Ju-Jitsu --
was: Translating Budo
(Extracted from Aikido-L)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:00:04 +0000
From: Mike ?
Subject: translating budo
By accident when looking something up I came across a number of ju jitsu
websites in the UK, and got a bit confuzzled.
Many of the sites described their style as ju jitsu and nothing else. When some
describe the history of ju jitsu they mention the names of various schools, some
koryu, some gendai, they almost always tend to mention judo and aikido at some
point but never really give much indication of their own distinctiveness and
history, almost as if there aren't any surviving ju jitsu schools any more and
its all become just one amorphous mass of ju jitsu, only differing in the man
who gets paid to teach it and why he's so good and everyone else isn't.
I mean when someone says I do ju jitsu my immediate thought would be: what
school?
What gets me even more is that they seem to have adopted a rigid line between ju
jitsu and aiki-jitsu/aiki-jujitsu which confuses me a lot.
What gets me even more is people who say that they teach aiki-jitsu when they've
done a bit of judo and a bit of aikido.
So what i really want to know is:
How does this translation from 'jitsu' to 'do' and back to 'jitsu' again work
exactly, and how is this likely to affect the art being practiced?
Mike Haft
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:11:50 -0500
From: Katherine Derbyshire
Subject: Re: translating budo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike ?"
> Many of the sites described their style as ju jitsu and nothing else. When
> some describe the history of ju jitsu they mention the names of various
> schools, some koryu, some gendai, they almost always tend to mention judo
> and aikido at some point but never really give much indication of their own
> distinctiveness and history, almost as if there aren't any surviving ju
> jitsu schools any more and its all become just one amorphous mass of ju
> jitsu, only differing in the man who gets paid to teach it and why he's so
> good and everyone else isn't.
Well, there *are* surviving ju jitsu schools, most of whom would be happy to
tell you more than you wanted to know about their history, distinctiveness, and
lineage. It sounds to me like the authors of the sites are paying more attention
to marketing than to whatever it is that they're actually teaching. Student
beware.
Katherine
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:44:48 -0800
From: Mariana Studart Soares Pereira
Subject: Re: translating budo
--- Mike ? wrote:
> How does this translation from 'jitsu' to 'do' and back
> to 'jitsu' again
> work exactly, and how is this likely to affect the art
> being practiced?
This question, and Mike Bartman's question about "when is a kokyunage not a
kokyunage", reminds me of Romeo and Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as
sweet." :)
What I mean is, people will call what they do whatever sounds best, not always
worrying about whether or not that name is actually defining of their activity.
We've had a million discussions about names of techniques and names of martial
arts, and what is and what isn't aikido/kokyunage/whatever. It's not about what
it's called, but about what it *is*.
So, I guess the best way of figuring out if what you read about is aikijutsu or
jujutsu or whatever is actually looking at it. Just from the name, you'll never
know...
ObAikido: My dojo hunt is temporarily off, since I haven't had the time to do it
(which is also why I've been lurking and not posting lately), and even if I did,
I wouldn't have the money to pay for the classes :P Hopefully in the next few
weeks the financial troubles will clear up, and I'll be able to get back to
training... somewhere. As for time... I don't know, I guess I'll just have to
*make* some. Anyone know how to do that?
----------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:18:41 -0500
From: "Drysdale, Alan E."
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
Katherine said:
>Well, there *are* surviving ju jitsu schools, most of whom would be happy to
tell you more than you wanted to know about their history, distinctiveness, and
lineage. It sounds to me like the authors of the sites are paying more attention
to marketing than to whatever it is that they're actually teaching. Student
beware.
Anybody with extensive experience of both? I've only taken a few hours of ju
jitsu (a Moses Powell seminar). My impression is that they do a lot of
the same stuff that we do, but with more arm waving (i.e. using the arms from
the shoulder rather than from the center) and less kuzushi and manipulation of
center. Sort of slap the attack away, slap uke a few times, grab something and
crank him. I don't know if it would be effective or not,
but it felt different.
Karate tai jutsu (Yoshukai), OTOH, uses more definitive blocks to get the attack
off line, then (when they don't hit them) cranks on uke with more arms and torso
power. More muscular but similar techniques to aikido.
Alan
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:44:23 +0100
From: Kjartan Clausen
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Drysdale, Alan E. wrote:
}Katherine said:
}
}>Well, there *are* surviving ju jitsu schools, most of whom would be
}happy to tell you more than you wanted to know about their history,
}distinctiveness, and lineage. It sounds to me like the authors of the
}sites are paying more attention to marketing than to whatever it is that
}they're actually teaching. Student beware.
}
}Anybody with extensive experience of both? I've only taken a few hours of
}ju jitsu (a Moses Powell seminar). My impression is that they do a lot of
}the same stuff that we do, but with more arm waving (i.e. using the arms
}from the shoulder rather than from the center) and less kuzushi and
}manipulation of center. Sort of slap the attack away, slap uke a few times,
}grab something and crank him. I don't know if it would be effective or not,
}but it felt different.
I've got about 5,5 years of Jujitsu experience and I'll have to agree with you.
Your impression is exactly what I experienced in training. Jujitsu people are
basically doing the same stuff we are, but they are not learning how to use
their center, they are punching and kicking more and they don't really learn to
see the basic principles of the techniques. Their movements are also much more
staccato generally because they're not thinking about flow.
--
Kjartan Clausen Aikido is Origami with people instead of paper (tm)
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:49:27 EST
From: Charles Lucas
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
Now that isn't true.
There are many different styles of Jujutsu out there. Most classical schools
study centering and using the energy of the other person.
Kito Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Shinden Fudo Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, etc.
I remind the history of Aiki-jujutsu styles come from Jujutsu, Aiki-jutsu is a
topic area to study in classical schools.
I have admit that a lot of American Schools and Schools from Brazil are skipping
over this area and do muscle there techniques.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Lucas, Shidoshi-ho
Shibu-Cho Bujinkan Budo Shibu
http://www.bujinkan.com
http://www.shinbudokai.org
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:16:25 -0800
From: Julian Frost
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Charles Lucas wrote:
> > Their movements are also much more staccato generally because they're not
> > thinking about flow.
>
> Now that isn't true.
Actually, yes it is. :-)
In the UK, there's quite a number of "Jujitsu" clubs. They have no lineage to
classical styles whatsoever, but are a mish-mash of karate and other styles,
that's why they call themselves "Jujitsu", rather than xxxx-jujitsu (where xxx
denotes a lineage).
> There are many different styles of Jujutsu out there. Most classical
> schools study centering and using the energy of the other person.
>
> Kito Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Shinden Fudo Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, etc.
Yup... but the British Jujitsu schools don't come from any classical styles. The
World Jujitsu Federation has no verifiable lineage either.
Julian "Ex-member of the WJF" Frost
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:28:20 -0800
From: Giles Chamberlin
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
Given that I teach a jujutsu style in the UK, I feel I'd better get a plug in
for at least some of the UK jujutsu clubs.
First the bad news. Julian, and others, are right in that a lot - the vast
majority - of jujutsu in the UK is a karate/judo/eckythump blend. From what I
can gather, there was a fashion swing from judo to jiu-jitsu (sic) some time in
the 1960's, 1970's and many judo teachers miraculously made the transition.
This was then followed by the kungfu craze (ah grasshopper!), then aikido
courtesy of Mr Seagal.
