What is the most effective?

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
No. It's not derived from that word. It's a mispronunciation of it.

Your construct was not Krav Maga, it was an American system that was derived from, or based in Krav Maga. Not the same thing, therefore not requiring the same name.

Which is real life, like I said. As in - Non competitive.

Your exact words were "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic) are more real life combat styles, designed for killing and self defence". Arresting methodologies (taihojutsu, toritejutsu, etc) do not fall into that very limited and inaccurate description.

As above.

Again, not necessarily falling into your limited and inaccurate description, as many systems that have methods for dealing with armed assaults don't have them as realistic combative applications, nor as "killing" methods... not even self defence, as it's quite removed from that context (even back in their day).

As above.

And here, you completely lose credibility in discussing this... I specifically point out that some systems have methods that have nothing to do with "real life application", and you say "as above (which is real life, like I said)"? Really? Uh, no. I was giving a very specific example of not "real life" methods.

The point is, you're not showing any real understanding of what the range of classical systems are... some are actually fairly competitive in and of themselves, which again goes against what you think is reality.

I'm not saying Kano created it for competition. Synthesis means "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system", which is exactly what Judo is. He took all of the Jujutsu principles and concepts that conformed with his vision of what Judo should be, and formed a new system from it.

By "competitive" I mean that he wanted it to be a safe system to practice with full speed sparring. Since many of the other Ryus, such as Daito Ryu, are designed for warfare and contain various strikes that could cause severe injuries in full speed training, these were excluded from Judo, or at the very least, highly de-emphasized.

"All of the Jujutsu principles"? No, not at all. As for the rest? Ha, no, not at all. Daito Ryu designed for warfare? Not at all.

Outside of Judo and probably Sumo, Japanese martial arts are practiced with a compliant Uke, and do not contain sparring as such, since the point of these arts is not to fight, but to merely defend oneself.

Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Kito Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, Fusen Ryu, Takagi Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Shibukawa Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu.... all of these systems contain sparring (randori), none of them have the point of "not to fight", not much of what's there is actually focused on defending themselves at all, and more. I could go on, but, well...

I'm not sure that is correct for 100% of Jujutsu ryus, but that's the overall point.

Then listen to the guy who has a hell of more thorough grounding there than you do.

Are you saying that the example I brought cannot happen in real life? If not, why not?

No, I'm saying that your example was completely pointless.

I'm saying that combat sports have a different idea of what distance management is.

Oh dear lord....

I've actually heard this in several places. One of them is at the 5:45 mark on this video:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v945665g2WkCnew?h1=Human+Weapon+Philippines+and+eskrima

I didn't say they didn't say it, I said you misunderstood what they meant by it.
 

oaktree

Master of Arts
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
264
Location
Under an Oaktree
Originally Posted by Mr. President

By "competitive" I mean that he wanted it to be a safe system to practice with full speed sparring. Since many of the other Ryus, such as Daito Ryu, are designed for warfare and contain various strikes that could cause severe injuries in full speed training, these were excluded from Judo, or at the very least, highly de-emphasized.
I thought I would address the Daito ryu statement. I was told some techniques were taught to the foot soldiers mainly jujutsu doubtful they would have learned anything beyond the first scroll but that is if we are to accept Daito ryu history before Takeda, there are a lot of techniques and principles directly from Sumo and somethings are for sure not warfare battlefield but deal with you holding a package or you only having your wakazashi. Daito ryu strikes can hurt an opponent but it is the throws, joint locks that are a lot nastier though Gyakuu de dori uses a nasty strike but it is kuden why it is. Also a lot of the things seen as strikes are not strikes they are knife stabs. Takeda I believe like to carry a knife with him at all times.
 

Mr. President

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Your construct was not Krav Maga, it was an American system that was derived from, or based in Krav Maga. Not the same thing, therefore not requiring the same name.

Nothing is required. You can call it whatever you want, but if the words came from a mispronunciation, then people should stick with the original one. Or not.

Your exact words were "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic) are more real life combat styles, designed for killing and self defence". Arresting methodologies (taihojutsu, toritejutsu, etc) do not fall into that very limited and inaccurate description.

I was trying to give specifics so I wouldn't have to use "street" and "sport" in the statement. You took it too literally.

Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Kito Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, Fusen Ryu, Takagi Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Shibukawa Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu.... all of these systems contain sparring

Yeah, except your definition of sparring is extremely generous. Throwing a (albeit unscripted) halfhearted attack (and that's a an understatement), fully expecting Tori to execute a certain move as a counter, not protesting too much. That's true for pretty much all these systems, with the possible exception of Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo.

