Traditional JJJ And MMA

[Liver Punch]

Hmm...where to begin? Ok - from a sport point of view, I have no desire to be taken down. I'm not happy on my back, I'm not overly excited to get in a scramble, so if I can stuff the takedown and keep things on their feet, that's what I'd prefer.

From a street point of view, this goes double. Things are a lot more dangerous on the pavement than they are on padding with a referee involved and whatnot. However, as to what happens when JJJ meets BJJ in a street fight from a stylistic point of view, there's a lot involved.

Plenty of modern BJJ practitioners are sport/tournament guys who are looking to score as many points as possible. On the other hand, JJJ led to the whole Judo thing, and I'm not entirely convinced it's the most useful art in a dark alley.

So, what are our individual martial artists learning and from whom? Is one learning a pure 17th century form of Japanese Jiu Jitsu? Or are they learning something closer to Judo? Or better yet: did the Jiu Jitsu practitioner's teacher train in Karate, Kali, Boxing, Wrestling, or another art in his lifetime? Is are other practitioner learning sport BJJ so he can win a grappling tournament? Or is he learning to grapple on the street against multiple opponents and with weapons?

I think the winner is simply the individual who has received the most modern and evolved training. If you're learning pure and original JJJ, you can't be receiving gun training. And likewise, if you're learning BJJ that's overly focused on the ground game and features a whole lot of guard pulls and lacks any sort of credibility on the feet...that's a problem.

I applaud you for training to not be taken down. That's a good thing - and a lot of traditional martial artists ignore that possibility. But, if we're talking about pure JJJ, then training to avoid a greco takedown or catch-style single or double leg takedown isn't a huge possibility.

To conclude: If your style of JJJ involves striking, weapons, multiple attackers, ground fighting, street style situational awareness, and avoiding all sorts of takedowns...you've evolved and your form of "JJJ" is probably superior to pure BJJ. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it fits the bill of a hundred year old Japanese art.

Also, on a side note, if there's any training challenges being laid down in the Chicago metro area, I'd love to do some cross training with someone with a record as accomplished as one with over 100 wins. Training offer accepted.

[brickshooter]

Seems to me that JJJ is sort of like MMA without the heavy sparing. But then any two training partners could agree to do heavy sparing. There's no rule against that. IMO, the weakness in JJJ is that it seems to lack a foundation whether it's striking, throwing or mattwork.

Whether BJJ can take the JJJ guy down will likely depend on how much the BJJ guy personally trains in take downs, and how much the JJJ guy trains in takedown defense. But let's just say that wrestlers don't think much of BJJ takedowns. And in most MMA gyms, wrestling take downs are the standard. And as far as I know, some BJJ schoold have adopted wrestling takedowns. Others have added more judo throws to daily training. And still others stuck to the original BJJ takedowns. There's a lot of variation depending on the school and organization.

[MMA_Jim]

Also, on a side note, if there's any training challenges being laid down in the Chicago metro area, I'd love to do some cross training with someone with a record as accomplished as one with over 100 wins. Training offer accepted.

Yeah, right? Except "If you doubt my training, come and train with me firsthand" becomes "I cant let anyone know who I am because they'll hack my account."

The only two people in the world documented as having over 100 professional wins are Dan Severn and Travis Fulton. Traditional Ju Jitsu does have tournaments which resemble MMA somewhat, but with more rules and restrictions. Im willing to bet thats where his "MMA record" comes from.

