History of the BJJ Belt system.

I honestly don't think use mount as mount. It's more knee on belly. You see that stuff pretty clearly in certain judo armlocks that are hard to pull off.

Agree with you though Chris. Once you understand anatomy And pressure then you can adapt it for the ground.

Judo groundwork development was slow. Watch vids of older mifune and you can see that. It's something your average bjj could counter.

Interesting the vids have de la Riva as well as a number of leglocks from thos positions.

Judo took some crazy time to evolve for sure

 

Srsly mate. I doubt anyone knows except tanabe.
FUSEN probably had well developed newaza comparitively and got dveloped by tanabe, techniques merged by Kano and then developed by lots of randori.

 

Then you're missing what the make-up of a school really is. Once more, Fusen Ryu has about a dozen kata, and none of them involve newaza. And no, just because Tanabe was using newaza doesn't necessarily mean the other guys were too. From the accounts, it was more that they would apply a lock, or a choke, and he would end up below them, probably pulling them down to the ground, and finishing them there. And when they tried to get up, he could keep them down. Now, is that them using newaza, or is that them trying to escape the ground?

In it's modern guise, as seen there, yeah, quite possibly. Most other systems simply wouldn't have a position like that... instead, it'd be a half-kneel, mainly to allow you to get up quickly should you need to, or to allow for you to stand if wearing armour (the mount really doesn't work in that context).

And while I think that's a great book, and a great find to have it online like that, it doesn't seem to be any particular Ryu-ha... so my question still stands on any classical system that uses it.

 

(Sigh...) No, Fusen Ryu did not have well developed newaza compared to anything. It didn't have any newaza at all. Newaza as Tanabe taught was his own personal kick and not a part of Fusen Ryu's methods.

 

Here's where we disagree. But I'm off to train with the author of the book that gave me this perspective, so online chats will have to wait

 

Have fun at training... but seriously, Matt, unless you are training in Fusen Ryu, or have friends training in it who can provide evidence that shows that Fusen Ryu has newaza, you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't mean that Fusen Ryu had newaza. It's really not a matter of opinion, any more than one person saying that Koto Ryu contains kata from Kukishinden Ryu, and the other saying that it doesn't. It's simply the facts: Fusen Ryu does not contain newaza.

 

Fusen Ryu is still extant in Japan, there were some posts on ebudo by a member of the ryu a few years ago detailing what was in and what wasnt in tge school and its newaza training methods. IIRC No newaza in the kata, but it was informally taught in randori drills which were done every class.

Ill try to find the thread.

 

Xx

 

In terms of context Fusen ryu wasnt a battlefield system, so using non battlefield tactics would be fine.

 

Do you disagree that the 'Grandmaster' of Fusen Ryu, along with some of his students competed against Kodokan Judoka, were victorious and were later asked to teach Newaza to the Judoka?

Do you disagree that the Newaza that we know today in Judo came from that instruction (at least in the sense that it was a part of the lineage, as it is hard to quantify the amount of impact it may have had, other than it changed the entire game of Judo to a ground game until Kano changed the points system in 1925..)

Do you disagree that the roots of BJJ are Judo from Maeda, a Kodokan student?

 

I am only fighting for this one because of 2 reasons.

I just trained with the author of the book I referred to earlier and he is a fantastic teacher, and very well educated.

I don't want Fusen to have to change his name.

 

from Judoforum.com oct 21 2004

''My POV is pretty much on track with yours. There is NO connection between BJJ and traditional Japanese JJ, be it Fusen-ryu or others, except through judo.

As far as the Tanabe/Fusen-ryu thing, we don't know enough to come to any conclusions. I think the problem with Danaher's Mastering Jujitsu, for example, is that it draws its conclusions too strongly based on too little evidence and conjecture.

We know that Tanabe was a headmaster of the Fusen-ryu. We know that Tanabe fought challenge matches with Kodokan representatives, and won on the ground. We know he apparently went straight to the ground, ensuring that the fight would be there. We know that Kodokan in those days was not known for newaza.