There is one particular group which has done incredibly well at infiltrating
(wrong word, I don't mean to be judgemental - yet) universities in the UK. So
they get great exposure.
There's also various groups with ties in to the MAC - politically astute but
light on lineage. I think this might include the group Julian was thinking of -
Professor Richard Morris ring a bell?
But there are "traditional" groups out there. I'm not getting in to the whole
koryu thing, just meaning styles that train in what I consider to be a
traditional manner. Now that is a subject for a whole new email.
And amongst those groups there is as much subtlety, and variation, as I have
seen amongst the aikidoka I've trained with. I'm not claiming any are "better
than your sensei". But some are very good at what they do:
Harada sensei of Jigen Ryu, now training in Austria has the most subtle touch
I've come across.
Jim Shortt of Ryoi Shinto Ryu is not what you might call delicate, but as an
example of effective mechanics it is very convincing.
Tanaka sensei of Daiwa Ryu - I have an overwhelming memory of hours spent trying
to perfect the angles for nikkyo. Then trying to drive home.
Roy Jerry Hobbs of Hakko Ryu - an excellent technician and outstanding teacher.
So please - don't tarnish all jujutsu with the same brush. And while I'm at it
- why not come along to a class and see whhat you think for yourself!
--
Giles Chamberlin
http://www.jujutsu.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:29:12 +0000
From: Mike ?
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
>From: Julian Frost
>In the UK, there's quite a number of "Jujitsu" clubs. They have no lineage
>to classical styles whatsoever, but are a mish-mash of karate and other
>styles, that's why they call themselves "Jujitsu", rather than
>xxxx-jujitsu (where xxx denotes a lineage).
>
>Yup... but the British Jujitsu schools don't come from any classical
>styles. The World Jujitsu Federation has no verifiable lineage either.
>
>Julian "Ex-member of the WJF" Frost
I'll agree with this completely, the ju jitsu clubs I've seen conform well to
this statement, it seems that the only way to study good ju jitsu is probably to
go to Japan, there isn't very much in the UK, and what there is is tends to be a
mish-mash of karate, judo and a few other bits and pieces.
I think that perhaps the worst offenders are some people called 'the jitsu
foundation'
http://www.jitsufoundation.org/
If you go to a british university and find the ju jitsu club its odds on they'll
be a part of this organisation.
Mike Haft
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:38:36 -0300
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ubaldo=20Alcantara?=
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Well, let's try to clear some things up...First of all, JUJUTSU in Japan (also
known as Yawara, Kogusoku, Koshi no Mawari, Yawaragi and quite a few other
names) was the generic name for many martial arts, armed or unarmed, first used
when the Samurai were deprived of their weapons.
Later, in the peaceful Edo period, when people do not went on the streets
with Spear, Naginata, Bow and arrow, and other weapons, Jujutsu was developed as
a means of self-defense for use, mainly, on the streets (of course, it would be
impossible to use Jujutsu on the battlefield!). We call those ancient arts,
until the late XIX century, KORYU JUJUTSU (Subdivisions of Tenshin Shoden Katori
Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shin Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu...). From the late XIX century
onwards, there came another breed called GENDAI JUJUTSU (Hakko Ryu Jujutsu and
others) concerned mainly with the unarmed fighting. All those arts have lineage
and are very conservative.
Later on, outside of Japan, Judo spread and people with little knowledge of
japanese martial arts history, began to spread the myth that Jujutsu was
extinct. In the 60's, people dissilusioned with judo competitions began to try
to make a "comeback" to the old jujutsu and as they didn't have any idea about
how it was, they looked to the Kodokan Goshinjutsu (Judo Self-defense), as based
on the older forms of jujutsu, for a light about how it was. It happened mainly
in Europe, where, by questions of mispronounciation, they called it "JU JITSU".
All those types have no lineage and were basically developed around the Judo
Goshinjutsu. One famous example is Mr. Pariset, from France, with his Atemi
Jujitsu and the World JJ Federation, which practices a mix of Judo, Jujitsu and
Karate and has world champioships. In America, Danzan Ryu JJ and other american
formats also spawned from that mixing pot.
So, we have already two basic types of JJ : The traditional and the modern
japanese ones and the new ones based on Judo. But there was a third type :
In the 20's, a japanese Kodokan judoka, named MITSUYO MAEDA came to Brazil
and in the state of Pará taught a brazilian family called Gracie what was then
called generally KODOKAN JUDO or KANO RYU JUJUTSU. Maeda (who apparently never
trained in traditional Jujutsu, called his art usually Kano Ryu DJIU DJITSU
(more or less the pronounciation of JUJUTSU). The Gracies misunderstood that and
called the art that they were training JIU JITSU (another
mispronounciation).Maeda's Judo was very centered on Ne Waza (ground fighting of
Judo) and basically that was what he taught to the Gracies, which developed it
on modern BJJ.
Since their "JIU JITSU" was based on judo and not on JUJUTSU, they later
changed its name to GRACIE JIU JITSU or BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU.
That, of course, is an overall simplification but I hope it clears things
up a little...
Best
Ubaldo
Mike ? escreveu: By accident when looking something up I came across a number of
ju jitsu websites in the UK, and got a bit confuzzled.
Many of the sites described their style as ju jitsu and nothing else. When some
describe the history of ju jitsu they mention the names of various schools, some
koryu, some gendai, they almost always tend to mention judo and aikido at some
point but never really give much indication of their own distinctiveness and
history, almost as if there aren't any surviving ju jitsu schools any more and
its all become just one amorphous mass of ju jitsu, only differing in the man
who gets paid to teach it and why he's so good and everyone else isn't.
I mean when someone says I do ju jitsu my immediate thought would be: what
school?
What gets me even more is that they seem to have adopted a rigid line between ju
jitsu and aiki-jitsu/aiki-jujitsu which confuses me a lot.
What gets me even more is people who say that they teach aiki-jitsu when they've
done a bit of judo and a bit of aikido.
So what i really want to know is:
How does this translation from 'jitsu' to 'do' and back to 'jitsu' again work
exactly, and how is this likely to affect the art being practiced?
Mike Haft
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:09:02 +0000
From: Mike ?
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
Giles Chamberlain wrote:
>There is one particular group which has done incredibly well at
>infiltrating (wrong word, I don't mean to be judgemental - yet)
>universities in the UK. So they get great exposure.
I wrote:
>I think that perhaps the worst offenders are some people called 'the jitsu
>foundation'
>
>http://www.jitsufoundation.org/
>
>If you go to a british university and find the ju jitsu club its odds on
>they'll be a part of this organisation.
Oops, kinda let the cat out the bag on that one I suppose.
Being that most of my aikido training has taken place in a university club,
firstly at plymouth uni, then when I go to Exeter to train I often end up
helping out in the Exeter uni club, and soon I shall be training at another uni
club, I come across these guys a lot.
They started in Plymouth originally so the plymouth uni club is quite a good one
apparently, I knew them quite well in the four years I was there. My
teacher can remember when they started up actually, seeing as he's been teaching
there for so long. Things went quite sour between us and them just
before I started at plymouth, their instructor at the time was a real thug, not
a nice guy. He basically taught all his students to think of us (aikido) as
inferior and crap, this ended up in two of our students walking along one night
and talking about ninjitsu being beaten up by some of their more senior
students, who thought that they were saying something about 'jitsu'. Then things
got even worse with a guy who had been cross training in both clubs apparently
being embarassed by my teacher because my teacher was demonstrating a ki
principle and asked the guy to try and put nikyo or kote gaeshi (not sure what
one) on a fairly petitie girl, he couldn't. Apparently this constituted Sensei
embarassing one of the 'jitsu' students in front of the aikido class. Their
instructor decided that he wanted to 'beat up' my teacher (apparently/alledgedly,
I wasn't actually a witness, though I know people who were). So Sensei decided
to go and have a word with him and it was all sorted out in the end, though I
don't know what exactly was said.
