one on one confrontation. Very effective!!! The self defense curriculum in BJJ has been around a long time and is very comprehensive when taught at the right school!

Judo (my experience is working with high level judo players learning BJJ) is a fantastic throwing art and those throws can easily end a physical encounter quickly. Now most Judo schools also have newaza or grappling and while maybe not practiced as much as in a BJJ class they still are very effective at grappling. (though this can vary from dojo to dojo)

Both are sporting martial systems with roots in older systems that were geared towards personal protection. As long as you understand the limitation of not wanting to go to the ground with potential multiple opponents around they can be really effective in a situation that requires personal protection.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,485
Reaction score
4,072
Location
Covington, WA
Few things -

1) Calling it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is somewhat of a misnomer. First of all, you're not supposed to pronounce it as "Jiu Jitsu". That's just how the Brazilians handled Japanese forms of pronunciations, but I'm a traditionalist in that regard. It's supposed to be pronounced "Brazilian Jujutsu"..

The rest of your post may be terrific, but I couldn't get past this. My name is steve. Because I am American, and not Spanish, my name is steve and not Esteban. If I were French, it might be Étienne, or possibly Stefan.

But I'm not. I'm steve. Telling someone in Brazil or America that they are doing it wrong is silliness. In japan, you might be correct. In America, referring to something Japanese, you might still be correct. But you aren't. It's Brazilian and the correct spelling and pronunciation is Jiu Jitsu. Calling it jujutsu in 21st century English is wrong. The convention has been set. You are as wrong in this as you would be to say I pronounce my name wrong. It's not Stefan. It's steve.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

oaktree

Master of Arts
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
264
Location
Under an Oaktree
Hey steve
What does jiu jitsu mean?
for example jiu and ju are not the same word
Nor is jutsu or jitsu so what
Do you think jitsu means?
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,485
Reaction score
4,072
Location
Covington, WA
Jiu jitsu is a brazilian grappling art. What do you think it means? It's often preceded by either Gracie or Brazilian, but not necessarily.

Jiu jitsu isn't a Japanese word. It's a Portuguese word with a Japanese root.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Given that BJJ sport competition wasn't even invented until the art had been around for 40 years or so and many practitioners still don't train for it, I'd say this statement is at best a partial truth.

Hey Tony,

Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field. The sophistication of sweeps, counter-sweeps, submissions, escapes, and so on simply doesn't happen in anything that is geared towards pure combative pragmatism. It developed as a sport, it developed through the sporting approach, and is very much custom designed for competition... which isn't anywhere near a bad thing or a criticism, nor is it saying that that's all their good for... but it is what it is, a current observation, rather than a partial truth.

For a much more in-depth examination of what BJJ is "about" or "designed for", take a look at my post on page 4 of the "Modern vs Antiquated Self-defense" thread.

Yeah, I've got to get back to that one... I'll address it there.

Few things -

Okay.

1) Calling it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is somewhat of a misnomer. First of all, you're not supposed to pronounce it as "Jiu Jitsu". That's just how the Brazilians handled Japanese forms of pronunciations, but I'm a traditionalist in that regard. It's supposed to be pronounced "Brazilian Jujutsu".

Hmm. Look, I'm usually one of the first to call out against the mistransliteration of 柔術, however that's just not the case here. The only time you really have to ensure that it's correct is when the system/teacher is making a claim to be a Japanese art (which, although derived from them, BJJ doesn't claim to be). It really, really is "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu".

2) It's also a misnomer because it's actually much more Brazilian Judo than it is Jujutsu. Sure, the arts have plenty in common, but Judo is a more sport-appropriate synthesis of traditional forms of Japanese unarmed combat, and BJJ came directly from Kodokan Judo.

Your history is a bit out. For one thing, Judo is Jujutsu... it was originally called Kano-ha Jujutsu. BJJ is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Completely and accurately.