We know that Kano enlisted Tanabe to help with the Kodokan's newaza after these matches. Supporting this is that Tanabe appears in Yokoyama's Judo Kyohan demonstrating only in the newaza pictures, so he clearly was in the good graces of Kano and the Kodokan by then.


We also know that the famous Yukio Tani as well as Taro Miyake studied Fusen-ryu. This was prior to Tani's joining the Kodokan. We know that Tani at least was also known for his ground work - lending credence to the Fusen-ryu/newaza connection, but then again his connection with Fusen-ryu appears to have been linked with the Tanabe line.

We know that standard Fusen-ryu as passed down today contains nothing like judo newaza in it. It really does more suwari waza (kneeling/seated techniques) and contains some oral teachings regarding how some of those moves can be done in newaza. I have been told that they do practice newaza stuff when training, but that it looks like MMA/judo style newaza when they do it, not by and large the kata.

So, and here we delve into conjecture on our parts - why did Tanabe's version of Fusen -ryu contain this newaza element? Why is it not in present day Fusen-ryu? Did Tanabe alter his personal style to focus on newaza specifically to fight the challenge matches with the Kodokan (that style of fighting was very popular in the jujutsu world of the time) or was the newaza element within the Fusen-ryu there previously and has since been lost, or simply discontinued because the newaza stuff was brought into judo?

Lots of questions that only Japanese JJ scholars can answer. So far it does not seem like there has been a lot of interest in it. Here is a bulletin board specifically dealing with Fusen-ryu that might be of interest. The Moderator is a practitioner of Fusen-ryu in Japan:


http://bushinjuku.co...211cf2c58d19e08



We know that Maeda studied Judo, and maybe a little Tenjin Shinyo-ryu. Maeda would have been at the Kodokan at the time that Tanabe's influence on newaza was developing (marking his leaving Japan in 1904 or thereabouts). Wealso know that this newaza development eventually had Kano instituting rules preventing the development of a "newaza only" judo - so there must have been a strong trend toward newaza. It is only natural that newaza would have been a big part of Maeda's judo development. (but remember Kosen Judo didn't start until around 1915 or so)

Back to Tani. We know that Tani spoke humbly of his own skill in comparison with practitioners in Japan, and in the first edition of EJ Harrison's book Fighting Spirit of Japan Harrison compares Tani's skill unfavorably with Maeda, calling Tani "third rate" or something like that. This tidbit was later removed probably due to Harrison's ongoing connection with the London Budokwai where Tani also taught.

So I think that is where we have it. BJJ comes from Judo, and the only connection it may have with Fusen-ryu is that Maeda MAY have trained with or seen some of, or been influenced by, Tanabe's groundwork (from Tanabe or others) during his early days at the Kodokan. And, Maeda's Kodokan skills (PRESUMably including his newaza) had already well surpassed a Fusen-ryu practitioner (and later Kodokan Judoka) like Tani. That last does not say much as individual differences don't mean a whole lot.


There could be some conjecture that Maeda actually did Tenjin Shinyo-ryu groundwork (again - doesn't look a whole lot like judo newaza from what I have heard but Steve could expand), since Harrison also makes a comment that when he started JJ in Japan it was with a randori-heavy group doing TSR and that his teacher, while not a match in standing for Kodokan guys, was highly skilled on the ground. Maeda is said to have studied TSR, and his teacher at the Kodokan was Yokoyama, a TSR man prior to his Kodokan days.

In the end, of judo/jujutsu styles, the two methods that look most similar to each other are judo newaza and BJJ newaza. Neither looks much like TSR or Fusen-ryu newaza as they exist in those ryu (schools) today. Neither is a school of "battlefield" jujutsu and so the claim you sometimes read that BJJ comes from more combat oriented forms of traditional JJ is also not supported.''

and

Judoforum.com Mar 20, 2006

''I back up Steve's statement that Mr Steve Cunningham's article is wrong.My father is a Menkyo and I a Mokuroku in Tenjin Shinyo Ryu,and there is no Go or Ju waza in the curriculum of Tenjin Shinyo Ryu.Any "Tenjin Shinyo Ryu" practitioners claiming such should be questioned about their lineage and position in the Tenjin Shinyo Ryu.

