Japanese Jujutsu Review

Discussion in 'Ju Jitsu' started by pachanga, Oct 20, 2004.

  1. pachanga

    pachanga Valued Member

    Note: The replies can be found in this thread

    Aegis


    Thanks Aegis and Sokklab for the replies.

    Sokklab, as someone with a lot of MA experience I'm interested how you rate the TJF/Aiuchi style as a fighting/self-defence system. I realise you have some doubts about some of the knife techniques you've seen but apart from that?

    Cheers,
    Pach.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2004
  2. SoKKlab

    SoKKlab The Cwtch of Death!

    Well thanks for the compliment Pach. I have to say as a disclaimer, that I am a beginner at Japanese Ju Jitsu, having only been training in it for a year and a bit.

    Saying that I've been training in Thai Arts for um, quite a long while now and have 'been around' Martial Arts for along time, on and off. At present I am not training at an Aiuchi club (Can't get there on the designated days at present) and I am looking around at other Japanese Ju Jitsu clubs, as I wish to continue learning.

    The Aiuchi and TJF way of practice is very technically thorough and I feel that Japanese Ju Jitsu in general is an excellent system of practice and the techniques can be mostly integrated and used by an experienced fighter, or at least someone who is used to a bit of 'roughousing' and/ or exposes themselves to more 'interactive' training methodology.

    The problems that some Japanese Ju Jitsu systems have (not all), is the way they are taught and trained.

    Firstly, there is very little meaningful resistance after a technique has been delivered, Ie You attack I defend and wait there whilst I throw you. It's true that after you've been practising a while you can pull-off alot of Ju Jitsu techniques quickly, so that the delay between delivery and execution is less so, but still, a system where the majority of its training consists of attacks and responses in isolation from meaningful continuation and follow-ups is by and large flawed in it's Training Methods (not the system itself).

    And whilst certainly higher grades within these systems are very technically impressive and excellent at Ju Jitsu, the question remains, can they fight???

    Without meaningful Resistance, techniques become 'ideals', in that in practice you get used to performing something slickly against pre-arranged attacks without the grunt-push-pull of anything approaching a 'Real Situation' (tm), this can be misleading. To me, you need to do both and more besides.

    Secondly there isn't anywhere near enough emphasis placed upon Striking and Kicking, Hitting things with Strikes, avoiding strikes (as in 'sparring'). Striking is way down the list of importance within alot of Japanese Ju Jitsu systems, where often it is just assumed that people know how to punch etc.

    Whilst that's an assumption you can make with a certain amount of confidence in regards to most Ju Jitsu strikes with the elbow (after all you know how to bend your arm right?), there is, obviously alot more to striking than making a fist, this is very rarely dealt with and represents a problem in that, what's the point in knowing alot of techniques, if your means of delivery is flawed? Even if you know how to punch?

    If you are not used to belting things, then how are you going to react when you have to, for real?

    Imagine being a boxer and only throwing punches at a stationary wall-pad and then trying to actually hit somebody without training for it, a real moving target. You find that mostly you can't because, you didn't learn to work against a moving target, you only work against stationary ones, you only work against stationary attacks, you only work in singular isolation, or knowing that the attack is a one two punch etc.

    As a side note, there is way too much emphasis upon achieving Wrist Locks etc, often at the expense of just hammering someone (*See end point). This can lead to way too much emphasis upon finishing someone with finesse and making the syllabus fit the assault (You train as you Fight).

    Whilst Locks, throws etc are all excellent techniques in themself, they should just be something that occur as a 'window of opportunity' and not something to go fishing for. I feel that with the over-emphasis upon Locking and Throwing in alot of Ju Jitsu syllabuses, some people practising are encouraging themselves to go looking for said techniques and not see the easier option that a strike or kick may well represent.

    And as strikes etc in Ju Jitsu are often called 'weakeners' (the term negates them being taken seriously) alot of the time people forget about them all together and become fixated upon 'wrist spaghetti'. Ju Jitsu needs to get back to being a system of equal emphasis.

    Thirdly, Ju Jitsu is a taught as a 'by-rote' system. In that generally for every attack, there is X amount of defensive techniques. This is excellent in terms of having a large syllabus to draw upon as a bonafide Martial Art, but represents a weakness in terms of all the techniques you end up carrying around in order to defend yourself.