[tsd1592]

I would like to address a few things. First off i have no training in jjj or bjj. Only in tang soo do. First off we do a lot of 2 on 1 and 3 on 1 sparring so i truly know what it means to fight more than one opponent at a time. Now we have had guys with bjj training come in and work with us and they had no problem adjusting to sparring more than one opponent weather it be on there feet or on the ground. don't think because of mma and ufc that bjj guys are not traing for multiple opponents. Bjj is a complete art they do a lot more than train for mma at least in my exp with what i have seen. Now with that beang said it drives me nuts when bjj guys dog on jjj first off in ufc and sporting comp there are no small join locks for risk of injury which is how it should be. but dont think because bjj guys do well in mma that jjj cant handle them self's that's well thay wont let me put what that is. because they don't go into a sporting event that is designed to hinder there art y should they compete when over half of there techniques are illegal. Now with that bean said i am not saying a jjj guy will whoop a bjj guy it depends on the person and the training and there dedication to the art. as for 100 win wow big deal dan severn well we see what he has become lol. Now i dont doubt your training or your rep i don't know you but you are not short on ego lol and i am no wear near Chicago but i am sure there all holes in wall all over with students who would love to give you a chance to show first hand your accomplishments lol as for that if you are ever in ca you stop by grandmaster clingans tsd assos we love challenges and always have a open door to anyone with something to share. But leave your ego at the door come in willing to learn and we will do the same. too many people want to prove how tough they are and the arts suffer for it. Its not about what the art can do for us but we can do for it. To many time the practitioners of and art give it a bad name. we take it for healt self defince and a way of life not to see who the best ufc fighter is or what art is the best. Dont you think if one art was better than the other all martial arts would be universal there not for a reason because you have to find one that suites you.

[tsd1592]

by the way i am not saying mma jim is saying bjj is better because he clearly is not if you read all his post. I actully agree with some points he has made such as if you think you cant be taken down he doubts your training i would agree with this. i have had one mma fight i only trained stand up because i thought it would be enough to keep me on my feet lol i was wrong my friends and my instructor told me i needed to put it off until i had more ground training i didn't listin i wanted to prove how they were wrong. needless to say i lost i got took down put on my back and pounded until the reff stopped it. now with that bean said would i change my art no i would not. do i focus on ground work yes i do as much as i can. because i believe bjj will help if i pursue mma. now do i think bjj will help me on the street yes i do but not as much as a karate or a traditional jjj and i only believe this because the bjj schools near me only focas on sport bjj and maa the jjj school focuses on self defince and i know this is not the basis of they s 2 arts just how thay are represented near me.

[sojobo]

Wasn't JJJ where it all came from?

Find the right JJJ School and perhaps BJJ can be put into perspective.

It’s a bit like comparing a dentist with a physician.

Sojobo

[ps1]

Wasn't JJJ where it all came from?

Find the right JJJ School and perhaps BJJ can be put into perspective.

It’s a bit like comparing a dentist with a physician.

Sojobo

Yes and no. BJJ actually came from Kano Jiu-Jitsu, which later became known as Judo. Of course, Judo has its roots in more classical jiu-jitsu systems. Kano, however, is the one who added randori as a necessary part of training, removed the "dangerous" techniques and weapon work, and even created a few new throws. His goal was to make it possible to practice the entire curriculum with a low likelihood of injury. So, he actually changed the material quite a bit.

I'm not sure BJJ stylists need perspective. Most understand exactly where the art was derived and what it's original intentions were. However, the use of many of the classical elements are of little or no interest to many BJJ practitioners. They don't want to learn about things like how armor was worn and where weaknesses were. They have no use for learning spear and sword. Heck, for that matter, many BJJ stylists aren't even interested in self defense; they are happy to practice it just as a sport. That's not my particular view, but it's true none the less.

Further, to say that BJJ is just a sub-faction (as your analogy clearly suggests) of JJJ is not incredibly accurate. The differences are astounding. In the United States, our military used to include the Army, and the Navy. Part of the Army was the Army Air Corp. During and after World War II, the Air Corp became what we now call The United States Air Force. While it was originally part of the Army, it has now grown to something far more and is an entity in and of itself. It has it's own missions, rank structure and doctrine. So it is with the relationship between BJJ and JJJ. They are similar only so far as they are both martial arts that contain some level of grappling; at best they are distant cousins. So, respectfully, to compare them as dentist to physician is not only inaccurate, but a bit insulting.

