BJJ vs Japanese Jiu Jitsu?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » BJJ vs Japanese Jiu Jitsu?
Naturaldisaster
10/15/08 7:39:39PM
whats the difference between the two?
jiujitsufreak74
10/15/08 7:48:50PM
Japanese JJ is more of a traditional martial art. there are many styles of Japanese JJ, but the majority of them focus on throwing, groundwork (not as much as BJJ), standing grappling, striking (to a lesser extent than most martial arts, but there are combos you learn similar to karate usually done from horse stance) and weapon defense. it is more about self defense and is really, like i said, a traditional martial art just with more focus on submissions than the others. you learn disarming moves, weapon attacks/defenses and actually point spar.

BJJ focuses almost entirely on groundwork. it focuses more on guard positions and submissions suited to incapacitate your opponent from positions that would otherwise seem disadvantageous. while it does focus somewhat on self defense, as the years have progressed it is now more suited for competition than defending yourself on the street.

hope i helped
Rush
10/15/08 7:57:54PM

Posted by jiujitsufreak74

Japanese JJ is more of a traditional martial art. there are many styles of Japanese JJ, but the majority of them focus on throwing, groundwork (not as much as BJJ), standing grappling, striking (to a lesser extent than most martial arts, but there are combos you learn similar to karate usually done from horse stance) and weapon defense. it is more about self defense and is really, like i said, a traditional martial art just with more focus on submissions than the others. you learn disarming moves, weapon attacks/defenses and actually point spar.

BJJ focuses almost entirely on groundwork. it focuses more on guard positions and submissions suited to incapacitate your opponent from positions that would otherwise seem disadvantageous. while it does focus somewhat on self defense, as the years have progressed it is now more suited for competition than defending yourself on the street.

hope i helped




Pretty accurate, but not all styles point spar.

jiujitsufreak74
10/15/08 8:02:59PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by jiujitsufreak74

Japanese JJ is more of a traditional martial art. there are many styles of Japanese JJ, but the majority of them focus on throwing, groundwork (not as much as BJJ), standing grappling, striking (to a lesser extent than most martial arts, but there are combos you learn similar to karate usually done from horse stance) and weapon defense. it is more about self defense and is really, like i said, a traditional martial art just with more focus on submissions than the others. you learn disarming moves, weapon attacks/defenses and actually point spar.

BJJ focuses almost entirely on groundwork. it focuses more on guard positions and submissions suited to incapacitate your opponent from positions that would otherwise seem disadvantageous. while it does focus somewhat on self defense, as the years have progressed it is now more suited for competition than defending yourself on the street.

hope i helped




Pretty accurate, but not all styles point spar.




well the style i trained in did so i guess i was making an unfair assumption. i was writing based off of my own experiences
chickmagnet
10/15/08 8:17:02PM
BJJ is a sport, Japenese Jiu Jitsu is a killing art.

BJJ there are things you cannot do, they train bjj mostly on the ground because its grappling which is a sport, it has a lot of the locks and submissions that Japanese Jits has as well but less throws and less strikes. It can be used for self defense but Japanese Jiu Jitsu is much more dangerous and effective. It is mostly used for MMA.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu they have many throwing techniques, strikes, and chokes. They have a lot of moves that are illegal in BJJ competitions such as neck breaks, manipulating small joints and orfaces. In training they teach you to attack very vulnurable places such as the groin and the throat. Originally Japanese Jiu Jitsu was taught to Samurais in the Feudal Age in case they lost their weapon. There is alot of gauging, biting and strangles involved in Jiu Jitsu, and in Jiu Jitsu there is absolutley no holds barred, wether its gauging, tearing, or biting. Judo also evolved from Japanese Jiu Jitsu from the throwing techniques.

Both are great Martial Arts but they are used differently.

For self defense Japanese Jiu Jitsu is the way to go.
For Sport Fighting, MMA, Grappling, BJJ is the way to go.

Thats the real difference.