3) I think the problem Judo and BJJ have is the same problem Taekwondo (and to some extent - Karate) have - In today's world, these methods are primarily practiced as combat sports, and most schools have neglected various martial applications.

That's a problem? Really? Honestly, I don't see one... it's perfectly suited to it's needs, really, and is incredibly good at what it does. The honing of technique and methodology through competition has been nothing but benefit to BJJ... it has cemented the approach of the system, clarified it, given a level of sophistication almost unseen in the range of ground work before, and more. Personally, I had a range of issues with it's approach, but all that means is that it didn't suit me and my needs... there's nothing negative about BJJ whatsoever, unless it doesn't fit what you're looking for... which is fine, it just means that BJJ isn't for you.

4) So yeah, you can learn how to toss people around in Judo and how to choke them in BJJ, but those schools might not teach you how to get into that position where you can apply these moves in the first place without being bombarded by fists, kicks and elbows first. In other words - They'll teach you the mechanisms of the moves themselves, but not so much how to apply them.

I'd say that's almost completely opposite to the reality, myself. They focus almost entirely on how to apply the techniques... you're just expecting it to happen in a context that isn't what these systems deal with. And, really, that's your issue, not the arts.

5) These are problems you won't encounter with Krav Maga, for example, because there is no sport Krav Maga. Every school focuses solely on real life self defense. Many Filipino and Indonesian Martial arts are the same way, except they also teach you how to use weapons, as well as disarming your opponent of them.

Except that the problems you're identifying aren't actually problems... nor do they have the drawbacks you're trying to claim. I train in very non-sporting systems, and believe me, you've missed exactly how the different contexts affect the way an art operates and functions.

6) But I digress. Bottom line - You'll only learn what you're taught, so if you have your heart set on Judo and BJJ, you need to be 100% certain that the school you're giving your money to, will focus on self defense (disarming, multiple opponents, different environments, unpredictable encounters etc). If they will, then you'll be fine. Just make sure that's what they teach before you give them one single dollar.

That depends entirely on what you're after, of course. And if you're just after self defence, I wouldn't suggest a sporting system... nor would I suggest a traditional one. I might, however, suggest either as a base... and recommend supplementing it with proper education and RBSD methodologies.

7) In order to be sure - Ask the students of that school, not the instructors. Why? Because the students aren't after your money. Just make sure that the students aren't beginners. If they are, maybe they simply weren't exposed to that yet.

While I agree with asking the students about the school, I'm not sure that the thrust of your reasoning is actually that sound... it's just as likely that the students might think they're learning self defence, when they're simply learning fighting techniques, or even sporting methodology...the BJJ school I trained with had a pretty constant rhetoric of "for the streets, real self defence" (to the point that it was the "theme" of a seminar by Royce Gracie while I was there), however the training methodology, the techniques, and so on were (in many cases) fairly opposed to actual realities of modern violence and self defence... and I was often told that I needed to adjust my technique, not due to better mechanics, safer application, openings in my position or anything else, but because "it'd cost you the point".

I'm with Tony here in that BJJ at least the sport side has not been around as long as the self defense/personal protection side of the system. BJJ can be very effective in a one on one physical confrontation. The way I was taught in each class was starting in the first hour with a self defense application then moving to the ground and covering maybe three techniques then we would roll for anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour. Overall conditioning in BJJ is fantastic. You will be in shape which is a cornerstone in my opinion for being able to protect yourself. Plus BJJ has been proven very, very effective in a one on one confrontation. Very effective!!! The self defense curriculum in BJJ has been around a long time and is very comprehensive when taught at the right school!

Definitely agreed on the fitness approach of BJJ training... those guys work damn hard! That said, the level of fitness they work towards (as well as the type of fitness) is really geared towards competition, where it's far more of a factor. But "BJJ has been proven very, very effective in one on one confrontation"? You mean, like a competitive match? In sports? Which is what it's trained for? Why would it be surprising, or even doubted that that would be the case? I'm not sure what your point is here...

