[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1045081]Of course some of those pictures look more like the Kama sutra than MA, LOL ![/QUOTE]
and BJJ doesn’t?
dragon
been preaching that around here for awhile… trying telling it to some of the other loonies around here
.
I dont think anyone has argued differently, but when you put down TCMA on a TCMA board and boost up MMA on a non MMA board as the be all and end all of fighting is where your going to get the rebuttles
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1045081]Grappling, older than the hills on grannies chest and twice as dusty !!
Of course some of those pictures look more like the Kama sutra than MA, LOL ![/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing. Is it possible they got the two mixed up.
[QUOTE=Three Harmonies;1045522]The Chinese NEVER developed a comprehensive curriculum on the ground. period. Just because they shared a few common holds, submissions and what not means nothing.[/QUOTE]
No disagreement here. However you leave out one vital fact:
Most styles of jujutsu didn’t develop much of a ground game either. It wasn’t practical. The idea in jujutsu was to throw the opponent in such a way that they were injured or killed when they hit the ground. That gave tori the opportunity to pull his dagger and end uke’s life. Rolling around on the ground fighting was not commonly adopted until the Empire was at peace and jujutsu, like other Japanese arts, became more sport than combat oriented. Eve today, few traditional styles of jujutsu incorporate a ground game.
So it is not unusual that the Chinese arts had the same mentality.
Jujutsu should not be interpreted through BJJ. BJJ is based on Judo, not traditional jujutsu. BJJ has little in common with traditional jujutsu.
CMA should not be judged based on modern sporting ideas. It wasn’t designed for sport, though some arts have chosen to evolve that way.
Also add to the fact that blades were widely used back when. If you live in those times, most likely you will be spending most of your training time to develop skills that address weapons use.
[QUOTE=dirtyrat;1045713]Also add to the fact that blades were widely used back when. If you live in those times, most likely you will be spending most of your training time to develop skills that address weapons use.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely!
I have heard it said in Chinese cirlces that to fight on the ground is comparable to dogs fighting in the dirt.
Richard,
Well… you are slightly correct, and I am in no mood to argue. Brazilian Jiu (notice the spelling) Jitsu is based off of the old school Judo (not currently what you see) which was in fact old school Ju Jitsu.
Agreed, going to the ground deliberately with weapons certainly is not a bright idea. But then again, one should be prepared if such a situation occurs, no!?
The Chinese have never developed a comprehensive ground system because of cultural stigma, bias, and ignorance. I too have heard it preached that rolling on the ground is akin to a dog, something looked down upon in Chinese culture.
Funny thing is…now that money can be made off of BJJ, the Chinese are jumping all over it:rolleyes:
JAB
Certainly no one can argue against the value of learning groundfighting skills (well they can but in the end they’re stupid), but who really knows why the Chinese never develop ground fighting. The subject of violence is a huge one and there are so many different combat skills out there. Perhaps they just decided to focus on what they thought was necessary at the time and excel at that. My Chinese friends seem to be a practical lot in general. Some don’t see why they should learn martial arts (other than for recreational purposes) when you can buy a gun!
[QUOTE=dirtyrat;1045713]Also add to the fact that blades were widely used back when. If you live in those times, most likely you will be spending most of your training time to develop skills that address weapons use.[/QUOTE]
True. It’s my understanding that the various jujutsu skills were originally intended as backup methods for when the samurai lost his weapon or ended up in close quarters with the enemy, and needed a quick method to dispatch him, or get to another weapon. It was not the main focus of a samurai’s training. Also, since samurai wore body armor, most striking/kicking would not have been so effective, but arm bars/breaks, chokes, etc., would have been just as effective if the fight went to the ground against a single enemy.
[QUOTE=mooyingmantis;1045706]
CMA should not be judged based on modern sporting ideas. It wasn’t designed for sport, though some arts have chosen to evolve that way.[/QUOTE]
The sport vs. “combat” argument has been going on for 150 years. Kano developed judo to disprove the fallacy of jujutsu and people have been doing the same since then.
[QUOTE=Three Harmonies;1045767]Richard,
Well… you are slightly correct, and I am in no mood to argue. Brazilian Jiu (notice the spelling) Jitsu is based off of the old school Judo (not currently what you see) which was in fact old school Ju Jitsu.[/QUOTE]
No it wasn’t. Judo was new school jujutsu developed specifically to prove the ineffectiveness of the non-sport model of jujutsu.
[QUOTE=Three Harmonies;1045767]
Agreed, going to the ground deliberately with weapons certainly is not a bright idea. But then again, one should be prepared if such a situation occurs, no!?[/QUOTE]
If you lose your weapon and your opponent has one, your best bet is grappling and groundfighting.
If you lose your weapon and your opponent has one, your best bet is grappling and groundfighting
hell some of the loonies on here probably believe the “chain” punch will get you outta a full mount or something.
