Japanese vs. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

[username19853]

What exactly is the difference?

I'm assuming Japanese Jiu Jitsu doesn't have as many ground submissions as BJJ. I'm also assuming Japanese Jiu Jitsu has more wrist locks and takedowns in it.

Could depend on where you're training at. Then again, I'm just assuming

[Spartacus Maximus]

Someone more familiar with these systems could provide a more detailed answer. However, what makes BJJ "brazlian" is a distinct focus on newaza or techniques that are done from the ground.

The Japanese jujitsu schools, and there are many, tend to work more from a standing position. This is because historically, being thrown to the ground or pinned meant certain death to an amour-clad samurai.

When JJJ was brought to Brazil by Japanese immigrants, it already contained ground work and the successive generations of Brazilian teachers chose to focus on these ground technique and elaborate them. The result of their work is a new, uniquely Brazilian system.

[tallgeese]

Spartacus is pretty much right on.

In JJJ you'll see stand up striking and an emphasis on standing joint manipulation and takedowns. Actual work on the ground is pretty minimal in many schools.

BJJ is almost entirely on the ground. Yes, some places that still focus on SD will defend from strikes to takedown. More will actually work takedowns more than a month out of tournaments. Most will focus on playing from the ground for the most part.

Now, what you're losing in versatility, your making up with a very high degree of specialization. Is this good or bad? It depends on what you want to do and your situation.

The caveat I always put out there is that BJJ is still pretty tightly controlled in regard to standards of black belts and legitimate linages. JJJ can (please note "can" not always) fall victim to lack of centralized quality control.

[JR 137]

Spartacus is pretty much right on.

In JJJ you'll see stand up striking and an emphasis on standing joint manipulation and takedowns. Actual work on the ground is pretty minimal in many schools.

BJJ is almost entirely on the ground. Yes, some places that still focus on SD will defend from strikes to takedown. More will actually work takedowns more than a month out of tournaments. Most will focus on playing from the ground for the most part.

Now, what you're losing in versatility, your making up with a very high degree of specialization. Is this good or bad? It depends on what you want to do and your situation.

The caveat I always put out there is that BJJ is still pretty tightly controlled in regard to standards of black belts and legitimate linages. JJJ can (please note "can" not always) fall victim to lack of centralized quality control.

I always like your posts, tallgeese.

Do you think BJJ's strong central control/adhered to standards/I'm trying to put a description to it is due to it being new, relatively speaking? I think there's a handful of BJJ schools/organizations out there compared to JJJ, which has been around since the samurai days.

Give BJJ say, 100 years, and there will probably be a lot of splintering. Agree?

Sorry, I'm just trying to pick your brain a little bit here.

[tallgeese]

Spartacus is pretty much right on.

In JJJ you'll see stand up striking and an emphasis on standing joint manipulation and takedowns. Actual work on the ground is pretty minimal in many schools.

BJJ is almost entirely on the ground. Yes, some places that still focus on SD will defend from strikes to takedown. More will actually work takedowns more than a month out of tournaments. Most will focus on playing from the ground for the most part.

Now, what you're losing in versatility, your making up with a very high degree of specialization. Is this good or bad? It depends on what you want to do and your situation.

The caveat I always put out there is that BJJ is still pretty tightly controlled in regard to standards of black belts and legitimate linages. JJJ can (please note "can" not always) fall victim to lack of centralized quality control.

I always like your posts, tallgeese.

Do you think BJJ's strong central control/adhered to standards/I'm trying to put a description to it is due to it being new, relatively speaking? I think there's a handful of BJJ schools/organizations out there compared to JJJ, which has been around since the samurai days.

Give BJJ say, 100 years, and there will probably be a lot of splintering. Agree?

Sorry, I'm just trying to pick your brain a little bit here.

Thank you, JR.

That is a great question. I suppose only time will tell. I think there is certainly an element of time to this equation. I also think that one of the things about BJJ that will keep it more consistent than many arts is the nature of the training methodology.

There is very little "theory" in BJJ. Every technique that gets taught on the mats is put to the test by the student under the duress of BJJ's sparring "rolling."

What makes this slightly different than many arts is that this is done against resistance from the get go. It works for you or it does not. Effects of one's tactics are immediately seen by all parties.

There is no need to simulate what would happen or guess as to what the effects of a certain movement are. You're correctly applying against resistance or not. This is easily observable for anyone in the know.

This isn't a knock on other arts. May Thai is a perfect example of another art that is very easy to spot skill. It's working for you or not. No one in the know can question who's better OR what is or isn't good Muay Thai.

The more theoretical an art becomes, the more is at risk for loss of actual quality application.

