Treebranch

The Jujutsu schools of Budo Taijutsu are mostly from Pre-1800's and what I've learned so far, it doesn't matter what kind of punches are thrown. It's all about closing the distance and taking the persons balance and taking them down, but not necessarily going down with him. Strikes and kicks are also used for this purpose as well. It's sad that those Jujitsu instructors in the fifties were probably taught Jujitsu from a Japanese Master that held back the real principles of fighting and probably only taught them techniques. Many American MA's were nothing more than KATA COLLECTORS. We all saw the KATA COLLECTORS in the early UFC's.

Radok said: Grappling is not only ground fighting. Jujutsu is grappling and most of the techniques are done standing, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You missed the point entirely TJS. Aikidoka don't need to prove anything to anyone, they don't claim to be the biggest and baddest. Have one of the those guys attack a Grand Master and see what happens. Former Aikido practitioners aren't Masters of it, are they. I say if you survive an attack, you are the winner. Staying alive is more important then winning. Wouldn't you agree?

Oh, on the outside. Yeah, that's because their clothes didn't have buttons or fasteners like European clothes. It was practical first, decoration second just like all clothing is.

No, I think there are definitely difference in hand strikes from System to System. A chop in Karate is done differently than a chop in Jujutsu, and within Jujutsu there are different JJ schools that strike differently from eachother. Each school fo MA has different ways of looking at strikes. Most of the strikes we do are to hit you and take your balance at the same time, only to follow up with more strikes or some kind of take down. So striking varies from System to System.

TJS wrote: You couldn't be more wrong. Aikido is not for fighting, it's for defending. Defending means to survive, not to win. If a trained fighter attacked an Aikido Master like Furuya he would find himself on the ground in pain or standing alone with no one to fight. There would be no way for the so called trained fighter to know what he's up against, unless he walked into a school and picked a fight. So basically there would be no fight. Aikido in a sense is a MA for people who don't believe in fighting. Also, depending on what type of trained fighter you are talking about. Aikido Masters are experts with certain Budo weapons and can use objects in much the same way, any object as a weapon efficiently. I wouldn't advise attacking a well trained Aikidoka. Don't be so sure about what you say. Your over confidence can be your downfall. Just some friendly advice from a fellow MA enthusiast.

I think for the most part grappling arts are more realistic. There are grappling arts that have plenty of strikes in it. If I had to recommend a MA that was most practical for almost any situation, I'd say grappling arts are better suited.

Hey that's my joke. LOL!

Depends on what she wants to study. I would say that Martial Arts that focus on real situations would be best for women to learn. A MA that focuses more on using the attackers strength against them and not relying on strength to fight.

In the old days they used to wear that underneath their clothes. I don't know if it was some kind of back support or to keep their back warm. Keeping your back warm leads to less back injuries. I don't know this for a fact. What I do know is that it's some kind of traditional Japanese underwear.

Yeah Goshiman can you believe people are still using that statistic to justify BJJ. BJJ is good, it doesn't need such silliness to sell it. If people like ground fighting and grappling it's damn good, but it's funny when people say that kind of stuff.

85% of all fights end up on the ground. Wow, I give BJJ an A+ for the best MA marketing slogan ever created to sell a MA. I'll fight any BJJ fanatic on the roof of my house.

The problem is when you MMA fanatics are talking about MMA fighters you are referring to these well trained champions, not some guy studying MMA after work or after school. Most people studying MA in general don't do it full time. So saying MMA is better than another TMA or whatever is just silly. If I'm in a fight or being attacked which are different, my goal is to get my self safe. Safe meaning destroying the attacker as fast as possible and doing whatever it takes to get that done, if that means pulling a knife, picking up a bottle, throwing something at the persons face and attacking while they flinch, whatever. Most ring fighters are taught etiquette and rely too much on their strength and speed to save them. This etiquette and over confidence can be their down fall in a real situation. I think Tito is a great fighter and he's a tuff MOFO, but even he knows there is someone out there that can destroy him with ease. Plus what the hell does weight class and etiquette have to do with real world and do any of these Mixed Martial Artists know weapons and defences against weapons? Or are they supposed be able to take a hit by a bat or a lead pipe? If you guys depend on your toughness and strength why do you even train? Just get really fit, take steroids and learn to break rock with your fists. Now winning a fight my be not fighting, striking and evading and getting the hell out of there. Everyone can live in their fantasy world if they like to, but if you people think you are so bad (you not Tito) go into a bar in Compton and make a racist comment to the 300lb bouncer and see what your attitude gets you.

I would say BJJ has more in common with Judo than it does with Real Traditional Jujutsu.

In hand to hand combat and bladed weapons, who had and has the superior fighting skills? Europeans or Japanese?

Yes, Judo and Aikido came from Jujutsu. Definitely. If you find a good Jujutsu school I highly recommend it. Make sure they have lots of striking in it.

I say a good traditional Jujutsu practioner in a real fight would have an advantage. There are throws and take downs without ever going down with your attacker. A grappler does have a better chance of ending on top if he knows how to strike as well. A well rounded fighter will be better off than a grappler.

Don't you guys know that UFC is real. It the most real of realistic fighting ever in the whole wide world. It's the bestest fighting ever. If people think MMA are invincible go into a bar in a really f'd up neighborhood and pick a fight with the meanest mofo you see, then get back to me. Don't make claims about it's effectiveness on the street, that kind of claim can't be tested or proven.

Yes, I won.

I'd rather fake with a kick to the leg or knee at least that will set the person up better for a knock out punch. I still feel boxing is better in the ring or against someone who doesn't know much fighting. Unless the person is pro off course.

Jabbing can also back fire on you, you are also distracted by your own jab. You are jabbing thinking you will distract with jab and throw the right. I don't think it's a good idea. Jabs are for boxing or fighting one on one with someone who going to fight like you. If you jab and the other person moves in own you to grapple you he will snuff your next blow and you're his. Boxing is good against people who don't know anything or in the ring. Your better off throwing something towards their face to distract them.

Yes, I too study Budo Taijutsu. But I am not a Ninja.

What I meant was ducking and moving to the outside simultaneously, so that you end up on the outside of the striking arm. If you are on the inside at least you're close enough to tie them up. Usually if you duck the punch and strike at the same time to the stomach or groin or strike downward to the hip this can only be an advantage, as long as you know how to use it.

Yeah, google has everything.

This move is done with the other persons back to you? If so, forget what I said. I was never taught any fish hooking. Pretty mean stuff.