So my point stands.

No, I'm saying that your example was completely pointless.

What is it about the example that makes it pointless?

Oh dear lord...

Yes?

I said you misunderstood what they meant by it.

What did I misunderstand?
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Nothing is required. You can call it whatever you want, but if the words came from a mispronunciation, then people should stick with the original one. Or not.

Actually, no. Not if it's not referring to the actual thing itself (in this case, a specific martial system/approach, whether Jujutsu or Krav Maga).

I was trying to give specifics so I wouldn't have to use "street" and "sport" in the statement. You took it too literally.

Well, that was a complete fail on your part… you were trying to give specifics, but I took it too literally, thinking you meant what you said (specifically)? Are you sure that's correct? I mean, if I was taking it too literally, then your argument is that you weren't being specific… if you were being specific (accurate in your terminology and use of language), then I couldn't have taken it "too literally"…. but, of course, if you had said "sport/street" in your comment instead, you still would have been completely wrong, for the same reasons.

Yeah, except your definition of sparring is extremely generous. Throwing a (albeit unscripted) halfhearted attack (and that's a an understatement), fully expecting Tori to execute a certain move as a counter, not protesting too much. That's true for pretty much all these systems, with the possible exception of Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo.

How well do you know these systems? The reason I ask is that, well, you're completely wrong. Again. In fact, I don't know any system that employs the method you're describing, let alone it being any of the ones I listed… where did you grab that piece of ill-informed rubbish from? Oh, and "Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo"… really? In what way? How much of Kito Ryu are you familiar with? Cause...

Kito Ryu

Judo.

Now, to be fair, there's a relatively easy out for you… but it's not as simple as that…

So my point stands.

Er… no, it really doesn't when it's based on no real understanding, misinterpretation, and flat out incorrect descriptions of the training methods of these arts.

What is it about the example that makes it pointless?

You're kidding, yeah? I mean, I've pointed out that it's a strawman, it's a false hypothetical, it's completely ignorant of the context of the system, it has the same relevance of asking what good a shark is if it can't fly like an eagle. Completely pointless.


Okay, a little clue here… when I say that, it's shorthand for me saying things that would get me banned from the site, or at least given some serious infraction points. In this case, it was an indication that the sentence I quoted was so ignorant of the realities of what you're trying to debate with me that it's difficult to know what level to give a reply to… simple statements and explanations seem a bit beyond your grasp, and are simply refuted out of hand due to them not matching your inexperience in these areas.

What did I misunderstand?

Everything. The systems in question, the cultures they come from, the reasons for blade work being prevalent, the reasons for treating everything as if it's a bladed attack (not the same as saying "hey, a blade only adds a few inches, we should be fine with just our unarmed defences, right?"), and so on.

Seriously. Everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mr. President

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Actually, no. Not if it's not referring to the actual thing itself

This point seems to be getting redundant. The Brazilians did not decide to call it "Jiu Jitsu" so it would be distinct from Jujutsu. It was how they pronounced Kanji characters, so it came to be written that way. As far as they were concerned, they were saying Jujutsu as best they could, until the Jiu Jitsu form of writing took over.

Well, that was a complete fail on your part…

Really? That's your beef? Seriously? You can't just say "oh I get what you meant now" and move on? You have to bash me for it? Dafuq?

How well do you know these systems? The reason I ask is that, well, you're completely wrong. Again.

No, I don't think I am. Randori, as it is performed in Aikido and various Jujutsu schools, is a bunch of people attacking you from random angles in a rather halfhearted fashion. They do not attack full force and do not offer maximum resistance once you apply the counter.

If I'm wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Show me.

"Kito Ryu, a style similar to Judo"… really? In what way? How much of Kito Ryu are you familiar with? Cause...

From Wikipedia (as reliable as that may be): Jigoro Kano trained in Kitō-ryū and derived some of the principles that were to form the basis of modern judo from this style. Judo'sKoshiki-no-kata is based on Kitō-ryū.[SUP][1][/SUP] Since Kano Jigoro got the Kitō-ryū densho from his Sensei, Judo is the current Kitō-ryū official successor.

Er… no, it really doesn't

I think it does.

I mean, I've pointed out that it's a strawman

There's a difference between saying something is a strawman, and showing how it's a strawman. You've done the former, not the latter.