    To clarify, this is often the difference between Self-Defence and Martial Arts. For self-defence you need less techniques and more attitude, drive, speed, power etc. You don't need thirty defences against a wrist grab, when one or two will do.

    For alot of Martial Arts you need to have alot of techniques because these build into all the possible variables of technical configurations of the system that you are learning and that is part of the fun, enjoyment and social practice of a Martial System. And that is the really great cool thing about doing Martial Arts, in that 'wow I know all these techniques'.

    *In closing, I say, that the first major strength of Japanese Ju Jitsu, is that it has many excellent pragmatic answers to Habitual Acts of Violence (HAOV), particularly against grabs, holds, pushes, strangles etc.

    Whilst I have outlined what I feel are flaws within the majority of Ju Jitsu training methods, I do feel that with exposure to and adoption of other ways of practising and training, Japanese Ju Jitsu represents a wonderful art based on sound practical principles for defence of ones person.

    This to me, is an issue more to do with 'How you Train' and not 'What you Train in'. As someone with a background in Boxing, Muay Thai etc I can automatically bolt-on alot of JJJ type techniques and make them work in real situations (and have done), but that is only because I am used to working techniques against resistance in 'Live' training, i'm not so confident that some of my fellow Ju Jitsukas could say the same.
     
  3. Aegis

    Aegis River Guardian Admin Supporter

    I thought I'd give this it's own thread. This is a good area for discussion, but it's no longer just about Aiuchi Jujutsu, so feel free to keep chatting here.
     
  4. pachanga

    pachanga Valued Member

    Wow, thanks for the detailed reply. On your comments about training methods and lack of strikies, might Hapkido combine the best of both worlds? I don't know very much about it but from what I've seen online it puts a greater emphasis on strikes than TJF jitsu and at least some schools include free sparring in the syllabus (I don;t know if this i spoints or full contact or what) but also has a lot of simliar throws and locks.

    I did about a year of Jitsu a long time go and I agree with most of your points. On the strikes thing, I remember getting an earful from a senior instructor about not throwing a proper punch when I was playing the role of attacker; you;re not supposed to respond in such situations with much more than an apology but I was sorely tempted to tell him that I'd never been taught how to throw a punch and that it wasn't even on the syllabus. I think his point was as much that I wasn't putting enough oomph into it as anything else but still, it's hard to put commitment behind something you're unsure of. On a tangent, are the Aiuchi gradings as hardcore/miserable experiences as the TJF ones :D ? (I'm exaggerating, but my first one was quite a shock and - possibly spiced up - tales of the higher belt ones sent shivers down my spine).
     
  5. SoKKlab

    SoKKlab The Cwtch of Death!

    Thanks Pach,
    I've trained in some Hapkido and everything I've seen so far, has the same 'problems' as a lot of Japanese Ju Jitsu, in that they train the same way, saying that, i'm eager to point out, that i've obviously not seen all systems of JJJ or Hapkido in practice.

    And yes some Hapkido and JJJ do have sparring etc and that is a start. Some also do padwork etc.

    I filmed the Jikishin Championships in 2002 and they had quite a decent 'semi-contact' (I use the words sparingly) sparring championships going on, that was alot of fun and actually managed to retain a certain amount of JJJ technique in it, it was a bit like the Sanshou competitions, kicking, punching and throws, with a little bit of follow up groundwork. The other thing they had going on was just like Aiuchi/ TJF Groundwork competitions (of which nowhere near enough Groundwork is practiced in most of the JJJ/ Hapkido classes I have seen and/or trained at).

    Relatively realistic sparring is one element, another is padwork, drills, feeds etc. I've not as of yet seen that at any Hapkido or Ju Jitsu class in any meaningful sense yet. Most Padwork is an afterthought.

    Yes, I sat in on a Black Belt grading earlier this year and it was hysterical, broken glass going everywhere and blades being flashed around like a Kung Fu movie.
     
