[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Here is the thing, originally Jiu-Jitsu (and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) was designed as a real world combatives system and did include things like biting, gouging, weapons, multiple attacker strategies, etc… But it has been largely sterilized and modified to fit the sport of submission grappling and the rules established therin.
Zecarlo trained BJJ with, what seems like from his accounts, someone who taught him the original form of BJJ, which contained many of these elements. While these individuals are exceedingly rare in the US, they probably still do exist in Brazil.
As a result, those of us in the states have a very different picture/understanding of what BJJ is than Zecarlo. So both sides wind up talking past each other, all the while not realizing that from the other sides perspective/experience is very true to them, even though it may not be the same perspective/experience.
I’ve said this before, but the day before UFC 1 my instructor was at one of the seminars (held in the same venue as UFC 1) being held by the Gracies on BJJ and was teaching a bunch of the guys there also attending the seminar the version of Jiu-Jitsu that he had learned (which did include things like biting, eye attacks, body handles, weapons, etc…) when one of the high ranking black belts under Helio walked up to him and said, “what you are doing is more like the real Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu than what is being taught in this country.”
Now I realize that was almost 20 years ago, but if anything BJJ has become even more sport oriented here in the states than it was back then.[/quote]
I don’t doubt that the original system did indeed have more self-defense type tactics, but I still find it hard to believe that any ground based grappling system would be effective.
If it was more like judo, where it was a standing art that didn’t depend on going to the ground, and didn’t need effective takedowns to function, than I would say fair enough.
But everything I’ve ever seen from that art has been about how to end up on the ground, and what to do when you get there.
[/quote]
Well, technically it did come from judo, so originally there was likely more focus on throwing and standing based tactics. Again, a lot of what we see now as modern BJJ has been influenced strongly by the sport of submission grappling/BJJ. [/quote]
If we want to put these things into historical, and I feel STILL relevant context:
Jujutsu was a catch all term for fighting. Because of this there is a huge variety in technique from striking to grappling to throwing. Still, most of the "traditional"ish systems are going to contain atemi(hitting tender parts), standing techniques, and ground work with various degrees of emphasis. Purpose/rules of competition drove the focus. As for what the striking/standing joint locks looked like, most everything I have ever seen done by “combatives” instructors I saw first from traditional jujutsu or karate guys.
Okinawan karate was/is largely striking focused (I am not buying the guys who try to sell the kata as elaborate single person grappling drills, mostly for the fact that good grappling doesn’t look like that). To paint with an offensively broad brush training often focussed on physical conditioning/being really fucking strong and hitting damn hard. However, when reading biographies/history it seems that wrestling was popular past time for children. Funakoshi’s biography makes a note of how he would have to get up with two or more smaller children pinning him down. If we associate that then the striking emphasis in karate on top of a base of being hard to hold down gets us the general tactic/strategy of Lidell, Fillopovic, and (at this point) Dan Henderson. So, this don’t spend time on your back and hit the other guy hard idea is still plenty valid for empty hand fighting.
The serious end users of jujutsu were not, however, as interested in empty hand dueling as they were with fighting in an environment with weapons. Now I am not trying to sell the “knife” defenses seen so much in “traditional” martial arts as even a way, much less THE WAY. I will make the following observations.
1.) The wrist releases and standing joint locks do an excellent job of making the other guy let go of you even if they “fail”. Part of being effective with any technique is making it benefit you even if it doesn’t go perfect. Most punches do not result in a KO, they are still worth throwing. I have found finger and wrist locks seem to keep people from wanting to cuddle.
2.) The bullshit “formal” attacks seen in standing jujutsu/aki-jutsu actually happen when someone is trying to dive for your gun/knife or keep you from getting your weapon into use.
3.) If we accept the “bushi/samurai” lineage of jujutsu we need to keep in mind that it was being used as an adjunct to weapons. Spears, bows, and finally swords were primaries. Knives were secondaries. At best jujutsu was a tertiary alternative.
4.) If we think of having a weapon, and we recognize that drawing a weapon (be it a sword, fixed blade knife, folding knife, or handgun) takes time and thus distance, than the exercises in not being dragged down/playing keep away from multiple opponents that are so very common in Aikido and Aiki-jutsu start to take on grim purpose. They allow us the time/distance to bring our weapons into the fight.
5.) Weapons were invented for a reason, they help us render others unable to continue being a threat.
6.) If we accept that 5 is true, than we can see using a grappling focused art as a way to keep from being tangled up in, or failing that to un-tangle one’s self, from a pile of assholes and elbows. This allows us solve the problem with mobility(Run Away! Errr…maintain tactically prudent distance) or by getting our weapon into the fight (Run whatcha’ brung. So put a piece of steel in your hand and put holes in the other guy.) Either is a fine choice when trying to solve the problem of a feral human who wants to make you dead or pregnant, RIGHT NOW.
7.) There is a difference between “fighitng” in the “street” sans ref and defense against criminal assault. In both legal and actual terms fighting implies a degree of mutual consent. Legally, it opens you up to problems, but from an amoral perspective I am going to say…just refuse consent unless the terms are favorable. So, grapplers make sure you have enough friends to run crowd control and a suitable venue. Do this and BJJ has an enviable track record in “real fights”.
Defense against criminal assault is one party consent. If you are the attacker you can use the previous strategy. As the potential victim you have to act “RIGHT NOW” because you are by definition at the scene of the crime. On the other hand you are usually legally, and I submit morally, justified in using potentially lethal force in your defense. So going “hands on” need not be your first answer and focussing on a style that will work when you cannot get to your primary weapon (this will usually be a knife or handgun in the US) and can allow you to literally “fight your way to your gun” is valid.
Criminal assaults often “go hot” at very close range. So if you miss the set up, shit may start at bad breath range. If you don’t miss the set up than the problem is often resolved without physical contact by using tactics, or failing that can be better solved once a weapon is in your hand.
These are just my opinions based on years of study, thought, observation, and learning from my own experiences and the experiences of others who are more qualified than me (some Gun-monkey on the internet).
Having said that I do not think BJJ plus “gun-fu”(actually training and practice, not just owning) is a bad 80% solution for most folks.
Of course, neither is boxing plus firearms.
Regards,
Robert A