Everything. The systems in question, the cultures they come from, the reasons for blade work being prevalent, the reasons for treating everything as if it's a bladed attack (not the same as saying "hey, a blade only adds a few inches, we should be fine with just our unarmed defences, right?"), and so on.

I think we can agree that knives aren't magical. They can only hurt if they touch you, so unless your assailant is throwing it at you Rambo style, he's going to have to close the distance, and since knives are short, that means he has to get close. The same can't be said, for example, for a baseball bat. It's substantially longer, so you have to manage distance differently.

My point wasn't that in FMA, the techniques are entirely identical throughout the style for armed and unarmed, but that the principles surrounding the movements are the same whether you're armed or not.
 

frank raud

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
420
Location
Ottawa, ON
This point seems to be getting redundant. The Brazilians did not decide to call it "Jiu Jitsu" so it would be distinct from Jujutsu. It was how they pronounced Kanji characters, so it came to be written that way. As far as they were concerned, they were saying Jujutsu as best they could, until the Jiu Jitsu form of writing took over.

"Jiu Jitsu is the most common Westernised spelling of the kanji characters. It is how it is spelled in Portuguese, is the only spelling that shows in my copy of Le Petit Robert(standard French dictionary), and is one of two variants shown in Merriam Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jujitsu. My collection of martial arts books goes back to the 19th century, of the roughly 600 books I have the majority spell the word as jiu jitsu or ju jitsu. If you put the word jiu jutsu into Google translate, it asks you if you want jiu jitsu. While some may want to argue that the term is an incorrect translation and therefore meaningless, the vast majority of dictionaries in various Western languages will show that it is a common, proper spelling of the word in the chosen language. The folks who make the entries in dictionaries for words may not speak Japanese or read kanji, but they are considered authorities in the language the dictionary is for. But realise I'm old school, I still spell Kiev as Kiev, not Kyiv.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,485
Reaction score
4,072
Location
Covington, WA
Your construct was not Krav Maga, it was an American system that was derived from, or based in Krav Maga. Not the same thing, therefore not requiring the same name.
Chris, you have completely flipped your position. When I argued the same position you are now asserting, you were adamant that I was wrong. I think I'll go have some sushi. LOL. This proves that you just enjoy arguing. Not a bad thing, but man, it explains a lot! :)
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
1,006
Location
Melbourne, Australia
This point seems to be getting redundant. The Brazilians did not decide to call it "Jiu Jitsu" so it would be distinct from Jujutsu. It was how they pronounced Kanji characters, so it came to be written that way. As far as they were concerned, they were saying Jujutsu as best they could, until the Jiu Jitsu form of writing took over.

Yeah… as Frank showed, your history's backwards there… but more to the point, it's not the Japanese art, and isn't written in kanji. Of course, when the kanji is used (including in tattoos I see BJJ practitioners with on occasion…), the correct transliteration is "Ju-jutsu" (well, really, it's "jyuu-ju'ts", written as じゅうじゅつ)… but that isn't the case here. And it's even less the case in your hypothetical American system that isn't Krav Maga.

Really? That's your beef? Seriously? You can't just say "oh I get what you meant now" and move on? You have to bash me for it? Dafuq?

You think that was me bashing? No…

The fact remains that your descriptions were inaccurate. The way you described "the rest of the Jujutsu Ryus (sic)" is inaccurate for a large range of the very systems you were trying to describe… and saying that you meant, but didn't want to use the terms, "street" and "sport" shows again that you just don't have the education to discuss this area… which is what I meant when I initially asked if you were seriously trying to tell me what these arts are about.

No, I don't think I am. Randori, as it is performed in Aikido and various Jujutsu schools, is a bunch of people attacking you from random angles in a rather halfhearted fashion. They do not attack full force and do not offer maximum resistance once you apply the counter.

And you think that your experience in (what sounds like a rather poor form of) Aikido randori means you know what's seen in the rest of the systems? You think it means you know what their training methods are? That you know what their form of randori is? Really?

If I'm wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Show me.

Randori in many Koryu systems is part of keiko, which is not really shown to those outside the Ryu themselves. So, what I did, was to list a range of systems that don't have what you're describing… in fact, in a number of cases, the form of randori is far closer to Judo's than anything else.

I mean… you do know where Judo's randori comes from, yeah…? Kano didn't just make it up, and was the first to apply it, you know….