  6. munkiejunkie

    munkiejunkie sanity's requiem

    at our school, we have all out fight where te opponent resists while you try the technique. It is very fun, but also very practical
     
  7. Colin Linz

    Colin Linz Valued Member

    Within Shorinji Kempo we use striking as well as locks and throws. When we practice we view the juho in the same light as goho. With the striking defences and counter attacks it is very important to make a real attack, by this I mean the distance, target, and speed has to be realistic. If this is not achieved the defence will not work well, as it is designed to work within this framework. This is true of juho, the attack must have an intention, not just a static grab. I have trained in some other arts where this is not done, they just hold you. This causes the response to be one of intellect. Is he pushing, or pulling, which technique will I use. If you attack with a proper attack then the body can learn to react from the stimuli that it experiences. This will lead to a natural use of a technique. The problem with this style of learning is that it makes it difficult for new students to pick up the technique, so when first learning the intention of the attack is used more softly, but as feel for the technique is acquired, the intention of attack becomes more intense.

    Striking is a very good method of self defence. It is relatively easy to learn and apply. Where as locks and throws are more difficult to learn, but offer some benefits when considering legal consequences, or when the object is to control rather than damage someone. They also offer the advantage of ending in an immobilisation of the opponent, if done correctly. Striking on the other hand often leaves you in the position of having defended yourself once, and then needing to do it all over again because you haven’t been able to stop them on the first instant.

    We also use non compliant randori as a training, and assessment tool for all Shorinji kempo techniques. Obviously the randori will be limited for lower grades or they will not develop or practice new or unfamiliar techniques.
     
  8. Mekugi

    Mekugi Valued Member

    Howdy!

    Perhaps the intention is to smack you with the other hand? So, the grab is to keep you on the recieving end of the pummeling...does this have a place in juho?

    Incidently, have you dealt with Judo's tewaza, and how do you feel about the intent with those style of "grips"?

     
  9. Colin Linz

    Colin Linz Valued Member

    Yes, many of our defences begin with a grab with one hand and a strike with another. Even in these cases the grab is still not a static one, in general they will be trying to pull you into their attack. With these cases you must protect yourself from the strike as well as being pulled off balance by the grab.

    To be honest I have not heard of judo's tewaza. I may have experianced it by another name. We have a number of defences against Judo style attacks, and a number of the Japanese sensei's, and some of whom I have trained under have come from Judo backgrounds.
     
  10. Mekugi

    Mekugi Valued Member

    Indeed.

    Tewaza are throws like:Seoi nage,Tai otoshi, Kata guruma, etc. Throws that rely on the old rooks.




     
  11. Colin Linz

    Colin Linz Valued Member

    Now I understand. Yes we do practice defences from these, as well as having our own versions of some like kata guruma nage, seoi nage.

    As with all defences they rely on someone actually trying to complete an attack. For example sometimes people just try and grab you, they don’t move, pull or push, just try to lock their wrist. This can make applying a technique difficult, but then again there is no need to do anything. Another problem is when they change attack, this will mean that you can't just keep trying to do the original technique, but move to a more appropriate one. This is something that I mentioned in another thread regarding reality based self defence. There was a statement made that traditional arts fail because they don’t practice against someone resisting their self defence technique. I think this is the wrong way of viewing training. We should be practicing against someone trying to do something to us. If they resist the technique we should just change to a more suitable technique, rather than continuing to try and make the original defence work.
     
  12. Ghost Frog

    Ghost Frog New Member

    I'd agree with most of what you say there, Sokklab, particularly regarding practising strikes and padwork. Obviously, these need to be done regularly if they're going to be of any use as weakeners.

    I would say in mitigation though, that I think some traditional striking styles don't really work hard enough at ensuring that they are delivering effective strikes against an opponent. I've noticed that our club uses pads and bags more than the local karate clubs that I've watched, and that we do almost as much sparring, even though strikes are the core of their art.

    Like you, I think that the responses to grabs and holds are one of it's strengths. I have found these techniques to be the same or very similar in other combat/self-defence (not 'martial art') systems. I would agree that the core of the techniques need to be 'tested' more than they are, but this can be incorporated into lessons once people have got the basics down, and competition can serve towards this in some way.

    Overall, a good way of assessing what an art has taught you is to cross-train in other arts. Although a grappling club may be better at grappling than you, and a judo club better at throwing, you should come away from other clubs feeling that what you've learnt in learnt in your base art has not been a waste of your time.
     

Share This Page