Anyway they continued to hate us for years until a few of us set up the plymouth
uni martial arts committee (mostly me and my friend Andy who was a kickboxer), I
can't tell you the effort that I had to put in to sorting out the bad blood
between us, so much so that I would number some of the jitsu people among those
of my friends who are still in plymouth. Even so they still look down on us and
think we're 'doing it wrong', they just won't say it in front of us anymore
since they met me and actually spoke to me.
Mike Haft
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:15:40 -0500
From: "Drysdale, Alan E."
Subject: Re: ju jitsu
kjartan said:
>> I've got about 5,5 years of Jujitsu experience and I'll have to agree with
> you. Your impression is exactly what I experienced in training. Jujitsu
> people are basically doing the same stuff we are, but they are not learning
> how to use their center, they are punching and kicking more and they don't
> really learn to see the basic principles of the techniques.
> Their movements are also much more staccato generally because they're not
> thinking about flow.
Charles said:
>Now that isn't true.
>There are many different styles of Jujutsu out there. Most classical schools
study centering and using the energy of the other person.
>Kito Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Shinden Fudo Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, etc.
>I remind the history of Aiki-jujutsu styles come from Jujutsu, Aiki-jutsu is a
topic area to study in classical schools.
>I have admit that a lot of American Schools and Schools from Brazil are
skipping over this area and do muscle there techniques.
Hi Charles:
Which styles have you studied, and how are they similar to and how are they
different from aikido? And what style of aikido do you do? (I'm with ASU, but
have had extensive experience with USAF-ER, and an acquaintance with AAA, Iwama,
Jiyushinkan, Ki Society, and Yoshinkan.)
Alan
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:15:16 -0500
From: Chuck
Subject: Re: translating budo
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:00:04 +0000, Mike ? wrote:
>By accident when looking something up I came across a number of ju jitsu
>websites in the UK, and got a bit confuzzled.
Most (not ALL) modern 'jujutsu/jiu jitsu/jujitsu' is pretty muddy (says a man
who teaches a decidedly eclectic art). What many have done is learn
some judo (some very thoroughly, too) or more recently some aikido and some
karate/TKD/kung fu and blend it. This synthesis, they call JJ because they want
to disassociate it from judo or aikido, because it's more 'martial' ... a little
knowledge is a confusing thing.
Jutsu does NOT mean more martial and do does NOT mean more spiritual. The jutsu/do
schsim can really be almost single-handedly attributed to Draeger, because he
tried to describe something very un-western in a way westerners could
understand, but, sadly, failed in that particular mission. We like dichotomies,
black-and-white, no shades of grey. Damn near everything to do with budo is
grey, however ... there's no clearcut black and white. It's a different
worldview.
>I mean when someone says I do ju jitsu my immediate thought would be: what
>school?
Me too.
>What gets me even more is that they seem to have adopted a rigid line
>between ju jitsu and aiki-jitsu/aiki-jujitsu which confuses me a lot.
Ehhh. See above. The distinctions (if they really exist) are not distinct, not
clearcut.
>What gets me even more is people who say that they teach aiki-jitsu when
>they've done a bit of judo and a bit of aikido.
(Shudder). Yep.
>How does this translation from 'jitsu' to 'do' and back to 'jitsu' again
>work exactly, and how is this likely to affect the art being practiced?
That's tough. In fact, there's no real diffeence. Jutsu and do are reflections,
or maybe facets of the same thing. It's be nice and neat to seperate jujutsu
from judo, aikijutsu from aikido, but in fact, we cannot. Even the old masters
tend to use the terms interchangeably ...
What we most often see, especially in the west, is folks simply mis-using the
terms to rationalize their own beliefs ...
Chuck
The kitties watch thumb-sized snowflakes cover the just-bloomed daffodils and
crocus outside my office window.
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:04:50 -0500
From: Chuck
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:18:41 -0500, Drysdale, Alan E. wrote:
>Anybody with extensive experience of both? I've only taken a few hours of
>ju jitsu (a Moses Powell seminar). My impression is that they do a lot of
Don't know much about Powell's Sanuces Ryu, I've never trained with him, so I
can't really say much, but from what I've seen on video and in print, what he
does doesn't much resemble koryu jujutsu (or gendai jujutsu for that matter)
a'tall. Not sure what his background is, other than I understand that he
mastered several arts and Sanuces (what's that mean anyhow?) Ryu is a
combination of the best of all of 'em.
And then there's the whole Jukokai/Juko Ryu thing ... sigh. Poorly-done aikido
or judo is not jujutsu. Aikido or judo mixed with karate is not jujutsu.
Aikido, however, IS jujutsu. It is the Ueshiba's interpretation and
implementation of Daito Ryu. So, in that light, you have done lots of jujutsu!
;^>
I know, I know. I'll shaddup in a minute.
Jujutsu is a generic term. It covers most any lightly-armed or unarmed system of
Japanese budo, ranging from the venerable and ancient (Takenouchi Ryu for
instance) to the more modern (Daito Ryu and Shindo Yoshin Ryu spring to mind) to
the modern (Aikido and Danzan Ryu for two).
It has also come to, in the west, cover just about any badly-done version of
aikido or judo seeking to distance itself from the parent art or any system
combining grappling (remember 'grippling!') and striking arts.
Most of what we see in the west that is called jujutsu is simply not. It might
have elements OF jujutsu, but mostly, it's a ill-fitted mishmash of techniques
culled from other arts.
Jujutsu, to me, should have an underlying (or overarching?) set of principles
binding the techniques. Not just, 'Oh, I'll take aikido's kote gaeshi and judo's
osoto gari and karate's gyaku oi zuki and pile them together to make a
mega-super-martial art! There must be continutiy of principle and theory and
technique and application. Must be riai ...
OK, I'll get off my soapbox.
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:46:20 -0500
From: Allen Thomerson
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
snip lots of good stuff:
> Most of what we see in the west that is called jujutsu is
> simply not. It
> might have elements OF jujutsu, but mostly, it's a ill-fitted
> mishmash of
> techniques culled from other arts.
>
> Jujutsu, to me, should have an underlying (or overarching?) set of
> principles binding the techniques. Not just, 'Oh, I'll take
> aikido's kote
> gaeshi and judo's osoto gari and karate's gyaku oi zuki and pile them
> together to make a mega-super-martial art! There must be continutiy of
> principle and theory and technique and application. Must be riai ...
Chuck (or anybody else),
My niece and nephew have been 'studying' a martial art for about 2 years now.
Their father practices it too and I really have to bite my tongue everytime they
talk about it. From what I have seen it is based on Tae Kwon Do but they claim
it is a combination of 31 martial arts. My biggest problem with it is that they
don't teach any principles, all they teach is techniques. They don't even seem
to understand the importance of principles. I just don't see it. How can
anyone believe that if they learn a bunch of techniques, even if they are from
the same art, that they are learning a martial art? If I learn a couple of bars
of music on a bunch of different instruments, have I learned 'music'? These kids
think that they are learning an effective fighting art. This could be
dangerous, but what could I, or anybody say?