From Wikipedia (as reliable as that may be): Jigoro Kano trained in Kitō-ryū and derived some of the principles that were to form the basis of modern judo from this style. Judo'sKoshiki-no-kata is based on Kitō-ryū.[SUP][1][/SUP] Since Kano Jigoro got the Kitō-ryū densho from his Sensei, Judo is the current Kitō-ryū official successor.


And this is what I meant when I said there was a fairly easy out for you, but that it wasn't that simple… I mean, if you'd done a little more research, you might have realised that the gentleman in the red/white belt in the Kito Ryu clip is a high ranking Kodokan Judoka…

But, of course, none of what you put actually answers my questions… In what way is Kito Ryu "a style similar to Judo"? Not what influence Kito Ryu had on Judo's development, but what makes it "similar" to Judo? Can you see where it is within Judo? Care to try again?

I think it does.

Not when you got the actual methods of randori seen in these systems completely wrong, the connections between some of them wrong, the development of randori wrong, the forms of randori applied wrong, and more. Again, randori didn't turn up uniquely in Judo…

There's a difference between saying something is a strawman, and showing how it's a strawman. You've done the former, not the latter.

A strawman is a specific style of argument… saying it is a strawman really is all that needs to be pointed out. But, if you insist (again), the definition of a strawman argument is one in which the key aspects of an argument are disregarded, with a superficially similar hypothetical being employed in it's stead. This is, frankly, exactly what you did… which is exactly what I pointed out. Hell, let's look at your actual comments:

Learning competition style BJJ might prove more detrimental than helpful in self defense. In a competition, the competitors simply grab each other's lapels and begin careful negotiating of position, but what if someone if launching himself at you with a baseball bat? Ask him to grab your shirt?

In this comment, you ignore the realities of the discussion (the fact that sports training and self defence training are different isn't disputed, but your reasoning is false and inaccurate… you're looking at the wrong things), and try to emphasise that point by taking it to an illogical extreme, and insisting that the sports practitioner would do something completely out of whack with the reality of the situation you put them in. You might as well have said you're going to take a world class swimmer, put them in a track and field race, and ask what they're going to do, breast-stroke? in order to say that swimming isn't good. Complete strawman.

I think we can agree that knives aren't magical. They can only hurt if they touch you, so unless your assailant is throwing it at you Rambo style, he's going to have to close the distance, and since knives are short, that means he has to get close. The same can't be said, for example, for a baseball bat. It's substantially longer, so you have to manage distance differently.

Yeah… don't teach knife defence. You'll get people killed.

My point wasn't that in FMA, the techniques are entirely identical throughout the style for armed and unarmed, but that the principles surrounding the movements are the same whether you're armed or not.

You said that a knife thrust is "really nothing more than a dangerous punch." That was followed immediately with "In fact, I believe that's the point of Filipino Martial Arts".

That's where you went wrong.

The reason the principles are the same, and easily go back and forth between bladed and unarmed actions in FMA, isn't anything to do with "a knife is really nothing more than a dangerous punch"… it's because that's how a good, congruent art works. It's blade-centric because that's a large part of the culture of the Philipines… it's the same in a range of African systems, particularly South African.

Seriously. You missed the point on everything.

Chris, you have completely flipped your position. When I argued the same position you are now asserting, you were adamant that I was wrong. I think I'll go have some sushi. LOL. This proves that you just enjoy arguing. Not a bad thing, but man, it explains a lot! :)

Ha, no, Steve, I haven't… there have been discussions of the proper transliteration of 柔術… and that I've always said should be "jujutsu". I have also pointed out that the exceptions are non-Japanese systems, including BJJ… you've argued that all forms of 柔術 can be transliterated as "jiujitsu"… which simply isn't the case.

I'll make it as clear as I can… if it's a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's Jujutsu. If it's not a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's not a Jujutsu system… call it what you want.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,485
Reaction score
4,072
Location
Covington, WA
Ha, no, Steve, I haven't… there have been discussions of the proper transliteration of 柔術… and that I've always said should be "jujutsu". I have also pointed out that the exceptions are non-Japanese systems, including BJJ… you've argued that all forms of 柔術 can be transliterated as "jiujitsu"… which simply isn't the case.

