Japanese vs. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

[IcemanSK]

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.

My understanding about why BJJ is that way (from you bold) is because Helio Gracie was small man he found more success on the ground than standing with his mostly bigger classmates & family members. Am I correct that he developed BJJ from his strengths on the ground? Help me understand those origins.

[MAfreak]

i didn't read the whole thread so maybe its already said:

jjj is quasi a hybrid martial art. there is all kinds of strikes and then there are takedowns/throws and grappling and in some styles also weapons.

then there were taken the throws and some ground fighting out of jjj and judo was made out of it, with even more throwing variations.

then there was taken the ground techniques out of judo and bjj was made out of it, with even more ground techniques.

[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.

My understanding about why BJJ is that way (from you bold) is because Helio Gracie was small man he found more success on the ground than standing with his mostly bigger classmates & family members. Am I correct that he developed BJJ from his strengths on the ground? Help me understand those origins.

That is the generally accepted version of the origins. There's controversy over the details but generally speaking, yes, that's it. As BJJ has progressed and speciliaized it's really focused on the ground and the ruleset of current competitive jiu jitsu has really reinforced this.

Prof. Henry Akins has a really great quote that we're ground fighters, but in many cases we don't know how to get the fight to the ground in an advantageous position. It's something that all BJJ players need to remember, even if (like me) takedowns aren't your thing.

[IcemanSK]

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.

My understanding about why BJJ is that way (from you bold) is because Helio Gracie was small man he found more success on the ground than standing with his mostly bigger classmates & family members. Am I correct that he developed BJJ from his strengths on the ground? Help me understand those origins.

That is the generally accepted version of the origins. There's controversy over the details but generally speaking, yes, that's it. As BJJ has progressed and speciliaized it's really focused on the ground and the ruleset of current competitive jiu jitsu has really reinforced this.

Prof. Henry Akins has a really great quote that we're ground fighters, but in many cases we don't know how to get the fight to the ground in an advantageous position. It's something that all BJJ players need to remember, even if (like me) takedowns aren't your thing.

Thank you for this. I appreciate you deepening my understanding.

As a striker, I have very little understanding (but a huge appreciation) for grappling.

[el-peligroso]

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

I have a black belt in Japanese Jiu-jitsu.

The main difference between JJJ and BJJ is that JJJ only works on people that don't know anything.

[ninjanurse]

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.

Yes, and any good JJJ school should be teaching ground work-its all in there!

[el-peligroso]

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.

Yes, and any good JJJ school should be teaching ground work-its all in there!

Yes, however all the groundwork in JJJ schools is very dated and wouldn't work against someone who is proficient in BJJ.

[Kusotare]

Yes, however all the groundwork in JJJ schools is very dated and wouldn't work against someone who is proficient in BJJ.

That's a rather broad sweeping generalisation.

There is Japanese jujutsu and there is Japanese jujutsu.

Most of the stuff I see displayed under the banner of JJJ is no more than poorly practiced Judo.

If however you are fortunate enough to be exposed to some of the koryu systems - you might revise your thinking.

Some of the ground work found in Araki-ryu for example is devastatingly effective. It's sole purpose is to arrest or seriously maim / kill someone.

In many systems (Takenuchi-ryu, Araki-ryu and Sosuishi-ryu) hand to hand Jujutsu is practiced but the core of their grappling is done so using a 'sho-to' or short blade (this sort of grappling is referred to as Kogusoku).

K.

[TJ-Jitsu]

Yes, however all the groundwork in JJJ schools is very dated and wouldn't work against someone who is proficient in BJJ.

That's a rather broad sweeping generalisation.

There is Japanese jujutsu and there is Japanese jujutsu.

Most of the stuff I see displayed under the banner of JJJ is no more than poorly practiced Judo.

If however you are fortunate enough to be exposed to some of the koryu systems - you might revise your thinking.

Some of the ground work found in Araki-ryu for example is devastatingly effective. It's sole purpose is to arrest or seriously maim / kill someone.

In many systems (Takenuchi-ryu, Araki-ryu and Sosuishi-ryu) hand to hand Jujutsu is practiced but the core of their grappling is done so using a 'sho-to' or short blade (this sort of grappling is referred to as Kogusoku).

K.

It may be a broad generalization but it's also an accurate one. I've been exposed to a few jjj systems and all have been less than impressive with underwhelming instructors. Most of the problem lies in their lack of live rolling and full contact. In my experience a blue belt in bjj tends to submit a jjj

Black belt several times in a single training session. There may be exceptions. It they're far from the rule

In regards to "deadly" techniques that's a bogus argument as well- all techniques are deadly if followed through on. A choke hold is about as deadly as they come- and ironically as safe as they come too. It's just a question of time. It'd be less appropriate to label jjj techniques as deadly and more appropriately to label them as "exotic"

[el-peligroso]

Yes, however all the groundwork in JJJ schools is very dated and wouldn't work against someone who is proficient in BJJ.

That's a rather broad sweeping generalisation.

There is Japanese jujutsu and there is Japanese jujutsu.

Most of the stuff I see displayed under the banner of JJJ is no more than poorly practiced Judo.

If however you are fortunate enough to be exposed to some of the koryu systems - you might revise your thinking.

Some of the ground work found in Araki-ryu for example is devastatingly effective. It's sole purpose is to arrest or seriously maim / kill someone.

In many systems (Takenuchi-ryu, Araki-ryu and Sosuishi-ryu) hand to hand Jujutsu is practiced but the core of their grappling is done so using a 'sho-to' or short blade (this sort of grappling is referred to as Kogusoku).

K.

It may be a broad generalization but it's also an accurate one. I've been exposed to a few jjj systems and all have been less than impressive with underwhelming instructors. Most of the problem lies in their lack of live rolling and full contact. In my experience a blue belt in bjj tends to submit a jjj

Black belt several times in a single training session. There may be exceptions. It they're far from the rule

In regards to "deadly" techniques that's a bogus argument as well- all techniques are deadly if followed through on. A choke hold is about as deadly as they come- and ironically as safe as they come too. It's just a question of time. It'd be less appropriate to label jjj techniques as deadly and more appropriately to label them as "exotic"

Couldn't have said it better myself.