Judo (my experience is working with high level judo players learning BJJ) is a fantastic throwing art and those throws can easily end a physical encounter quickly. Now most Judo schools also have newaza or grappling and while maybe not practiced as much as in a BJJ class they still are very effective at grappling. (though this can vary from dojo to dojo)

Grappling does not, nor has it ever, equal ground fighting. Ne waza is just that, ne waza... all of Judo's throws, standing locks, pins, chokes, and so on are grappling. It just means "to seize or grasp", as opposed to striking.

Both are sporting martial systems with roots in older systems that were geared towards personal protection. As long as you understand the limitation of not wanting to go to the ground with potential multiple opponents around they can be really effective in a situation that requires personal protection.

Hmm. Yes, they certainly can be "really effective"... I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assessment of their respective histories, though...

The rest of your post may be terrific, but I couldn't get past this. My name is steve. Because I am American, and not Spanish, my name is steve and not Esteban. If I were French, it might be Étienne, or possibly Stefan.

But I'm not. I'm steve. Telling someone in Brazil or America that they are doing it wrong is silliness. In japan, you might be correct. In America, referring to something Japanese, you might still be correct. But you aren't. It's Brazilian and the correct spelling and pronunciation is Jiu Jitsu. Calling it jujutsu in 21st century English is wrong. The convention has been set. You are as wrong in this as you would be to say I pronounce my name wrong. It's not Stefan. It's steve.

As I said, in BJJ, it is "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu", that much is definitively correct... however....

If it's a Japanese art (BJJ isn't), then it's Jujutsu. As far as your name, Steve, that's also not really correct... commonly, if you're speaking in a different language, you are able to (in cases, encouraged to) alter your name to suit that language. In Japanese, my name is クリス(Kurisu), not Chris. In French, it's Christophe. You may be American, but you're not dealing with English at that point.

Hey steve
What does jiu jitsu mean?
for example jiu and ju are not the same word
Nor is jutsu or jitsu so what
Do you think jitsu means?

Jiu jitsu is a brazilian grappling art. What do you think it means? It's often preceded by either Gracie or Brazilian, but not necessarily.

No it's not. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is a Brazilian grappling art, focusing on ground work, but jiujitsu is not necessarily that. Gracie Jiu-Jitsu is one subset of BJJ.

Jiu jitsu isn't a Japanese word. It's a Portuguese word with a Japanese root.

No, it's not. It is a Japanese loan-word. Same as sushi... or, are you going to suggest that, when you have sushi in an American based Japanese restaurant, it's no longer a Japanese word?

What is has become is a Brazilian-ified (hmm, not sure if that works...) version of the Japanese term (note: not a Portuguese version), and has come to represent (in this instance) the body of systems and approaches for what is known as BJJ. And, in that sense, it's spelt correctly. But to claim that it's not a Japanese word is just, well... wrong.
 

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
5,915
Reaction score
4,494
Location
Lexington, KY
Hey Tony,

Yeah, I know. But I wasn't talking about the origins so much as the way it's developed, and what it is now... and the crucible that formed what BJJ is (as well as what Judo is) is the competition field. The sophistication of sweeps, counter-sweeps, submissions, escapes, and so on simply doesn't happen in anything that is geared towards pure combative pragmatism. It developed as a sport, it developed through the sporting approach, and is very much custom designed for competition... which isn't anywhere near a bad thing or a criticism, nor is it saying that that's all their good for... but it is what it is, a current observation, rather than a partial truth.

What you are describing is one aspect of how BJJ has developed and how it is practiced by a significant percentage of practitioners. It is not the original nor the only way it has developed and is practiced. That's why I said it's a partial truth - it is an accurate observation of how many people train in the art, but it is certainly not universal. With all due respect - I think I have rather a lot more experience in the art than you do and thus a lot more data points to draw upon. I have no doubt that you are correctly describing what you have seen.
 
Top