BJJ has a leg up on many great sparring arts because you can work at near optimal energy outputs without injury or long term damage. Even Muay Thai can suffer from this. Fight at high level a of output for any length of time, you won't do it long. Same for good karate or any other striking art. In BJJ you can do this all night, night after night of training.

This will always keep a certain level of legitimacy in the art I believe. But, I do agree that some time will effect even this.

For my money, the bigger thing we'll see with time is a drastic splintering of the art into very specific subsets of the greater whole. Competition BJJ will become even MORE specialized and athletic based than it has to date. Positional, SD jiujitsu will become more reclusive and eschew many of the more fun, artistic aspects that competition has brought around.

To date, there has been a great deal of overlap between these aspects. That gap is starting to widen. Personally, I hope it never totally splits because each aspect has a lot to offer the other.

Despite what might happen with specialization, I think the very live aspect of each of these sects will continue to maintain a certain set of performance standards.

I hope.

[JR 137]

Thanks again, tallgeese. You bring up some very good points about effectiveness and training. And I totally agree with striking arts and long term training. My first go-round with karate was a Kyokushin offshoot. It was easy to figure out what worked and what didn't, and where my flaws were through knockdown karate. But that hard style training had its limits in time. When I went to start up again after 15 years away from karate, Kyokushin was on my radar. After I looked around, I didn't persue more because I knew I wouldn't hold up more than a year or two this time around. I'll be 40 in June. I basically had the mentality of been there, done that. No one's getting any younger. Full contact/knockdown is great for a college aged guy, at 40, it's time to stop being a punching bag. There's people out there that do that all their life, but they're the exception, not the rule IMO.

[bushido_man96]

For my money, the bigger thing we'll see with time is a drastic splintering of the art into very specific subsets of the greater whole. Competition BJJ will become even MORE specialized and athletic based than it has to date. Positional, SD jiujitsu will become more reclusive and eschew many of the more fun, artistic aspects that competition has brought around.

To date, there has been a great deal of overlap between these aspects. That gap is starting to widen. Personally, I hope it never totally splits because each aspect has a lot to offer the other.

This happened to Karate and TKD. I don't think it will even take 100 years.

[Drew]

Internal quality control of sparring in BJJ will keep good BJJ clearly seperated from some of the cheese that's already starting to pop up here and there, I think. There are cheesy fake Muay Thai schools popping up now too but you can always tell who is legit.

I've read that in the feudal period Jujutsu schools, along with other martial art schools tended to be patronized by a nearby Daimyo and that was what provided true legitimacy to a school. I reckon if the Daimyo wanted decent fighters he probably didn't let his Samurai train in Ye Olde McDojo. Anyway, at the advent of early modern warfare the Dojo lost their true purpose and so assuming the Dojo still ran at all there wouldn't be that rigorous quality control anymore: you don't have any Samurai that might die if your training sucks.

My point being the competitive aspect of BJJ and Muay Thai are that true purpose. As long as there is competition real martial arts will always be around, even in the midst of all the splintered nonsense.

[DWx]

For my money, the bigger thing we'll see with time is a drastic splintering of the art into very specific subsets of the greater whole. Competition BJJ will become even MORE specialized and athletic based than it has to date. Positional, SD jiujitsu will become more reclusive and eschew many of the more fun, artistic aspects that competition has brought around.

To date, there has been a great deal of overlap between these aspects. That gap is starting to widen. Personally, I hope it never totally splits because each aspect has a lot to offer the other.

This happened to Karate and TKD. I don't think it will even take 100 years.

The difference is though that Karate and certainly TKD didn't start out as one thing in the first place. BJJ you could argue had always belonged to the Gracie's and there haven't been any major fracturing off whereas with TKD you saw it breaking up within the first 10 to 15 years.

[bushido_man96]

For my money, the bigger thing we'll see with time is a drastic splintering of the art into very specific subsets of the greater whole. Competition BJJ will become even MORE specialized and athletic based than it has to date. Positional, SD jiujitsu will become more reclusive and eschew many of the more fun, artistic aspects that competition has brought around.

To date, there has been a great deal of overlap between these aspects. That gap is starting to widen. Personally, I hope it never totally splits because each aspect has a lot to offer the other.

This happened to Karate and TKD. I don't think it will even take 100 years.

The difference is though that Karate and certainly TKD didn't start out as one thing in the first place. BJJ you could argue had always belonged to the Gracie's and there haven't been any major fracturing off whereas with TKD you saw it breaking up within the first 10 to 15 years.

You make a good point, Danielle. Hopefully, the same thing doesn't happen to them. But if their are whispers of it now, its likely only a matter of time.