Allen
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:07:18 -0500
From: The Dojo
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
>of different instruments, have I learned 'music'? These kids think that
>they are learning an effective fighting art. This could be dangerous, but
>what could I, or anybody say?
Sigh. Not much you can say, really. Em had a couple of good friends back in
Texas involved in a similar art. I've known good folks deeply invested in
same.
It's tough to sit back and watch them waste time and money, on the one hand, but
on the other, if they're happy, enjoying the practice and not getting hurt ...
hell, let them play.
Not everyone's cut out for what budo snobs like me and Peter and Jun and Andy
and others here consider serious martial arts training.
Best you can do is answre questions they may have, provide support and direction
if they seek it ...
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:59:22 +0200
From: "G.A.Miliaresis"
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
Allen wrote:
> >of different instruments, have I learned 'music'? These kids think that
> >they are learning an effective fighting art. This could be dangerous,
> > but what could I, or anybody say?
And Chuck continued:
>Sigh. Not much you can say, really. Em had a couple of good friends back
>in Texas involved in a similar art. I've known good folks deeply invested
>in same.
Happens all the time over here since "Real" (TM) budo isn't distinguishable
from the satin pyjamas crowd. The trainees-to-be have to do some research
themselves (which until the Iternet was introduced in Greece was a tough one). I
remember some 15 years ago I had to investigate for a month or something
(through the Japanese embassy and what have you) just to find the Aikikai
address and ask about their Greek representative...
>It's tough to sit back and watch them waste time and money, on the one
>hand, but on the other, if they're happy, enjoying the practice and not
>getting hurt ... hell, let them play.
This was always my question: what do people gain from practicing these arts?
Besides being -IMO- more dangerous, arts without (or with very shallow)
principles can only offer superficial benefits, no? SD aside (which can be
taught in a decent SD school) what do these arts offer? I guess this is another
one of those "how long is a piece of string" questions <g>.
>Not everyone's cut out for what budo snobs like me and Peter and Jun and
>Andy and others here consider serious martial arts training.
Is it really just a matter of being snob?
>Best you can do is answre questions they may have, provide support and
>direction if they seek it ...
I believe the "if they seek it" part is the key here. You don't mess with them
and their choices but if they ask your opinion, you can offer it.
Gri
PS
Did I mention I love the idea of you being an ocean closer, Chuck? Non
involvement of planes makes the possibility of dropping by for some pain
treatment less remote <g>.
G.A.Miliaresis
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 05:28:32 -0800
From: Giles Chamberlin
Subject: Re: translating budo
Mike was musing on the distinction, or lack thereof, between ju-jutsu,
aiki-jutsu and aikijujutsu.
There's quite a good re-muddying of the waters in Serge Mols book: "Classical
Fighting Arts of Japan - a complete guide to koryu jujutsu" ISBN: 4770026196
He adds judo (as distinct from Kodokan Judo) into the list of possible terms and
then details koryu styles which either used one term or another or, even more
confusingly, used different terms for different bits of their syllabus.
Long and the short of it seems to be that, whilst there might be some slight
difference between them, that tends to get swamped in the differences between
styles, or the same style taught by the different teachers. And some just
changed for reasons of fashion and marketing anyway.
--
Giles Chamberlin
http://www.jujutsu.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:47:40 -0500
From: Chuck
Subject: Re: ju jitsu: was translating budo
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:59:22 +0200, G.A.Miliaresis wrote:
>This was always my question: what do people gain from practicing these
>arts? Besides being -IMO- more dangerous, arts without (or with very
They get to play ninja or Mighty Mulching Power Mower (have you SEEN those guys
lately!?!?! Geez.) or romping-stomping-super-samyureye, wear cool costumes, play
with neat toys, get the ego-gratification of earning a slew of ranks and
sometimes tournament trophies ... or they get to live out their ass-kicking
fantasies or super-hero or whatever.
Hmm. And that's not all that different from the reasons some folks come to do
'real' budo either. I started learning Tang Soo Do, way back when, because I
wanted to learn a better way to fight. Luckily, I got out of that pretty quickly
(TSD and the fight-fight mindset) and found myself exploring budo more deeply.
It's taken a couple of decades and change, but I'm much better now!
>guess this is another one of those "how long is a piece of
>string" questions <g>.
Twice as long as the length of half of it. (gdr)
>Is it really just a matter of being snob?
No. Not really. That was said, tongue firmly in cheek. Though in many ways, yes,
I am a bit of a snob, but I do try to give benefit of the doubt first.
It's about being awake, really.
>Did I mention I love the idea of you being an ocean closer, Chuck? Non
>involvement of planes makes the possibility of dropping by for some pain
>treatment less remote <g>.
Cool! Sounds like a nice long weekend trip or maybe a week-long holiday
sometime! Love to see Greece! Mmm! (cue Homer Simpson voice) Retsina,
spanokopita, gyros, retsina, Greek coffee, baklava, retsina ... Mmmmm!
And you know, you'll be welcome at our place. That goes for any of the listka
who might find themselves in the wilds of eastern Bavaria ...
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:46:36 -0000
From: Simon Watkins
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Well I cant see that BJJ is any different from the other Kodokan Judo offshoots.
More intergrated than most maybe but so what. I Generally concur most western
styles tend to come from Judo Roots With occasional influences from other arts
the founder has come in contact with. In The Jitsu Foundation for example claim
some shorinji kempo influence though it is not very evident to me... I suspect
stuff that does not intergrate easily tends to fall away.
While we are on the subject of The Jitsu Federation no one should judge any
style by the quality orf its student members. I dont care how good you think
you were as a student Mike
Our Local Goshin something Jujitsu teacher is fairly typical He Has practised
more styles than I have had hot dinners a He is good at some.and I am sure
produces good ideas by synthesis. But It looks a mess when the bits are
assembled.
If I cant ask I assume its kodokan based.
Still its not as bad as Kung Fu Clubs I mean what the Hell Is a Kung Fu Club?
Simon
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:04:06 -0500
From: Katherine Derbyshire
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
From: "Simon Watkins"
> While we are on the subject of The Jitsu Federation no one should
> judge any style by the quality orf its student members. I dont care
> how good you think you were as a student Mike
I disagree. I think the students are the only way to judge a style. Yes, of
course you have to recognize that they are students and will make mistakes. But
the students reflect the attitude and approach of their teacher, often without
realizing it. If the black belt students move like raw beginners but act like
the second coming of Steven Seagal, then there just might be a few fundamental
problems with the style itself (at least as taught at that particular dojo).
Katherine
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:32:55 -0500
From: Simon Watkins
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Katherine I think we are talking at cross purposes here when I said student
members it might have been better if I said university members. University clubs
do not have long term students and have a high churn rate. even the club captain
probably has less than three years experiance. All they can really do is plant
the seeds for a future interest in the art.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:51:01 -0800
From: Larry Novick
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
At 1:46 PM +0000 3/27/02, Simon Watkins wrote:
>Well I cant see that BJJ is any different from the other Kodokan
>Judo offshoots. More intergrated than most maybe but so what.
I made this same mistake in perspective as well, until I experienced the art
directly. You're right in the sense of it being "more integrated" though - but
it's much more than this. Have you ever tried it? Just curious.
