Discussion in 'Ju Jitsu' started by Katsu, Sep 29, 2012.
Hmmm...a tricky requirement...
Well I'm confused as to how my original question confused you.
Got it. At first I though you were pointing out the discrepancy between Nick's bio referencing HRJJ and his only mentioning KJJR.
Don't get me wrong, there are some practices that don't sit well with me up my lineage tree but I'd rather discuss them in PMs rather than right here on the boards...
Personally I would rather it be discussed on the boards.
I feel this is a matter that would take 5 sec to clarify face to face but for some reason is stuck in neutral in written form.
You basically asked "why do you call Japanese something that is Japanese?". Eeeerrr, because it's...Japanese?
Now if you'd asked "why don't you call Japanese something that is Japanese?" (since the founder actually called it "American JiuJitsu" but claims a Japanese lineage) then the question would have made sense to me.
If all else fails, I can always blame this to English being my second language.
Please read my original post again.
Replace "expletive deleted" with "nothing".
I hope that helps.
I really do.
All that for that. Good gravy. Next time just say "no connection". Thought you were going for a different type of expletive...
Just reread this and you seem to be thinking that KJJR is part of what is taught at AJJ. It's not. The AJJ curriculum is "bastardized" Hakko Ryu witty added Aikido, Judo and Arnis. I think the KJJR Godan claim is just there to highlight his experience in another style, but again it's not what AJJ is based on. That said, even if it were, why would to be misleading to have the KJJR godan referenced in there? It's not like he said he was a godan at the time AJJ was created. New ranks are attained and bios get updated... Not sure what the problem is.
That said, I'm still interested to see if someone can confirm or invalidate the claims made on that bio.
Well it's obviously misleading if he doesn't actually have one. I'm waiting to hear back on this but I'm highly suspect for some very apparent reasons.
And aikido, judo and Arnis are not jujutsu so that leaves hakko ryu for "where" the jujutsu may come from.
So that we are both talking about the same hakko ryu, can you please provide a reference to "the" hakko ryu you are talking about?
Right, if he doesn't have one. Not if his attaining the rank happened after he created AJJ and was subsequently added to his bio.
re: Aikido, Judo, Arnis...right, that's why I called it bastardized. The Aikido material is also combat oriented i.e. more direct. That actually reflects upon the rest of the (JJ) material. I can't compare to other styles of JJ as I haven't studied any. The techniques are more combative and big on pain compliance and off balancing (not talking about throws) and favor joint manipulations and chokes. Basic throws (maybe about 15). Strikes, kicks no higher than the groin. Maybe 20% groundwork, knife defense (knives, guns, sticks). Ippons at low levels. Feels like I described JJ in general. Not sure how other schools differ other than the amount of time they dedicate on the various facets. Maybe people who have trained in other styles can tell me...
Combatative and pain complience are two different ends of the force continum for me.
This 20% ground work, are we talking newaza or aikido kneeling pins?
I see what you're saying about combative vs pain compliance though I don't agree they're "two different ends" of the force continuum. Combative seeks to hurt/destroy whereas pain compliance seeks to submit/restrain. Combative is just higher on the force continuum, not at a different end. That said, by combative I meant that the techniques are definitely more linear and direct (reaching target in a straight line), that said this applies to the entry of most techniques. It's in the finish that pain compliance comes in. We can choose to submit and control through pain compliance and off balancing or to entirely eliminate the threat if needed e.g. he reaches for a weapon etc.
Pain compliance is not a good choice to finish at all outside if a controlled environment. If te move you are doing requires it for completion you are rolling the dice every time you apply it.
Far better to concentrate on larger restraint options that restrict movement without the pain being necessary for efficacy.
It is never "required" but merely an option in your arsenal. You can choose to control/submit or take a more decisive course of action - you tailor the response to the threat - that's a basic of SD and force law. AFAIK, control is achieved through pain compliance or off balancing - ideally both. Not sure what you mean exactly by larger restraint options.
It means arms/locks against the whole limb and body. For control a shoulder lock is better than a wristlock by a mile. A back hammerlock is another example - pain or no it offers control
Anytime you are controlling and restraining outside of a professional environment you are probably choosing a duff option combatively speaking - unless it is one of the "drunk friend" situations we all find ourselves in
Most locks and holds only work because you have smacked someone upside the head first - 90% of Aikido is atemi
the end of a fight after the first clinch
What does that even mean?
Granted. Not a revelation.
No pain, no gain.
Prior striking / atemi was implied.
Separate names with a comma.