Your Welcome
Naturaldisaster
10/15/08 8:26:48PM
thanks. I know alot about BJJ but I just havent really heard much about Japanese jiu jitsu
fullerene
10/15/08 9:05:01PM
I've done Japanese Jiu Jitsu and many of the things posted on here were not a part of it.

The fundamental difference is that the lineage (and typically the instructor) are Japanese. Where I trained there was standing grappling/wrestling and ground work. There was no small joint manipulation and the general rules of etiquette when rolling were the same as for any other style of grappling I've done. The only part that implemented anything close to striking were moves that were along the lines of self-defense into grappling (i.e. somebody throws a punch and you jam it and take the person down) and applying some type of sub hold from there--probably similar to what they would teach at a police academy or military self-defense program--but that wasn't a large part of the class. Of course tthat's a sample set of one school, but I'm not sure too many other people have studied this since it was never very popular pre-UFC and post-UFC the Brazilian schools started popping up rapidly.

When I went to a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu school afterwards there was definitely a different style and some changed emphasis on techniques but otherwise there was little or no transition to be made between the styles. Almost all of the basic moves and positions would be covered in both and a lot of the drills will be the same.
Wolfenstein
10/15/08 9:20:05PM
I've taken Aikido and Japanese Jiu Jitsu before. I personally didn't find them to be very applicable for self defense situations. All of the empty hand strikes are basically extentions of a sword strike. Most techniques deal with wrist grabs (as this was common back in the day to grab the wrist so the samurai couldn't reach for his sword, and lapel grabs. Throwing, trapping, joint locking, holds, gouging, biting, disengagements, striking, and kicking are covered.

Some of the wrist locks and other small joint manipulation are pretty interesting and effective. I've been to two schools and both schools I found the training to be very soft. Everything is half-speed and done with a sort of delicateness.

That's just been my personal experience. In some other schools this might not be the case.
Rush
10/15/08 11:29:47PM
I have a black belt in traditional Japanese Jujutsu. I didn't want to write a whole lot on the topic, but I feel I have to at this point.

The main problem with this discussion that nobody has addressed is this. The term, jiu jitsu IMO is a misused term that gets tossed around to loosely and differs a lot from jujutsu.

What I consider Japanese jujutsu is the fighting style typically used by samurai. It's origins are actually from kenjutsu (sword), yari jutsu (spear), etc. By origins, I actually mean the movements themselves are based on sword and spear movements. If anyone has taken aikido or jujutsu, they should know this.

Now, what I feel encompasses traditional Japanese jujutsu (I almost feel there is a redundancy of terms there) are the following:

-Emphasis on standing throws defending against simple attacks involving weapons or not - eg. punch, kick, stab, club swing, etc.
-Emphasis on using joint locks to faciliate throws or takedowns
-Emphasis on suwari waza (in the traditional sense meaning from techniques seiza)
-Some emphasis on ground control, though primarily the goal is to kill or incapacitate the enemy
-Any emphasis on striking is done do as to soften your enemy or finish them eg. elbows upon entering the opponent, kicks to a downed opponent

If you want, IMO, the purest form of jujutsu, look at Daito Ryu, from which judo and aikido were born.


Now on to jiu jitsu. OK, there are two origins of this term as far as I am concerned. One is the language difference. It's spelled to capture the Portugese accent. The other "meaning" which may or may not be related to BJJ (and it popularity with MMA, before it was MMA), is the fact that jiujitsu is (again IMO) a term misused by describing amalgamated martial arts that incorporate striking and throwing techniques. Essentially "free styles" if you will. I think of this as the bastard brother of traditional jujutsu and the two should not be compared. I also feel that jiujitsu is more widespread and unregulated than jujutsu. Likewise, the techniques taught in such classes tend to be sloppier and have less structure than the ones offered in traditional forms.

From my own experience, everyone that I have trained with personally, that has taken jiujitsu have no technique and cannot dictate any class or curricular structure. Those that have trained in Daito Ryu have great technique and have a structured curriculum.
cloppio
10/16/08 1:17:42AM
so it seems jiu and rush can't get any more props right now so i'll just type it.... word guys, you two always come through on questons like this so cheers to you both! i'll prop u when it lets me..
Related Topics