LN
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:32:12 -0500
From: Rebecca Nisley
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Katherine Derbyshire sez:
...I think the students are the only way to judge a style. Yes, of course you
have to recognize that they are students and will make mistakes. But the
students reflect the attitude and approach of their teacher, often without
realizing it. If the black belt students move like raw beginners but act like
the second coming of Steven Seagal, then there just might be a few fundamental
problems with the style itself (at least as taught at that particular dojo).
Rebecca adds:
I always like to remember that some people come to aikido (or even any MA) for
the wrong reasons but end up finding the right ones. I want to remember that
last line, it's a good one, KD
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:53:04 -0500
From: Simon Watkins
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
My Experience of BJJ is strictly third and fourth hand.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:13:45 -0500
From: Jake Jacobe
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Katherine Derbyshire wrote:
>like raw beginners but act like the second coming of Steven Seagal, then
>there just might be a few fundamental problems with the style itself (at
>least as taught at that particular dojo).
But isn't the second coming of Steven Seagal an enlightened reincarnated lama?
Wouldn't we want students with that personality? :-)
Jake
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:43:43 +0000
From: Mike ?
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
>From: Simon Watkins
>In The Jitsu Foundation for example claim
>some shorinji kempo influence though it is not very evident to me...
They name their style of Ju Jitsu as Shorinjikan ju jitsu, and the Jitsu bit is
so called for political reasons to distinguish themselves from other ju jitsu
people in the UK, according to one of their black belt instructors I was talking
to about it, while watching him put his obi on on top of his hakama.
> While we are on the subject of The Jitsu Federation no one should
> judge any style by the quality orf its student members. I dont care
>how good you think you were as a student Mike
Bugger off Simon, I'd never said nor assumed that I was any good or better than
them, if it had seemed that way from the connotation of my post then please
accept my apology for the confusion, it was unintentional.
As I said, many of the people I knew at uni were good people, and good at what
they did and I still count them as friends and respect what they do for what it
is.
What I can't stand frankly is the influence the attitude of some of their
instructors has had. As to judging them by the Uni club students and not the
older more mature non uni clubs, try looking for a JF dojo *not* in a uni, AFAIK
the vast majority of their students are university students.
Anyway, this topic is getting unpleasant now, seems to me that all I'm doing is
slagging off these guys which wasn't really my intention in the beginning. I
shall stop.
>Still its not as bad as Kung Fu Clubs I mean what the Hell Is a
>Kung Fu Club?
Dunno, but one university I was thinking of going to has three of them.
Confused? I was...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:12:38 -0800
From: Giles Chamberlin
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Mike Haft noted:
>while watching him put his obi on on top of his
>hakama.
Now this is a strange one. I know aikidoka and most every other martial art
wear obi under the hakama. Hakko Ryu, a real, honest to goodness Japanese
martial art, and many of its' offshoots, wear the obi over the hakama. I have no
idea why, they just do.
--
Giles Chamberlin
http://www.jujutsu.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:13:36 -0600
From: Michael Hacker
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
A lama bite can be verri nasti, mynd you...
>But isn't the second coming of Steven Seagal an enlightened reincarnated lama?
Wouldn't we want students with that personality?
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:43:55 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Jon C Strauss wrote:
> Guess I have to stick to Aikido.
> JCS
> RMKS at CSU
> (Where we worked on "forcing" uke to grab your wrist last night....)
Even if it's NOT an "attractive wrist"?
Al
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:35:07 -0500
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Especially if it's from Ralph, the Wonder Llama, provided by Llama's West...
At 12:13 PM 3/27/02 -0600, Michael Hacker wrote:
>A lama bite can be verri nasti, mynd you...
>
>>But isn't the second coming of Steven Seagal an enlightened
>reincarnated lama? Wouldn't we want students with that
>personality?
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:40:40 -0500
From: Chuck
Subject: Getting belted (Was: JU JITSU)
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:43:43 +0000, Mike ? wrote:
>jitsu people in the UK, according to one of their black belt instructors I
>was talking to about it, while watching him put his obi on on top of his
>hakama.
Actually, while this seems a bit odd to many, there are styles where the obi is,
indeed, worn over the hak. I've seen Hakko Ryu folks do this as well as Takeuchi
Ryu ... looked pretty strange to me at first, but I suppose they've got their
reasons.
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:40:59 -0500
From: Jon C Straus
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Howdy,
CSU:
>> (Where we worked on "forcing" uke to grab
>> your wrist last night....)
Al:
> Even if it's NOT an "attractive wrist"?
Well, it was all guys--so if uke didn't grab the wrist, nage would give him a...
<ahem>
...t***Y twister or try to choke him. After a bit of that, the wrist(s) started
looking pretty "attractive."
Peace,
JCS
RMKS at CSU
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:16:31 -0500
From: "Drysdale, Alan E."
Subject: Re: AIKIDO-L Digest - 25 Mar 2002 to 26 Mar 2002 - Special issue
(#2002-309)
Chuck said:
>Aikido, however, IS jujutsu. It is the Ueshiba's interpretation and
implementation of Daito Ryu. So, in that light, you have done lots of jujutsu!
Oops. Forgot about you, Chuck. Or rather, I wasn't relating you to the
question. I consider you as part of "greater aikido" (TM). There may not
be the continuity of descent, but there is certainly enough similarity
between what you and I do to include us in the same group. More so, maybe,
than some other styles of Ueshiba-ha Aikido.
Alan
----------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:05:01 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Jon C. Strauss wrote:
> Well, it was all guys--so if uke didn't grab the wrist, nage would give him
> a...
> <ahem>
> ...t***Y twister or try to choke him. After a bit of that, the wrist(s)
> started looking pretty "attractive."
Hmmmm... leading the attack? <speculative evil grin forming> I'll have to
remember that!
Al
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:09:42 -0500
From: Jon C Strauss
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Howdy,
Attractive wrists:
> Hmmmm... leading the attack? <speculative evil grin
> forming> I'll have to remember that!
Leading the attack in the sense that you are controlling it, but not initiating
it.
Uke is "attacking" by moving toward you in a threatening/hostile manner, but you
don't know how s/he is going to attack. That's when you--the enterprising
Aikidoka that you are--attempt to grab or threaten uke with your hand, causing
him/her to grab on to it.
Now you get to do any number of 5th and 4th kyu arts, based on the intent or
energy that uke supplies in the grab.
Pretty simplistic, I know...but then I'm pretty simple.
I guess it's kind of like our motto in Jump School (suggested by a group of
officers and cadets): "Retaliate First!"
Peace,
JCS
RMKS at CSU
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:38:02 -0000
From: Simon Watkins
Subject: Re: AIKIDO-L Digest - 26 Mar 2002 to 27 Mar 2002 - Special issue
(#2002-311)
On Mike wrote:
> hat it is. What I can't stand frankly is the influence the attitude of
> some of their instructors has had. As to judging them by the Uni club
> students and not the older more mature non uni clubs, try looking for a JF
> dojo *not* in a uni, AFAIK the vast majority of their students are
> university students.
I can think of three maybe four Jitsu clubs locally. (one might have failed) of
which one is at our university. They spread like mushrooms since the only way to
get a BB is to teach for 2 years. Its fun and they do tend to be over
confident in my opinion but then confidence is a big advantage in fight. the
atmosphere tends to reminds me of a scout hut. I assumed you felt confident
when a student since you seemed to be continually challenging them.