Kind regards
Lee Masters
Tenyokai U.K. ''

Just thought that these comments might be relevant and add to the discussion.

LFD

 

Yes, it is. That's kinda where my information (and the clips I posted earlier...) comes from...

In terms of the randori, that was something that Tanabe, and his father, were fond of, as was the founder of Fusen Ryu. As such, there would be randori sessions, and explorations, which is where Tanabe's newaza came from. This was a big focus of the Handa Dojo which Tanabe ran, and was the training school of the guys who beat Kano's students.

Yep, true that Fusen Ryu wasn't a battlefield system (you'll find almost no jujutsu ryu-ha were), but the contextual lessons that formed Fusen Ryu, as many other jujutsu ryu-ha were, was highly influenced by the context of armour, even when the application was left behind. The same thing happened with aspects of the armour itself, for the record, such as a hole in the top of the kabuto being retained, as well as a number of the cords and so on, well after any practical use was left behind.

I honestly don't know where these ideas came from, Matt...

No, I don't disagree about Tanabe and his students besting some of the Kodokan guys, and that Tanabe was the head of Fusen Ryu at the time. I also don't disagree that Tanabe was then brought in to teach newaza. In fact, going through the thread, I think you'll find that I'm the one who brought such details up in the first place. That doesn't mean that the newaza was Fusen Ryu, though.

No, I don't disagree that the newaza found in Judo came dominantly from a basis in the teachings of Tanabe. But, again, that was from Tanabe himself, not from Fusen Ryu.

No, I don't disagree that the roots of BJJ are Judo, as taught by Maeda in Brazil, and that he came from the Kodokan. But, if Tanabe taught non-Fusen Ryu (newaza), then he wasn't teaching Fusen Ryu, no Fusen Ryu was taught to Maeda, and no Fusen Ryu has made it to BJJ.

Cool. I don't want to say anything disparaging against the instructor, nor do I want to imply any lack of skill, knowledge, or understanding of BJJ... but if he's saying there's Fusen Ryu in BJJ, he's wrong. If he's saying Fusen Ryu has any newaza in it, he's wrong. And he can take that up with the Ryu themselves, really. It's a common mistake, but it's still a mistake.

 

Chris,

I think you leaped to some conclusions here.

This is what I said:

The rest, about the entire was it in the Ryu or not you have led, it's not my position, I just discussed the possible reasons back and forth with you.

I think you saw the story and assumed it was a rehash, but in reality I think you agree with me, based on your replies to my questions about the roots of BJJ...

 

Matt, you state that there was an "absorbing of Fusen Ryu" into Judo, not Fusen Ryu students, which is why my first post here was asking clarification of what you meant. Since then you have tried to continue to argue that there is newaza in Fusen Ryu, which is not correct, and never came back to state that you didn't think that there was Fusen Ryu in Judo.... so how exactly is that me leaping to conclusions?

 

Random question: FUSEN ryu do newaza randori but there's no newaza in it cos it's not in the kata.
So does that mean if judo had no newaza kata there would technically be no newaza in judo?

 

No, it's not quite that simple. The reason that you can say there's no newaza in Fusen Ryu is because there is no newaza syllabus in Fusen Ryu. The syllabus doesn't need to necessarily be all in the kata (although in Koryu that'll be the main way it's held), so provided there is newaza taught as specific Judo newaza, then there's newaza in Judo, even if it's not taught in a kata form.... confusing?

 

I think I get it.
Hm... Any ideas of where you can find the FUSEN syllabus?

 

Yes... but the answer is simple. Join the Ryu. Other than that, you can get an idea from the clips I posted earlier.

 

It'd be cool if they were more Open. I'd like to see how the standing portions relate to newaza in randori and even to see their newaza in action more.

I guess the book by tank is as close as I can get