Was having a chat with Kathie earlier today regarding Karate and Ju-Jitsu....

Nooms: i am loving karate - loving the traditional side
whiskeyonesix: define "traditional"
Nooms: love juJitsu too but does not have the principles of karate
whiskeyonesix: "principles"?
Nooms: traditional - kata is not for show - is for exploring
whiskeyonesix: yes
Nooms: karate is not to look good, is to be effective
Nooms: mmm... perfection of technique only extends as far as effectiveness of technique
whiskeyonesix: agree
Nooms: wider range of self defence covered than hitting and kicking
Nooms: as for principles...
Nooms: major principles i have found in jujitsu so far are kuzushi - breaking balance, getting attacker down and keeping him there
Nooms: major principles of karate for me at the mo are... probably movement and self-balance
whiskeyonesix: but these are found in alot of karate styles anyway
Nooms: which links to the jujitsu but is not the same
Nooms: not as basics tho
Nooms: most karate has it as minor part rather than major
Nooms: like doing a degree in throwing people on floor with a major of pinning and a minor of hitting as opposed to doing a degree in hitting with a major in throwing and minor of pinning
Nooms: different basis.

Any thoughts?

Yes.
#1 thought: It is not nice to provoke tired people into a tirade by saying they don't love what they do any more
#2 thought: I think faster than I can type
#3 thought: Nobody is even going to follow or understand much of that conversation

Also, I retract what I said about most karate having throws and locks as secondaries - I don't know "most" karate groups well enough, but the ones I do know have them as secondary parts. There is a lot more hitting and kicking in every karate class I have been to than in any of my other styles at present (except maybe arnis and boxing, neither of which use kicks though).

I`ve never been to a Ju-Jitsu class, but I`d imagine that kicks and punches are used to get the opponent into a position where locks/holds/bars etc can be used against them? And thus are secondary attacks themselves? There are other ways to get an opponent on the floor without striking them...

Also isn`t there an old saying that most fights are won on the floor? I`m not sure whether it was Royce Gracie who said that.

Not always, but occasionally. We aren't actually taught "this is how to punch" so much in jj though. Not even the newest white belts with no prior training. At most we use a jab/cross to lead into a throw, partly because there is a real possibility it won't be a punch thrown at you "on the street" - it could be a knife, lump of wood, broken bottle etc coming at you. Apparently we are trying to avoid assuming it will be a punch or kick we are being attacked with... or maybe it's just that I'm only a white belt and have enough trouble with the basics of throwing and *censored* landing without breaking myself yet.

I thought it was x% of fights end up on the ground?

Ah yes, you`re right.

There is something of an oddity in many karate clubs (IME) that beginners are more frightening to spar because they haven't been taught "how to punch". Then as people get more experience they become less scary because they're attacking "properly". Which, if you use sparring as an aspect of training, is perhaps not going to be such a great help if someone decides to throw a punch at you with the intention of knocking your block off and they haven't been taught to only punch a certain way.

Isn't it possible that by not teaching how to punch at the start then what is thrown is more realistic and the defence technique becomes more practical and less reliant on the attacker doing what is expected?


Mick

Absolutely. And I have found this to be something that's obvious watching the higher grades in jujitsu - there isn't so much emphasis on attacking the "right" way because you manipulate the attacker to where you want him.
But occasionally we also use punching in defence. I think this is when you do need to know how to not break bits of yourself by striking.

One of the guys at work apparently used to do Ju-Jitsu and was mucking about showing off......He decided to show one of the other lads how to punch (demonstrating using a padded seat) BROKE HIS HAND IN 2 PLACES
The funniest thing though was that just before he did it he said and I quote "Now Dave you have to be careful because if you don't punch it properly you will break your hand...Now watch".

Sorry I know that doesn't really add anything to the thread but I don't care.

In a way it does add to the thread - proves one of my points about the benefits of cross training in the two. One picks up where the other leaves off - I think in the higher grades in jujitsu we get to learn how to punch (in a way) but I don't find either class to be a complete sytem in itself. Karate covers some of the throws, jujitsu covers some of the punches, kicks. Between them I am on my way to learning many aspects of complete self defence.
They also overlap and expand on each other.

So, would you say that Ju-Jitsu is the ideal counter-point to karate? There seem to be common elements here that say, doing Tai-Chi or boxing or TKD doesn`t encompass...

Nope. But I would say that personally it's the ideal counter-point to karate. If I wanted to extend even further I could throw in some Brazillian jujitsu to cover more grappling and ground work technniques, but for now that's definitely not me.
Remember the dude who had a short video clip and was knocking people down solely with his chi? Maybe that would be an option to really complete the training!