But Best to drop the subject maybe feel free to have the last word.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:26:37 +0000
From: Mike ?
Subject: Re: AIKIDO-L Digest - 26 Mar 2002 to 27 Mar 2002 - Special issue
(#2002-311)
Simon Watkins wrote:
>But Best to drop the subject maybe feel free to have the last word.
Not sure if thats an invite or not, but I'll bite I suppose.
>I can think of three maybe four Jitsu clubs locally. (one might have
>failed) of which one is at our university. They spread like
>mushrooms since the only way to get a BB is to teach for 2 years.
>Its fun and they do tend to be over confident in my opinion but
>then confidence is a big advantage in fight. the atmosphere tends
>to reminds me of a scout hut.
Well I certainly had fun playing with them from time to time, although now I
think about it, looking back it was more in the pub than on the mat.
>I assumed you felt confident when a
>student since you seemed to be continually challenging them.
I only challenged them because they were ignorant of Aikido and us (Plymouth
Aikido club) and were *taught* to look down on us by their instructors at one
point. Hence it caused a lot of probs. In the end I often used to spend friday
nights with them in the union talking about Ju Jitsu and Aikido and other stuff,
managed to clear up the misconceptions and now we all get on quite well.
It actually got to be an amusing kind of thing in the end, some of their more
junior members would ask their seniors: Who's that guy? Their reply was usually:
Thats Aikido Mike.
Made me laugh, in the end thats how they all came to know me I suppose, Aikido
Mike. They also seemed to have been taught that aikido was weak and all pathetic
spiritual nonsense, so whenever they said something like that to me I'd set them
straight, eventually they knew I wasn't going to sit back and let them say
things like that without telling them they were wrong, kind of a good thing
really, it helped to foster some long overdue mutual respect.
Like you said, lets drop it, I somehow seem to be saying unpleasant things about
people I actually quite like, not sure how that one happened...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:02:31 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
> Leading the attack in the sense that you are controlling it, but not
> initiating it.
>
> Uke is "attacking" by moving toward you in a threatening/hostile manner
But uke has to be _moving_ for this to work, not just standing there staring at
you.
Back to the "drawing" board...
Al
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:08:44 -0800
From: Wiley Nelson
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
I tend to agree with Simon on this one.
BJJ revitalized the interest in groundfighting, and was well marketed by the
early UFC and other similar competitions, but there is still nothing
particularly unique about it.
Look at the current Mixed Martial Arts competitions. BJJ isn't standing out from
the crowd.
Most of the classic BJJ strategies have been defeated or circumvented by the new
crop of athletes. The classic BJJ "guard" has fallen out of favor due to it's
tactical limitations and the classic wrestling side mount seems to be the
current fad.
Top BJJers like Wallid Ishmael and Mario Sperry have recently had some rather
humiliating defeats at the hands of no-name judoka. (judoka will hopefully start
putting emphasis on good newaza again)
We currently have someone visiting our dojo with about 8 years of BJJ and 4
years directly under Relson Gracie in Hawaii. He is a Navy SEAL, in great shape,
very competitive.....and the 19-20 year old MMA competitors at the dojo often
beat the snot out of him during randori.
He's a good guy, a natural athlete, and a competent martial artist who has had
training under about as high an authority in BJJ as you will find....but the
bottom line is that the stuff just ain't magic...if you know how it works. It's
just one of the many reasonably good systems out there.
Wiley
--- Larry Novick wrote:
> At 1:46 PM +0000 3/27/02, Simon Watkins wrote:
> >Well I cant see that BJJ is any different from the other Kodokan
> >Judo offshoots. More intergrated than most maybe but so what.
>
> I made this same mistake in perspective as well, until I experienced
> the art directly. You're right in the sense of it being "more
> integrated" though - but it's much more than this. Have you ever
> tried it? Just curious.
>
> LN
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:40:21 -0800
From: Wiley Nelson
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
This thread has confused me a little.
There has been discussion about who can legitimately use the term "jujutsu" and
how "real" jujutsu is different from "jujutsu derived from judo" and how a
mixture of Aikido and Judo should not be called "aikijutsu"
The throwing techniques of judo were strongly derived from a koryu Aikijutsu (Kito
ryu) as well as several other koryu.
Judo IS a jujutsu, and you could probably make a good argument that classical
judo is an aikijutsu....assuming you can actually come up with a workable,
widely acceptable distinction between jujutsu and aikijutsu. (which might,
unfortunately, need to include a definition of "aiki")
If you are teaching judo techniques, but are not affiliating yourself with the
Kodokan or the IJF and didn't want to be confused with people that are...what
could you realistically call what you are practicing OTHER than jujutsu.
If the concepts of "ki" or "aiki", however you happen to define them, are
important to your practice....and you are practicing Aikido/judo/jujutsu
techniques.....what could you reasonably call it OTHER than jujutsu, aikijutsu
or aikibudo? (assuming you didn't want to just call it judo or aikido)
Here are a couple fairly relevent articles:
On Jujutsu and its Modernization
by Kenji Tomiki:
http://www.judoinfo.com/tomiki2.htm
An article on the root arts of Judo:
http://www.judo1.net/ju01002.htm
Wiley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:28:57 -0500
From: Chuck
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:40:21 -0800, Wiley Nelson wrote:
>There has been discussion about who can legitimately use the term
>"jujutsu" and how "real" jujutsu is different from "jujutsu derived
>from judo" and how a mixture of Aikido and Judo should not be called
>"aikijutsu"
Ehh. Okay, maybe the word 'legitimately' isn't a good choice (and I don't think
I ever used that, myself). And it's less about 'jujutsu derived from judo', than
folks mish-mashing up a lot of seperate bits without any real cohesion or
coherency and calling it jujutsu.
What DO we call it? We'll, it don't relly matter, does it? We can call it
Akitajutsu if we want to. This is simply intellectual exercise anyhow. Nothing
we say or do will stop folks who do Juko Ryu from calling it whatever they want,
or Ron Duncan from calling what he does ninjutsu, or whatever.
To ME, however, jujutsu implies certain things, and most of the folks doing the
badly grafted combo arts are not doing jujutsu. It's all semantix.
>The throwing techniques of judo were strongly derived from a koryu
>Aikijutsu (Kito ryu) as well as several other koryu.
Some debate exists on whether any system outside Daito Ryu has ever actually
called itself aikijujutsu. I don't know enough to weigh in unequivocally, but
the more I learn, the more I think the term is mostly overused and improperly
used (even IN the case of Daito Ryu sometimes).
Aiki, on the other hand, as a term, has been around a long, long, time. It's
just that most ryuha doing koryu jujutsu and sword stuff never appended the name
to theirs.
That, apparently, is something that stemmed largely from the minds of Ueshiba,
Onisaburo and Takeda.
>Judo IS a jujutsu, and you could probably make a good argument that
Yes. Exactly.
>If you are teaching judo techniques, but are not affiliating yourself
>with the Kodokan or the IJF and didn't want to be confused with people
>that are...what could you realistically call what you are practicing
>OTHER than jujutsu.
Again, I point you toward my first paragraph above. If the system is judo-
derived and remains largely tru to the core principles and isn't simply a
cobbled-together Goldbergian contraption that "takes the best of many martial
arts to create the ultimate fighting art!" ... then, yes, It's jujutsu.
