Thread: BJJ = Battlefield Jujutsu?
7/05/2006 1:06pm, #11
Your battlefield jujutsu cannot beat my tank-fu.
7/05/2006 1:07pm, #12
Knee on flack-jacket for the win.
7/05/2006 3:02pm, #13
1) After 2 years of Aikido I could not make a single technique work outside of class
2) After 2 weeks of BJJ I submitted (in a matter of seconds) two of my friends that were 20 lbs and about 50 lbs over my weight.
To quote a xience commercial: I know what works, and who does it.
7/05/2006 3:30pm, #14
Originally Posted by FictionPimp
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Washington State
I try all the time to get women involved in training. Even the girlfriend of the guy who teaches kickboxing and grappling doesn't do the grappling part. I try to get her to spar at least with me. Me and her are cool so i figure she would be more comfotable with me then with the other guys. Some women have tried it out but they are uncomfotable sparring with the guys. Plus, she doesn't help my convincing them to stay away from it. She's told me that it's because it makes her uncomfortable doing it even when she is showing techniques with her boyfriend.
It's a hard thing to overcome but considering when a male is going to try to sexually assault a female he is going to..."take her to the ground". Jiu-Jitsu and Judo(depending on how they are taught mind you) are perfect for those situations. Mainly Jiu-Jistsu and Judo because they teach you the mentallity of fighting from your back where as some of the other grappling arts don't pay enough attention to that aspect of the game. It makes it perfect for teaching to women for self defense.
I did try teaching a female friend a move but she just went, "I can hit you in the nuts or rake your eyes". Too bad most of the women out here are brainwashed into thinking that those will work. They can be affective techniques but not your only ones. What happens if(possibly when) those don't work. What do you have to fall back on then. Anyways, enough of my rant.
To actually answer the post, it's all about resistance. Something that you can do often and effective against someone who is trained means that you can perform that move on someone of equal or lesser skill level to some extent. Translation...if I can choke out and armbar a judo black belt with over 20 years of experience using only a little over a year of grappling experience on my part then I probably can choke out some ahole on the street because I'm better prepared at performing that technique then he is at defending it. You find that out when the new guy/girl comes into the club and you own the hell out of him/her.
One quick thing on the issue of women and grappling, anyone know of a good way of teaching women and making them comfortable with grappling so they take it up. How to explain it to them so they dont' think of it as "sweaty guys rolling on the ground"???
7/05/2006 3:58pm, #15
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Short answer to what could be thesis.
Battlefield JiuJitsu was an incredibly small component of a soldier/samurai's necessary training. Weapons based training involved archery first, then pole arms then shorter weapons such as swords.
The unarmed components of their training were, at the simplist levels, designed for those situations where you were stupid enough to be caught without a weapon or had been disarmed.
At the more strategic level of conditioning and training of either ancient or modern soldiers the unarmed component is taught out of the understanding that developing a soldier who can win on a battlefield, he must be the weapon himself. This philosophy believes that a man can not be effective with longer range weaponry unless he fully believes himself to be the most dangerous component of his arsenal. Thus a modern soldier who carries enough firepower to destroy an ancient samurai army begins and ends with a mental mindset that he is the driving force for that destructive capacity.
The ancient warrior classes all worked to develop this same mindset, western knights wrestled as they grew up, and samurai played versions of randori and both created weapons based randori systems that were less then lethal. Compare that to modern soldiers training with simunition.
In that BJJ and other combat oriented JiuJitsu (Lets not limit ourself to simply the one style here) are focused on mind-set and combat effectiveness, this does immitate this essential building block in the soldier mentality. Hence why modern western combative training for their soldiers incorporates the dirty fighting from WWII as well as the randori based grappling arts to develop the soldier. This is where the similarity to Battlefield JiuJitsu lies."Sifu, I"m niether - I'm a fire dragon so don't **** with me!"
7/05/2006 4:14pm, #16Originally Posted by datdamnmachine
7/05/2006 4:40pm, #17
Originally Posted by UpaLumpa
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Washington State
Learning how to defend yourself on the ground. Or if you have a diverse enough class, sweaty men AND women rolling around.
7/05/2006 4:49pm, #18
Originally Posted by datdamnmachine
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
7/05/2006 6:15pm, #19Originally Posted by Satori
If Brazilian JJ was designed to work outside conventional Olympic guidelines, then it dates only to 1964 - the year of the Tokyo Olympics. True, judo may have been included in an earlier Olympics, but WWII screwed that up.
Of course, judo itself was and is a system that was developed to work outside conventional Olympic Judo, and to work in a no-rules environment. To be fair, most judoka, then and now, emphasis techniques for randori and ignore the kata - this may have likely been true of Maeda. I see little of outside of the randori kata and Gokyo having made it's way to BJJ. (I'll will admit some bias - I've lately been working kata techniques into MMA randori. Kano laid out randori techniques based on the methods of the time, we've advanced since then. If nothing else, we've got good MMA gloves that make it easier to mix in the kata atemi into randori.).
What are Machado's references for this?
Originally Posted by Satori
You've got to go back to the history of judo, and the history of Japan.
There are two main jujutsu influences in judo- Kito Ryu and Tenshin Shinyo Ryu.
Kito ryu was a battle field art - that is, it was developed during (although towards the end) of the warring states period of Japan - the late 1500s, early 1600s. It remains part of judo in some of the throws and in the Koshiki-no-kata.
TSR, on the other hand, arose quite a bit later, when Japan was largely at peace. TSR itself comes largely from one person who was a battlefield soldier, and instead studied medicine; TSR is known for its use of atemi.
TSR was primarily a self-protection art. At the time Kano started his training, is was probably the most widespread style in Japan.
From what I can gather (not being a direct student of TSR), the majority of judo techniques most of us are familar with come from TSR; most likely the majority of techniques adopted by BJJ as well.
You might considering taking the time to compare Nage-no-kata and Katame-no-kata to Kime-no-kata and to Koshiki-no-kata. Nage and Katamae should be fairly familiar to BJJers - they represent the basic throws and grappling holds.
Kime-no-kata should be recognizable - many of the techniques represent the "street" versions of judo techniques, at least for the time (sometimes Kime is referred to as "the forms of real fighting"). Kime is where I get some of my ideas for MMA - though , to be honest, one of my students got penalized in her first MMA match for throwing an illegal elbow, similar to one that's in Kime.
As far as I can gather, these kata are primarily adapted from TSR. Koshiki, on the other hand, is largely unchanged from the Kito Ryu, and to is distinctly different from the others. I can't say I've seen anything from Koshiki in BJJ.
If you want to understand the battlefield roots of judo, I think you've got to look to the Koshiki-no-kata.
7/05/2006 8:01pm, #20
That was awesome, Dakota Judo! Thanks!
Could you elaborate on Koshiki no kata?
My main point was to try and pull knowledgeable grappling historians such as yourself into a counter-argument against the ever so popular, "Our jujutsu techniques were proven over thousands of years on the battlefied, and are thus superior to modern 'sport' jiu-jitsu techniques."
This seems to be the go to excuse for a lot of aikijutsu, JJJ, and Bujinkan guys when confronted with BJJ training methods and accomplishments. They hide behind the "Proven Battlefield Methods", and scoff at modern "Sports Modified Methods"...yet the differences in actual technique shouldn't be radically disimilar.
Also, I apologize for any inaccuracies in my original post. I hardly have the credentials to speak authoritatively on this, and I instead was hoping to simply offer a topic for more experienced historians such as yourself to take the reins and run with it.