Its reasonable to assume that it would be a good complement to karate. But there is ju-jitsu and ju-jitsu (just like there is karate and karate). There are actually systems of ju-jitsu that stress striking rather more than they do grappling, some are designed as adjuncts to weapon arts, some as unarmed systems in their own right, some intended for grappling in battlefield armour, and so on and so on. But most of these are historical and fairly rare. The vast majority of ju-jitsu seems to derive from 18th and 19th century 'commoners' ju-jitsu and seems somewhat incomplete, having a focus on throwing and grappling at the expense of striking skills. So this common form of ju-jitsu would be a useful complement to kicky-punchy styles of karate. Some systems/clubs are excellent and some less than excellent.

I think its always a good idea to cross-train. The challenge is a) to find time to do justice to both arts, and b) to ultimately draw it all together into a consistent curriculum that works for you.

Mike

I went along to a Ju-Jitsu class last night......I think it would definately be a good thing to do as well as karate.
I am aching and sore but I'm definately interested in going back.

It looks like Ju-Jitsu complements karate well.
Stuffed? How did you find it compared to karate?

One lesson is not really enough to judge but as far as self defence goes I think Ju-Jitsu would be more useful in real life (well in comparison with GKR karate anyway....can't comment on any others) Being able to fall with minimum damage is always gonna be useful. I really wouldn't like to comment further without doing a few more lessons.
I will say I did find it quite difficult...but hey that's why you have to practice isn't it!

oh absolutely. I remember when I was training with Mick last year - his syllabus incorporates alot of ju-jitsu elements in it, such as breakholds, wrist locks, grabs, throws, breakfalls etc. I only managed about 10 or 12 classes with him, but I found for the first few classes I found it very tricky!

I think I had an advantage there - I got to watch months worth of jujitsu classes before I picked it up. I find that because I'm comfortable with the lead up to a throw (usually for us white belts it is just a jab/cross combo), it makes learning the other stuff a little easier.

I've heard karate instructors say "we don't need to learn how to fall because in karate we stay on our feet". And then a few minutes later they sweep someone while sparring...

Some dismiss locks etc as too complicated and impractical, or say "This is karate. Karate is punching and kicking. While you're wasting time trying to put some fancy lock on they've probably hit you. Much better to just hit them."

Of course you could take the advice of many others who suggest you never try to apply a lock without hitting them a few times first... to "distract" them while you go about putting on the lock.

Then too there is the issue that, having learnt a few simple restraints or escapes, there are parts of kata which become much clearer than they were before. Though if karate is just punching and kicking then maybe that's just someone's imaginings?


Mick

*side track*
Just thinking today that one of the best things for me with cross-training is that my instructors encourage me to do so, to some extent.
*end side track*

I think karate was more well-rounded once than it is in some cases now. Possibly jujitsu was too? Having the foundation for a few basic throws I have found parts of karate kata making more sense suddenly (and, oh, is that ever a cool feeling!). We apparently have kata in jujitsu as well... I just haven't seen them. My instructor is not big on kata at all.
As for "wasting time trying to put some fancy lock on they've probably hit you", I have seen enough to know you can put on a lot of locks and avoid being hit at the same time (just don't ask me to do it under pressure - I'm neither coordinated nor fast enough).

I know you're just kidding Mick, but I'll bite on that statement anyway. Looking at kata now, it appears utterly obvious to me that karate has a considerable grappling component. Kata just wouldn't make any remote sense if it was just meant to be blocking, kicking and punching. The only way I can possibly make pragmatic sense of the kata is to imagine that you've got hold of someone, or they've got hold of you, or there is physical contact in some way DURING the movements - and not just a brief moment of impact at the kime point of each technique.

Mike

Yes.. there becomes a potentially big problem in learning MA if you're learning how to fight/defend yourself and it only works at a distance of about 1.5 metres.


Mick

Hmmm Having started my martial journey with Goju as a "young" child and having continuned a peripheral interest in the evolution of modern karate since i think i can honestly say that JuJitsu as a self defence art is far superior to the majority of modern karate as it is comonly taught. The UFC and other NHB events showed the limitations of the average stand up fighter versus the average grappler. Having said that a good striker can do a lot of damage.

I think the key is completeness and the average karate school that i have seen either has too many gaps when it comes to modern scenario training or openly admits having added from other Jitsu. This is in no way to disrespect karateka, some systems like the Sabaki method schools have actively modernised both biomechanically and in the curriculum and are very good systems.

The question of effectiveness comes down to one of "distance" and "choice". JuJitsu is effective over more ranges than karate and we have now all seen how quickly a jujitsuan will close the distance and nullify the majority of the strikers weapons and ethically once there, is more versed in control options than the typical striker...something which morally is personally satisfying..

Thoughts?

Paul Sensei

I think I have learned more about closing the distance through karate, but possibly only because I have been doing karate much longer than jujitsu. Ditto for evasion.

It's called the CASE principle - Copy And Steal Everything. (I stole that one from Dale)


Mick

Sorry to hijack your thread - but has anyone hear from Dale? His websites been down for ages... seems the domains expired too.