But ... if Joe Somebody takes a few months of karate, a couple of years of judo,
a couple of seminars in aikido, a little Escrima, a little TKD, and throws what
he considers the best of each into a bag, shakes it up and calls the resulting
patchwork Somebody Ryu Jujitsu -- no. That's not the same thing.
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:53:16 EST
From: Anne Marie Giri
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
"This is simply intellectual exercise anyhow.
Nothing we say or do will stop folks who do Juko Ryu from calling it whatever
they want,..."
From my real life hands-on experience, the problem with these folks they call it
whatever they want and instead of saying they created it themselves (which I
have no problem with, and it's not too bad) they profess that what they do is a
legit, traditional (koryu) martial art (which its not.)
This dupes the uneducated (read me who not until after leaving the school did I
find aikiweb, e-budo, and the Aikido List).
Anne Marie
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:33:31 -0500
From: Chuck
Subject: A ryu by any other name ...
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:53:16 EST, Anne Marie Giri wrote:
>From my real life hands-on experience, the problem with these folks they call
it whatever they want and instead of saying they created it themselves
Exactly. There's a long and highly-vlaued history in budo of innovation,
synthesis and even recreation (in his book on koryu jujutsu, Serge Mol address
that very issue in discussing his ryuha's jujutsu). It's how many ryuha came
into existence, and truth be told, the Japanese aren't above a little artful
misdirection and clever historical waffling themselves.
However, there are folks out there who will create lineages out of whole cloth,
fabricate whole histories, missapropriate names, copy and use scrolls or densho
(sometimes quite poorly) they have no right to use ... sigh.
THOSE are the folks I get heartburn about.
>This dupes the uneducated (read me who not until after leaving the school
>did I find aikiweb, e-budo, and the Aikido List).
This is one of the great values of such forum. Information, from reliabe
sources, easily accessible. It's the flip side of the coin from the internt
being an open range wherein anyone can claim anything and make it appear correct
and good.
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:34:32 +0200
From: "G.A.Miliaresis"
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Anne Marie wrote:
> From my real life hands-on experience, the problem with these folks they
> call it whatever they want and instead of saying they created it
> themselves (which I have no problem with, and it's not too bad) they
> profess that what they do is a legit, traditional (koryu) martial art
> (which its not.)
This was always my problem too: if they appreciate Budo X enough to call their
own a variant of it, why they didn't take up *that* budo in the first place (or
if they did, why didn't they continue it to a higher level). It would be much
easier and it would give them a legit background as well. The question is
rhetoric of course <g>. Chuck gave some good reasons why...
>This dupes the uneducated (read me who not until after leaving the school
>did I find aikiweb, e-budo, and the Aikido List).
As I mentioned earlier, the Internet has been a great help -at least for ppl
living in remote places/countries. The forums are the big bonus but even the
possibility of actually coming in contact with each art's "authorities"
(whatever that means <g>) is great!
Gri
G.A.Miliaresis
--Aikido: the art of hitting people with pplanets (H.Davis/Aikido-L)
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:01:21 +0000
From: Mike ?
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
>From: Chuck
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:40:21 -0800, Wiley Nelson wrote:
> >There has been discussion about who can legitimately use the term
> >"jujutsu" and how "real" jujutsu is different from "jujutsu derived
> >from judo" and how a mixture of Aikido and Judo should not be called
> >"aikijutsu"
>
>Ehh. Okay, maybe the word 'legitimately' isn't a good choice (and I don't
>think I ever used that, myself). And it's less about 'jujutsu derived from
>judo', than folks mish-mashing up a lot of seperate bits without any real
>cohesion or coherency and calling it jujutsu.
>
>Chuck
I think that a significant part of what makes a budo is the context within which
it is framed, i.e. looking at Aikido we see the context of what the art is in
many ways, look at the difference between Takeda and Ueshiba, the distinction in
their personalities and their thoughts on Aiki tell you soo much about Aikido
and what it is, and thats only one part of what Aikido is.
I think that you have many classical ryuha all with their own traditions
histories etc, these set the context of what made them what they are, it is a
big part of what each individual one is as a budo.
Judo is a budo as is Aikido and the aims goals and personalites, and the
historical context within which the arts are framed, is as much apart of what
they are as any of their techniques.
As such I consider them on a level standing with the preceding classical budo,
insofar as these gendai arts are still budo, just as arts like Hakko Ryu (AFAIK)
are still budo.
But when you take into consideration the modern sports which many martial arts
have become, and you take an influence form judo and some of the
techniques of it, and maybe some Aikido techniques and some karate ones too, and
mix them all up and call them ju jitsu or grandmaster soke guru bobs aiki ju
jitsu or whatever, then the historical, spiritual, and other aspects which help
to so define what an art is don't really add up to much, so I wouldn't regard
them as budo. They just aren't the same thing.
I'm not too bothered about them being called ju jitsu, or whatever, I just don't
think that they are budo. Budo isn't about competing with others, theres no such
thing as a budo-player, and its not really about the most effective 'street'
techniques.
So, can ju jitsu or aiki jitsu or aiki jujitsu be called any of those if its not
really budo. Of course, then you'd have to define budo quite strictly which is
something I doubt I could do very well. I bet Chuck would like to have a go
though :o)
Mike Haft
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:49:44 -0800
From: Giles Chamberlin
Subject: When is a budo not a budo (was JU JUTSU)
Chuck, Mike, myself and others have all been stumbling around trying to say that
*this* one is a legit "traditional" martial art, and *that* one is a cobbled
together abomination.
I was listening to a radio programme this morning (In Our Time, BBC Radio 4).
The discussion was centred on the continuing attempts of artists to distinguish
themselves from 'mere' craftsmen.
Are we on the edge of the same problem? Mike was suggesting that we'd need a
strict definition of budo. But we can't define art, a fairly common concept in
the western culture that most on this list inhabit. If you think that you can
then consider: a sculptor is an artist, a potter isn't. A sculptor working in
clay? I'm using common usage here, I have a potter friend who I certainly
consider an artist. But she's a member of the *Guild* of potters.
So we know what is "proper" budo. We know what isn't. We're confused by some
stuff in between.
But to define it?
--
Giles Chamberlin
http://www.jujutsu.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:55:59 -0600
From: Michael Hacker
Subject: Re: When is a budo not a budo (was JU JUTSU)
I teach computer nerd stuff at a school of art and design, and I
still have no idea how to describe, let alone define art. The
closest I can come is that you know it when you see/hear/feel it.
>Are we on the edge of the same problem? Mike was suggesting that
we'd need a strict definition of budo. But we can't define art, a
fairly common concept in the western culture that most on this list
inhabit.
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:17:31 -0500
From: Monica Bielke
Subject: Re: When is a budo not a budo (was JU JUTSU)
One "definition" that I agreed with I first heard in my Modern Lit. Criticism
class....IIRC...
"Art is experience combined with imagination."
We were discussing literature, but I liked it because it could be applied to all
kinds of creative activities.
And it was great to use with my own students, because they could see how it made
sense, and they could also see _themselves_ creating art, by that definition.
Monica
www.the-dojo.com/mn
"Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace." Amelia Earhart
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:27:41 -0500
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: When is a budo not a budo (was JU JUTSU)
At 03:55 PM 3/28/02 -0600, Michael Hacker wrote:
>I teach computer nerd stuff at a school of art and design, and I
>still have no idea how to describe, let alone define art. The
>closest I can come is that you know it when you see/hear/feel it.
