Uechi-Ryu.com

I am extremely fortunate to have a very intense and talented judoka in my jujitsu class. He is a nidan in jujitsu as well, but has been training and competing in judo for the past 3 or 4 years (drop in the bucket, I know), however, he is very good.

One of the conversations we always get into on the mat, when we are discussing a particular technique, is "this is the Judo way and this is the Jujitsu way." What do I mean? Let me put it this way. Osotogari (large reaping sweep). You have all seen if not done it. This is when you step behind your opponant (for the most part) and sweep the leg closest to you out.

Well, the Judoka takes that person out with a good throw. A jujitsu ka changes that move up a litte and instead of sweeping at the low end of the leg, goes for the thigh region, taking out the whole body. Also, the follow-through would include using the kozushi (off-balancing)as a weapon as well, whereas judo would not.

I am in no way minimizing the effect of judo, all I am saying is that in Jujitsu, you have no rules basically, while in Judo, you have too many in my book.

comments??

mike

Mike,

A good judoka should also use the whole length of the leg to get thigh contact, but that's off your main point . In our kata, the delivery is a heel kick to the top of the calf muscle where it splits, combined with a Y-strike to the throat.

Your point about kuzushi as an attack is perfect. One of the hallmark differences.

I find that the biggest weakness in jujutsu is our basics. We cover so much that we often don't cover it well. Judo, by limiting technique, developes awesome purity of form. When that great form is combined with jujutsu tactics, the result is beautiful and devestating.

Rory

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I am no Judo expert. Hell, I'm not even a Judo student (much...I've gotten a few lessons here and there), though I've often considered it (It was actually the reason I began studying the martial arts. My father had been a judo player in his youth, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps).

That having been said...I've done some research on the subject, including going through a bunch of Mark Tripp's history on www.mixedmartialarts.com, and found some interesting stuff.

There is a difference between competition Judo, and Judo as a whole. The two are not the same.

Good Kodokan Judo is a very complete syllabus, which includes not just throws, but also striking, groundfighting a la BJJ, as well as it's devastating throws.

Don't know enough about the whole kuzushi concept to comment on it. Though, again, unbalancing an opponent before a throw is pretty much a pre-requisite to being able to throw someone, regardless of the art.

My .002 of appropriate denomination

Jake

------------------
Defeat is worse than death. You have to live with defeat - Seal Team Slogan

Hello All,

Speaking of Kokodan Judo, I recently saw the book "THE COMPLETE BOOK OF KANO JIU-JUTSU" by Harrie Hancock with Master Kano. I was looking at the 1926 edition.

If you look at that book, you would swear it was Jiu-Jitsu. There is throws, locks, atemi, sweeps, standing fighting, groung fighting, and even sitting fighting. It is VERY complete.

NOTE: This book was published again in the 1960's with the section on kyusho omitted. I have scaned that section and placed it on this website. http://www.homestead.com/kyusho/kano.html
The work is now public domain.
Thanks
Jeremy Bays

Samurai Jeremy,

Cool. Thanks for the link. WOuld love to get a hold of that book!

david

Mike:

Good points. I'm not well trained in either style but have a little dabbling behind me in both.

One distinction I found when I shifted from Judo to JuJitsu was in throwing.

In Judo we concentrated on that smooth nice landing flat on the back.

In JuJitsu we concentrated on adding that last pull on the arm to accelerate them into the mat.

So in Judo we judged the throw by how nice and flat they landed, while in jujitsu it was how high they bounced off the mat.

Rick

Just so everybody knows, I am one of Sensei Mike's Uechi and Jujutsu students. I have also trained some judo.

I agree with Sensei Mike that jujutsu versions of the techniques are more open-ended. That is, there is the possibility of doing additional damage to one's opponent while performing the throw. That being said, I do disagree on some of the interpretation. Clearly, when performing Osoto Gari, the aim could be to injure the opponent's leg. However, I don't believe that the technique was designed to do that. The goal of that particular technique is to throw the opponent backward. Similarly, when performing Hane Goshi (hip spring), I could try to injure my opponent's leg. Again, the technique was not designed to do that. It was designed to throw an opponent who slipped past your hip while you attempted Uki Goshi (floating hip). In fact, Hane Goshi can be performed with very little tension applied to the opponent's knee.

The point is this: it is possible to re-interpret the techniques. But, if my aim is kicking the leg, maybe I am doing karate and not jujutsu. (... I know... jujutsu has strikes too...)

Here is another topic to think about. The primary tool for learning jujutsu (Nihon Jujutsu anyway) is kata. This is analogous to Uechi Ryu Karate Do (and most other traditional karate styles) as well as Aikido. However, judo seems to be taught in a reverse manner. The student learns a bunch of techniques and uses them in randori. Then as he approaches shodan, he learns Nage No Kata. Perhaps the names "Jujutsu" and "Judo" are mis-applied. Being that karate and aikido are "do" (arts of the way), I find it ironic that judo is also a "do" art rather than a "jutsu" art given its (current) emphasis on randori. I understand that randori is hardly combat, but I would contend that it is combat in a limited sense. Similarly, given jujutsu's emphasis on kata, I find it strange that it is still a "jutsu" art.

The only reason I can find for this discontinuity would be that the names are historical rather than reflecting their current nature.

Any thoughts?

Rich

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I find it ironic that judo is also a "do" art rather than a "jutsu" art given its (current) emphasis on randori. I understand that randori is hardly combat, but I would contend that it is combat in a limited sense. Similarly, given jujutsu's emphasis on kata, I find it strange that it is still a "jutsu" art.

The only reason I can find for this discontinuity would be that the names are historical rather than reflecting their current nature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rich, Nice to see you post every so often. I think your last sentence answers the previous...


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Donn Draeger saw or anticipated this. In his book, Judo: Formal Techniques, A Guide to Kodokan Randori no Kata, coauthored with Tadao Otaki, Dreager emphasized practicing "kata" to learn the broad range of techniques. Just practicing randori alone, he felt leads to over specialization in one or two techniques and perhaps bad form.

It should be noted that "kata" in karate is a solo exercise whereas the kata forms in jujutsu/aikido/judo are interactional in nature. In the latter, there is immediate feedback and the level of resistance can be increased according to skill levels. A good partner can keep one honest. The same cannot be said of solo kata, especially with one who wants to engage in self-delusion.

david

Rich my fine senpai,

It's about time you chirped in on some conversation ;-)

Anyway, it's probably a matter of semantics these days anyway, but I have to agree with David that the two words are more historical in nature than anything at this point. Kata, or formal exercise could mean anything, just as much as randori means fighting. It's how we use it that matters.

mike