I'll make it as clear as I can… if it's a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's Jujutsu. If it's not a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's not a Jujutsu system… call it what you want.
Haha. Yeah. That's actually not what I was arguing at all. Chris... it's in this thread, man. :)

My position was that, in America, words borrowed from other languages become American English terms with American English meanings. In 2014 AD, in the USA, Jiu Jitsu commonly refers to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and if you are training at any kind of legitimate BJJ school, it will be spelled that way. Often, in order to distinguish itself from BJJ, a traditional Japanese style will spell it Jujutsu.

You went on at length about loanwords and crazy talk that is in direct conflict with your current position (which I happen to agree with).

Remember the sushi analogy? You just couldn't believe that I would suggest that sushi has become, through usage, an American English word with an American meaning. While the term is certainly related to the Japanese term, they have each evolved along different paths.

In the same way, Jiu Jitsu/jujutsu or the kanji or any other alternative spelling may or may not have meant some things. Now, it means several different things, depending upon the context, and those meanings are pretty specific.

I mentioned Kanji only to suggest that written language is nothing more than symbols which mean something to someone in some language. In the same way, the letters that comprise the term jiu jitsu only have meaning if the meaning is commonly understood by those using the term. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. If anything, I was trying to point out that the Kanji really don't matter unless we're discussing the Japanese term in a Japanese context... which we're not. We were (at least, I was) discussing an American term that is derived from Japanese by way of Brazil, in a Western English context.

In Brazil, the term jiu jitsu is a Portuguese term. What's the simplest way to test this? People who don't speak Japanese in Brazil use it commonly to refer to a martial art that is distinctly Brazilian, and when the term is used it is specific and meaningful. While the term is certainly derived from a Japanese term and the etymology can be traced, it has become something different. Languages are constantly evolving and the definitions of words are always changing. And the same is true in America.

When you say that, in America, Krav Maga is something different and American, I agree. Completely. It's an excellent point, and the SAME point you argued against vehemently earlier in the thread. ;)

So, thanks. I'm glad you've come around. It took a while, and I'm sure you'll try again to tell me what I really meant, but I'm just happy you finally see reason. :D
 

Jameswhelan

Yellow Belt
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
9
... there have been discussions of the proper transliteration of 柔術… and that I've always said should be "jujutsu". I have also pointed out that the exceptions are non-Japanese systems, including BJJ… you've argued that all forms of 柔術 can be transliterated as "jiujitsu"… which simply isn't the case.

I'll make it as clear as I can… if it's a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's Jujutsu. If it's not a Japanese Jujutsu system, it's not a Jujutsu system… call it what you want.

Tani Yukio's book, translated into Japanese and published in Japan:

51431p4rG3L__SS500_.jpg


A part of a Hontai Yoshin ryu certificate from the 1980s:

edit.jpg



... Of course, when the kanji is used (including in tattoos I see BJJ practitioners with on occasion…), the correct transliteration is "Ju-jutsu" (well, really, it's "jyuu-ju'ts", written as じゅうじゅつ) …


No. It is correctly romanised as 'jūjutsu'. Macron, no hyphen and lower case in mid sentence. Correctly romanised in Hepburn romanisation, that is. There are other correct romanisations, depending on the system of romanisation used. Hepburn isn't the exclusive system used in Japan. It is rubbish for IT for example as it doesn't replace one-to-one with hiragana or katakana.

Running an astute eye over one's JLPT certificate, a Japanese government document, one will notice it doesn't use Hepburn.

I saw a Japanese book once with the title 'Sibukawaryuu Zyuuzyutu'. This is the Nihon Shiki romanisation system for what in Hepburn is romanised as Shibukawa ryū jūjutsu.

There is a nuance that is being missed here. Hepburn, Nihon Shiki and the others are systems for writing the Japanese language with the Roman alphabet. How the word is written in standard English need not necessarily be bound by this. 東京, the capital city of Japan, is correctly romanised in the Hepburn system as 'Tōkyō', but in standard English it is written 'Tokyo'.

Dictionaries look for the spelling forms of the earliest attestations of words in texts. The OED isn't really as bothered about the correct Hepburn romanisation of 柔術 as it is about the form 'jiu-jitsu' in late ninteenth century English language books and articles.

Nuances and nuances. And no absolutes.
 
Last edited:

Hanzou

Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
6,270
Reaction score
982
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,

I'm not going to say which is more effective, but let's just say if given the choice, I would pick Judo.

If its between Judo and Grace Jiu-Jitsu, I'd go with the choice I went with; Gjj. Not because one is more effective than the other, but because Judo hurts. :(
 
Top