[QUOTE=Three Harmonies;1045767]Richard,
Well… you are slightly correct, and I am in no mood to argue. Brazilian Jiu (notice the spelling) Jitsu is based off of the old school Judo (not currently what you see) which was in fact old school Ju Jitsu.
Agreed, going to the ground deliberately with weapons certainly is not a bright idea. But then again, one should be prepared if such a situation occurs, no!?
The Chinese have never developed a comprehensive ground system because of cultural stigma, bias, and ignorance. I too have heard it preached that rolling on the ground is akin to a dog, something looked down upon in Chinese culture.
Funny thing is…now that money can be made off of BJJ, the Chinese are jumping all over it:rolleyes:
JAB[/QUOTE]
Jake,
The spelling Jiu-jutsu does not separate it from Jujutsu. Jiujutsu is simply a French twist on the transliteration.
It is true that Kano Sensei practiced two jujutsu koryu (“ancient schools”). However, Kano changed much of what he learned to develop Judo. Judo was designed to be a sport oriented art that could be incorporated into the public school system. Which it later was.
I am not against learning ground fighting. Remember, I taught jujutsu for decades. Yet, I still believe it is a last choice scenario for self-defense. There is no point in purposely going to the ground if one can get the same job done standing.
I agree that if one is forced to the ground, they better have a ground strategy or at the least know how to disengage and quickly leave the ground. To have no ground training in a time when MMA is so wide spread is foolish. Since one may have to defend them-self against someone trained in this fashion.
TCMA has always been about change and perhaps this will lead to a new step in its maturity.
[QUOTE=mooyingmantis;1045787]Jake,
The spelling Jiu-jutsu does not separate it from Jujutsu. Jiujutsu is simply a French twist on the transliteration.
It is true that Kano Sensei practiced two jujutsu koryu (“ancient schools”). However, Kano changed much of what he learned to develop Judo. Judo was designed to be a sport oriented art that could be incorporated into the public school system. Which it later was.[/QUOTE]
Judo was developed specifically to show that the sport training model was superior to the “combat” training model. A series of challenge matches ensued in which the judo guys pretty much destroyed the jujutsu guys (pretty much the same way the BJJ, MMA and other sport guys have destroyed the “street” guys over the last 20 years).
Only later was judo incorporated into the school curriculum.
[QUOTE=mooyingmantis;1045787]
I am not against learning ground fighting. Remember, I taught jujutsu for decades. Yet, I still believe it is a last choice scenario for self-defense. There is no point in purposely going to the ground if one can get the same job done standing..[/QUOTE]
Of course you want to go to the ground if you have expertise in that area.
So its the focus on randori and the ability to actually use your techs “live” that made judo and its successor arts (bjj) superior? Did the old school Jiujitsu not train in this same way?
scientifically speaking
I believe tim cartmell put it best: practical vs. practice-able.
sport is an opportunity to test a body of techniques vs. a fully combative opponent, thus proving the validity and reliability of said techniques.
many practical techniques are pretty straightforward, but also generally only tested on duty or illegally…which is a small percentage of the population.
So if you are neither military/LE nor getting into street fights, chances are you aren’t getting as many fully committed reps, thus reducing the reliability of ones performance under combative conditions.
M.
PS
What’s to stop a Judoka from kickin’ someone in the nuts in a street fight?
IMO, cognizance.
[QUOTE=KwaiChangCaine;1045880]So its the focus on randori and the ability to actually use your techs “live” that made judo and its successor arts (bjj) superior? Did the old school Jiujitsu not train in this same way?[/QUOTE]
Why would you assume they are superior? Have you ever seen traditional jujutsu? Judo was the “safe” way to practice techniques taken from jujutsu. Again, it was designed for school children. Is flag football superior to NFL football??? :eek: That would be the same logic that you are using here.
Let me give an example of a common judo technique and its jujutsu counterpart:
In judo, tomoenage (circle throw) starts with tori and nage facing each other with gripped lapels:
- Tori breaks uke’s balance,
- Tori places his foot on uke’s lower abdomen,
- Tori drops to his back and tosses uke ass-over-teakettle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOIbQ2cXRHU) over his head and to tori’s rear.
In jujutsu yoroi-kumi-ushi (grappling in armor):
- Tori presses down on uke’s neck,
- Tori advances and places uke’s head under tori’s armpit,
- Tori wraps his arm around uke’s neck and throat as a choke and neck lock,
- Tori falls between uke’s legs landing on his back,
- Tori kicks uke in the groin (while maintaining the neck lock) to throw uke over tori’s head and to tori’s rear,
- If uke’s neck is not damaged in the fall (which is the point of the throw), tori rolls onto his knees and applies the neck lock pressure to suffocate uke.
How would you rather be thrown? The sport method, or the traditional method?
As for how the koryu or traditional jujutsu arts trained, it was on a ryu by ryu basis. Some used only forms, some fought within the school, others stormed other dojos.