[sojobo]

Yes and no. BJJ actually came from Kano Jiu-Jitsu, which later became known as Judo. Of course, Judo has its roots in more classical jiu-jitsu systems. Kano, however, is the one who added randori as a necessary part of training, removed the "dangerous" techniques and weapon work, and even created a few new throws. His goal was to make it possible to practice the entire curriculum with a low likelihood of injury. So, he actually changed the material quite a bit.

As I understand it, most of the core techniques in Judo came from Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and/or Kito-ryu. Kano sensei was well studied in both of these Koryu and it was from these that 99% of all of the core techniques of Judo came from. Also don't underestimate the influence of Sumo in the equation.

I'm not sure BJJ stylists need perspective. Most understand exactly where the art was derived and what it's original intentions were. However, the use of many of the classical elements are of little or no interest to many BJJ practitioners. They don't want to learn about things like how armor was worn and where weaknesses were. They have no use for learning spear and sword. Heck, for that matter, many BJJ stylists aren't even interested in self defense; they are happy to practice it just as a sport. That's not my particular view, but it's true none the less.

In most Koryu, "Jujutsu" refers to the unarmed section of the syllabus - so there is no weapon work per-se. That said, because the principles run through all sections of the syllabus - it would be wrong to study a section remotely.

Further, to say that BJJ is just a sub-faction (as your analogy clearly suggests) of JJJ is not incredibly accurate. The differences are astounding. In the United States, our military used to include the Army, and the Navy. Part of the Army was the Army Air Corp. During and after World War II, the Air Corp became what we now call The United States Air Force. While it was originally part of the Army, it has now grown to something far more and is an entity in and of itself. It has it's own missions, rank structure and doctrine. So it is with the relationship between BJJ and JJJ. They are similar only so far as they are both martial arts that contain some level of grappling; at best they are distant cousins. So, respectfully, to compare them as dentist to physician is not only inaccurate, but a bit insulting.

It was not my intension to be insulting.

Just as the air force is specialist in their type of warfare, dentists are specialist at what they do - there is no disrespect intended, but the key is in what I mentioned earlier:-

Originally, Jujutsu was taught as part of a whole unit in the Koryu Bujutsu schools of Japan.

The core methods/techniques and principles of movement remained constant whether you had an uchigatana in your hands, a Kodachi, both or neither. Whether you were doing standing exchanges nage-waza or ne-waza.

So when I mentioned perspective - that is what I meant, and although BJJ as a sport has paved the way for a new level of technical ability and Skill, chances are you would find many of the techniques the BJJ guys do today buried deep in scrolls of schools like Tenshin Shinyo-ryu, Takenouchiryu and Kito-ryu etc.

Sojobo

[tallgeese]

I disagree.

The roots of it are of more import, as ps1 eluded, to people outside BJJ than inside. The radical evolution that occured in BJJ after it's formation under Carlos and Helio took it in an entirly different direction.

Further, the evolution didn't stop with them, current cutting edge stuff wasn't heard of back then. It doesnt' make one version better than the other, it just goes to show the evolution that occured over the years of specilization.

Now try and trace that back to some scrolls left over from a century and a half back. Doubtful they look the same. I can't imagine X guard was really a valid choice for battlefield combantants.

Sure, we can talk about fundimentals and hip control and trace similarities based on the fact we all share physiology and biomechanics but that does not make tactics the same.

[ps1]

As I understand it, most of the core techniques in Judo came from Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and/or Kito-ryu. Kano sensei was well studied in both of these Koryu and it was from these that 99% of all of the core techniques of Judo came from. Also don't underestimate the influence of Sumo in the equation.

He did study classical ryu. However, he is still credited for coming up with many of the techniques of Judo. 99% would be an exaggerated figure. You can learn more about it in the many articles at https://www.judoinfo.com

In most Koryu, "Jujutsu" refers to the unarmed section of the syllabus - so there is no weapon work per-se. That said, because the principles run through all sections of the syllabus - it would be wrong to study a section remotely.

