Difference between jiu jitsu and BJJ?

[RW]

BJJ does not get so much media buzz. Nor do MMA fighters outside japan use it that much...

What are their main differences?

[Kempohands]

From what I can gather, BJJ is one small piece of the much greater whole that is traditional Japanese jiu-jitsu. JJJ has all of the grappling and ground work that you will find in BJJ, but also has many stand-up techniques, dynamic throws, strikes, standing grappling, locks, take-downs, and small joint manipulation. I'm not sure how it happened, but the originator(s) of BJJ learned some JJJ and really honed their skills in one particular sphere of it, and then taught that set of skills. This could be one reason why it as the name "Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu" and not somehting else, because it is not really its own new style, but a small piece of an already existing style.

Again, I'm not sure as to how accurate that all is, so I look forward to reading further elaboration and specified explanation.

[bushido_man96]

BJJ actually has more in common with Judo than JJJ, especially in its training methodology (randori-friendly). Maeda brought Judo to the Gracie family, but referred to it as Jujitsu because his instructor, Kano, was very much against the idea of challenge matches and the like. So as not to anger or offend Kano, Maeda referred to it as Jujitsu, and then the Gracies learned it, emphasized the grappling as opposed to the throwing, refined it, and then the challenge matches came, etc, the rest is history.

So, rather than being "one small piece," I actually see it as a specialization in an area that came out of JJJ. Judo, specialized in the throwing aspect, and BJJ, in the grappling aspect.

Originally, Aiki-Jujitsu was the unarmed system used by the Samurai class. It was never a point of focus, really, as it was a fall back should the weapons be lost or bound, etc. So, a Samurai, on average, would have spent more time in honing sword and other weapon skills, and less time on Aiki-JJ. The arm bars and what not were likely still there, and some things probably changed over time, especially after the sword was no longer a point of concern.

[MMA_Jim]

One cant really compare JJJ with BJJ. As was said, BJJ has more in common with Judo than with ju jitsu.

BJJ trains live randori, much like judo, which JJJ does not have, or has very seldomly. BJJ has exceptionally improved upon the unarmed combat aspect of JJJ. Techniques arent new, but how well the people who teach them know the techniques is always the decided factor. To compare the unarmed fighting aspect of JJJ to BJJ (I've trained with many JJJ black belts) a JJJ black belt is somewhere around the level of a tough white belt in BJJ. This is not meant as an insult to JJJ, but simply a testement as to how much more BJJ furthered things.

JJJ has many other things involved in it, such as sword drawing, knife throwing, and other aspects not involved with unarmed modern day combat, but very much so involved with samurai type warfare. Also, many of the strikes of JJJ were designed with the idea in mind that both the person delivering the strikes and the person recieving were armored and this greatly affected body movements and targets of attack which may otherwise seem very odd and unneccessary for modern day fighting.

[daihlo]

lots of historical differances that Im sure you can find pretty easy using wiki or google!

Main difference I know of though is the amount of guys Ive met who come from traditional japanese Jiu Jitsu backgrounds and are highly graded, even black belts - when they train with BJJ guys who are even good white belts, the BJJ guys will be all over them on the ground. No comparison.

Ive not trained 'JJJ' so cant give credit to its strengths, maybe someone with experience can. 'BJJ' however is by far more dominent on the ground.

That to me is the main difference!

[ps1]

BJJ does not get so much media buzz. Nor do MMA fighters outside japan use it that much...

What are their main differences?

It sounds like you're saying that BJJ isn't used by MMA fighters? While not all MMA fighters use it regularly, almost all study BJJ in order to learn how to avoid the submissions.

In JJJ you learn alot of weapons (sword, staff, spear and others). Additionally, it teaches and focuses on small joint manipulation (fingers and wrist locks). In BJJ you do not learn any weapons and wrist locks are not a point of major focus (they are in the system). JJJ is designed to supplement a fighter wielding a weapon while BJJ is entirely an empty handed art.

What I mean is that in JJJ an opponent may be grabbing your wrist to prevent you from drawing your weapon. You would use a release technique in order to allow for completing your cut or you would manipulate his wrist to facilitate a thrust with your dagger.

Don't get me wrong, JJJ certainly teaches things like armbars and ground control, but they are not the focus of the art.

BJJ focuses on using the ground and gaining leverage to place yourself in a dominant position and incapacitate your opponent.

Is that helpful?

[Dark Planet]

A bit more to bushido man's post above.

Sensei Kano 's Judo was originally called "Kano's Jujitsu" in Japan. Judo didn't come into public eye until a bit after its development.

Specifically too BJJ, Sensei Oda, who emphasized a 50-50 over Sensei Kano's 25-75 ground-throw split focus, noted that many of the defenses in the Gracies' work no longer existed in Japan. Which is not surprising since most of the Jujitsu Ryu quickly went downhill in the epoch of the Mejii Restoration due to loss of favor with the public (no students = no school).

Peace to you.

-Christopher

[BreathingHands]

If you want to be a grappler, take BJJ.

If you want to work standup (throws) and grappling, do judo.

JJJ is a mixed bag. Some are ultra traditional and are almost more like aikido schools as the emphasis is on small joint manipulation.

However there are some JJJ schools that are phenomenal and truly bring a mixed martial arts vibe to the table. The school I go to - San Yama Bushi - is the most effective self defense system I have ever seen. They teach strikes, kicks, a ton of throws, joint locks and they interweave judo grappling in as well.

Plus the school has judo classes as well so you can get your live training - randori - that most JJJ schools lack.

[Mistassailant5]

The difference is that BJJ is almost all groundwork and eliminated I think pretty much all of the throws for some reason. Japanese Jujitsu is a combination of some throws which are devastating, but more groundwork because this art goes back to the 9th century with the samurai so traditional jujitsu incorporates moves that would be devastating to those in armor, or in these days heavier set people.

[Davisonsensei]

Ok, Im going to try to explain this as not to offend anyone. BJJ was taught to helio Gracie by a judoka. (cant remember name) This happened in the early 60's. The main focus of the samurai hand to hand was Daito Ryu Akijutsu which was Tekada Sokaku's system. Samurai learned these techniques they had to b able to use on the enemy and had to b affective and semi simplistic because of the armor issue. In my system, ryuho okuyama, the founder and ueashiba the founder of Aikido Studied under Tekada. At that time there was only four lisences, not belts. After training for many yrs, the two left and founded their own systems. Both r very spiritual styles. BJJ is more sporty and athletic, TJJJ is still strong in a defensive manor. Now im not saying MMA isnt, but a live fight on the street, and the fight goes to the ground, be ready to get stabbed or stomped on by the guys friends.