I'm with you, but I think a clue resides in the fact that any time I consider
something truly artistic (rather than just pretty or decorative or well made) it
has communicated something to me on a non-verbal, subtle level that is very
clear and completely unmistakable. If it doesn't do that, then it isn't
art...to me. Others may be hearing something I'm not. That seems to be a
characteristic of art too.
-- Mike "staying out of the budo side of this one..." Bartman --
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:00:36 -0000
From: Simon Watkins
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Hmm Just a thought. BTW Mike before you joined the list Rob a Jitsu teacher who
used to post here mention that at one of their bcourses course their Founder
told them all they had terrible posture and advised them all to watch how
aikidoka move.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:03:16 -0800
From: Wiley Nelson
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
--- "G.A.Miliaresis" wrote:
> This was always my problem too: if they appreciate Budo X enough to call
> their own a variant of it, why they didn't take up *that* budo in the first
> place (or if they did, why didn't they continue it to a higher level).
Following that line of logic to its extreme, It could conceivably become
difficult to create something new or forge a new direction.
I'm certainly glad that Morihei Ueshiba didn't feel that way, or Kano, or even
the Gracies.
>It would be much easier and it would give them a legit background as well.
Easier How?
Who's approval needs to be sought?
And why?
How does an Art become "Legit" in the first place?
How did the above three systems become "Legit"?
Wiley
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:51:48 -0300
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ubaldo=20Alcantara?=
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Hello, Wiley!
IMO :
Wiley Nelson escreveu:
Easier How? UBALDO : Bigger protection, lack of originality (does not atract
jealousy)
Who's approval needs to be sought? It depends. Some people need to have some
"serious" (whatever that means) organization to back them up...
And why? UBALDO : See above.
How does an Art become "Legit" in the first place? UBALDO : In many ways. In the
case of Kano, he was an influent man and practically "pushed" judo to the
forefront. He also helped Funakoshi in introducing (a very hard task...) karate
in Japan. Ueshiba was backed by many proeminent citizen and military high ranked
guys. In any case, it took quite a lot of time to get those arts "legit" (also,
whatever that does imply...)
How did the above three systems become "Legit"? UBALDO : See above
Wiley
Best
Ubaldo.
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:20:53 +0200
From: "G.A.Miliaresis"
Subject: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
Wiley said:
>Following that line of logic to its extreme, It could conceivably
>become difficult to create something new or forge a new direction.
There is something in what you say -although there is no need to follow it to
the extreme <g>. And the question that springs to mind is "ok, we need new
creations but which are the legit new creations?", to which the only answer that
I can think of is "the ones that last". I guess we'll have to wait a couple of
decades or three to see which of these budo amalgams manage to make it through
time. And it is good to remember that Beethoven being considered a classic
didn't stop Stravinsky from becoming a classic as well...
>I'm certainly glad that Morihei Ueshiba didn't feel that way, or Kano,
>or even the Gracies.
Me too <g>. But on the one hand you have people who have dedicated their whole
lives in studying one (or more) arts and finally create their own and on the
other you have people who have barely reached shodan on one and declare they 've
reached enlightenment status and this is the time to create their own art -these
are the guys I (and I believe Chuck as well?) was referring to.
>Easier How?
Having a Hombu attachment gives some very pretty and (mostly) respectable pieces
of paper with nice kanji and red hanko seals on, which add to one's credibility.
You practice your art and you get the documentation to prove you're part of this
art: easy <g>. And if you ever decide to create your own flavor, a good stock of
real dans don't hurt either -I guess Tohei Sr could testify to that, with his
ten dan certificate from O-sensei.
>Who's approval needs to be sought?
What exactly do you mean? If I teach Aikido, I guess this would be the style's
Hombu. If I practice "The Gri Unique Enligthenment Through A** Kicking Jutsu"
(TM), mine would be more than enough <g>. Or I could dress my friend Periklis
(the one with the long hair and the beard) in a black
gi/hak, get him to pose with me in a coupla pix and say he is my mentor and the
true inspiration for the aforementioned Gri-Uen-Taki-Jutsu. Or is it
"Jitsu"?
>And why?
Again I am not sure I understand the question -sorry. If I teach aikido someone
should be able to say (a) I'm qualified to teach aikido and (b) that what I
teach *is* aikido. If I teach aikido in camo fatigues and army boots saying what
O-sensei really meant was "kick some serious a** first, love your (preferably
dead or at least horribly mutilated) opponent later" or if I teach high kicks in
red satin pj's and matching belts with golden embroidery and call this aikido,
wouldn't it be better if there was someone to protect the innocent from me? And
I don't mean there's a need for a Budo Police (TM) -I mean it would be nice to
not be able to call *this* aikido.
>How does an Art become "Legit" in the first place?
Some good intentions, tons of dedication and good PR <g>.
>How did the above three systems become "Legit"?
I wouldn't dare to speak about judo's history with the Budo Bum or Chuck (to
name just two) around and I only know a couple of facts about karate's history.
Judging from aikido though, I would say they became legit through their
creators' consistency and dedication to what they did -and good PR of course
<g>. In Kano's case I'd dare to add a more scientific (read: understandable to
both orientals and occidentals systems of values)
approach to MA. But I might be wrong in this. Help anyone?
My point after all was not against innovation -everything was new once. But
just as "traditional" doesn't necessarily equal "good", same goes for
"innovative". Especially when there is no innovation involved -the idea of
thinking of a scam just to relieve someone from their $/? was already old before
the pyramids were built.
Gri,
Judan, *Great Soke of Gri-Uen-Taki-Jutsu* (has a nice ring to it <g>).
---------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:59:51 -0500
From: Peter Boylan
Subject: What Makes A Legit Art was: Re: JU JITSU (was translating budo)
"G.A.Miliaresis" wrote:
> >How does an Art become "Legit" in the first place?
>
> Some good intentions, tons of dedication and good PR <g>.
>
> >How did the above three systems become "Legit"?
>
> I wouldn't dare to speak about judo's history with the Budo Bum or Chuck
> (to name just two) around and I only know a couple of facts about karate's
> history. Judging from aikido though, I would say they became legit through
> their creators' consistency and dedication to what they did -and good PR of
> course <g>. In Kano's case I'd dare to add a more scientific (read:
> understandable to both orientals and occidentals systems of values)
> approach to MA. But I might be wrong in this. Help anyone?
Frankly, I'd say the main thing an art requires to achieve legitimacy is
simple. It has to survive for a while. Both Ueshiba's dojo and well before
that, Kano's dojo, went through a lot of challenges, which the survived. Kano's
dojo also took part in frequent taryu jiai (competitions with other styles).
The fact that Kano's and Ueshiba's students consistently did well convinced
people that they were part of legitimate styles. Equally important, the arts
they taught had enough depth to them that students felt they were valuable
enough to spend a great deal of time and effort spreading them. I don't tend to
think of an art as really being established until it has gone at least 3
generations. Any art that lasts that long, even if it was just cobbled together
from bits and pieces, will have undergone enough testing and refinement by its
students that it will most likely have a pretty solid set of fundamental
principles, just because over time people will settle on those as being "how we
do it.".
Peter "the Budo Bum just worries about surviving the next day" Boylan
--
Peter Boylan
Mugendo Budogu LLC
The Finest Martial Arts Equipment, Direct From Japan To You
4592 40th Street S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49512
USA
---------------------------------------------------
Last updated on 13 Sep 2002