What you say is only true if someone wants to train in a classical system. I can't study BJJ and then claim to be an expert in a koryu, and BJJ stylists don’t do this. I have, however, seen the opposite happen quite frequently, but that's dishonesty and a topic for a different thread.

It was not my intension to be insulting.

Intention has little to do with effect.

Just as the air force is specialist in their type of warfare, dentists are specialist at what they do

Your analogy clearly put dentists as nothing more than a subfaction of physicians... The airforce is not a subfaction of the Army, rather a military faction in and of itself. They don’t just specialize in air combat. They have ground operators as well. It found it's origin in the Army, but grew to something every bit as useful on it's own. BJJ is the same. It grew from Judo. It has since grown into a complete art of its own, with doctrine and strategies of its own.

Originally, Jujutsu was taught as part of a whole unit in the Koryu Bujutsu schools of Japan.

The core methods/techniques and principles of movement remained constant whether you had an uchigatana in your hands, a Kodachi, both or neither. Whether you were doing standing exchanges nage-waza or ne-waza.

This is both correct and incorrect. The footwork, hip movement, and other gross movements remained rather constant. However, much was not. That is to say, the sword was not handled in the same manner as the spear. While the targets were similar, gripping and tactics were forced to change due to blades or being mounted on horseback. The two most widely used weapons in Japan's history, despite popular belief, were the bow & arrow and the spear. Do you honestly believe the weapons were employed in the same manner? Again, this is a conversation for another thread however.

So when I mentioned perspective - that is what I meant, and although BJJ as a sport has paved the way for a new level of technical ability and Skill, chances are you would find many of the techniques the BJJ guys do today buried deep in scrolls of schools like Tenshin Shinyo-ryu, Takenouchiryu and Kito-ryu etc.

We won't get into the "scrolls" thing. Especially since there is little evidence they exist in that manner. The ancient Koryu specialized in real combat. Having been in the military myself, I can attest to the fact you don't have much time for learning hand to hand combat. On top of that, it isn't that useful. It is, and has always been a last resort. As such, it is the thing you practice the least. So it's very unlikely that a people whose battles were spent primarily using archery, horsemanship, and swords had a great deal of time to practice empty handed grappling. While they certainly knew how to perform joint manipulations and chokes, the finer details of how to transition smoothly from one position to another more than once or twice would have been quite useless to them. It's more likely they learned a few takedowns, locks, and holds that would put them in a position for a killing stab or cut very quickly.

So, again, when you say that BJJ stylists "need" to put things into perspective, my opinion is you are quite incorrect. I think you'd find that most skilled BJJ stylists know the history of their style and its origins. They can tell you about Mitsuyo Maeda, Jigoro Kano, Judo, the Fusen Ryu (from which Judo got much of it's newaza). Having trained in Diato Ryu Aiki Jujitsu, Kwanmukan Jujitsu, and with the Seishinkan under John Viol Shihan (http://www.seishinkan.com/martial_members_area/john_viol_daishihan_menkyokaiden.htm), I have seen few parallels between them and BJJ other than the basic aesthetics of the techniques. The methods of attaining joint locks and pins in more traditional systems are far different. As I stated earlier, understanding the basic mechanics of the moves helped me with BJJ, but the joint manipulations and chokes are the endgame of the art, not the art itself. BJJ is far more about transitional fluidity toward positional dominance than the chokes and joint locks.

I have a lot of trouble understanding your point. Pointing out the history of the styles and saying to “put it in perspective” has no bearing on the topic at hand. The OP stated disgust with the view that many “mma” and BJJ people have about JJJ; most specifically in takedown ability. Honestly, I’ve only seen a handful of such arguments. BJJ is certainly not known for amazing takedowns as a whole and MMA is a sport (some of its players haven’t ever taken anyone down and prefer to keep it on the feet to kickbox). So, I’m not sure how ancient wartime training has a lot to do with the topic at hand. Interesting to debate? Maybe. Relevant? IMO not really.