When judo was formed, Kano took all the kill aspects of jujitsu out to make it a sport (safe) so in effect watered it down, the contests that took place were for sport, no killing allowed. jujitsu practioners study the whole art not just a portion. it might have been a little different if they were fighting for there lives.
i dont jab at different arts just say what i see, when you turn any art into a sport and train for sport you limit what you do to make it safe and so we see many styles that are a meer shadow of there former glory ie check out half the taiji practioners who have no concept of the fighting art.

ps kano took the principles of jujitsu, balance and the breaking of, body mechanics centre of gravity etc as did O sensei when he formulated Aikido.
i didn't mean there not valid arts just missing stuff.....

When McArthur banned all martial arts in Japan, judo was the first to allowed again. Supposedly judoka presented that they practiced a sport not a fighting system.

"a meer shadow of there former glory"
that should be in a book.

I think you should come around the mat sometime and I can show my shadows bro.

Your argument appears sound, and in one context, the superficial, it is.

But what is the true effect of taking out the eye-gouging and instead focusing on throwing, positional control, choking and locking the elbow?

Ask Helio! Kimura is a strange name for an armbar, and it certainly doesn't sound portuguese.

Jason,
Great post!
Jake

good morning/afternoon/evening
now get your coffee/cup of tea/ hot chocolate
and we'll begin.

dont forget they didn't just take out the eye gouging they took out the pressure point application and the death point striking.
aren't they important.

where is the balance. lets say we took dim mak out of taiji what would we have. no balance.

the head of my old school pendekar zein effendi took minangkabau silat, judo, jujitsu, oyama karate and an indigenous style of kungfu (Kuntao)
took from the very best aspects of these arts and formed panca bela, he made a system that was him. a devastating complete martial art.

i left my first style of karate because it wasn't complete, wing chun was the instructor, kosong tangan he had left the origin of panca bela and missed what pendekar effendi was putting accross.

why do we do more than one or 2 arts if what we do is so good, isn't it because something is missing.

at present i study japanese sword because i've always wanted to learn, do a little taiji and bagua and live in a small country town in oz (400 people in my town) an hour nearly to the next biggest town. to learn bagua, i will need to travel 6-8 hours

i love to train but finding willing people is the problem.

i dont think i'm superficial, i like to research and learn and i'd love to get on a mat with you jason i'm sure it would be a great learning experience looking at what you've learned.
have a great day.

"take the dim mak out of Tai Ji and what do you have?" Tai Ji Chuan that works.

Shane

The important point to remember about Kano's synthesis and modification of classical Jujutsu is that by removing the more dangerous techniques, thereby allowing for realistic training against resistance and applying a more modern methodology of teaching, his students, many with only a relatively short period of training were able to defeat the best representatives of virtually every other classical style. Why? Because a large portion of the technical repetoire in classical styles include "deadly" techniques that preclude realistic sparring practice. If you don't practice it for real, you can't do it for real.

Virtually without exception, any martial art that claims it's techniques are too "deadly" to practice in a live, fully resistive sparring format will produce students far less capable of actually fighting than styles that include practical techniques and live training, including the combat sports.

Taijiquan is a good example. Originally, the Taijiquan technical syllabus was primarily made up of throwing and standing grappling techniques. There were far less striking techniques and they were of secondary importance. There was no concept of "dim mak" or death touches. The heavy wrestling/grappling emphasis allowed Taijiquan fighters to spar full out, with little fear of infliciting serious injury. The skills developed made them formidable fighters. It's important to realize techniques that can be safely practiced live (throws and joint locks for example) can be used to cause serious injury when applied "for real" against opponents that are unprepared to be thrown and are thrown full force. Joint locks also become debilitating fight-enders when the one applying them does not stop when the receiver signals defeat.

Also, to add to Tim's comments, the early Taijiquan folks were in very excellent physical shape. Take a look at the Chen style and look at the fitness level that's associated with "good" advanced Chen Taiji. Most people can' do it.

Look at any combat art/sport today (like MMA, no-gi or BJJ) it's hard work to compete at a good level. You have to be in shape and train with opponents applying resistance.
It's hard work and most people won't do it.

So, instead they talk about how deadly their techniques are and can be fat loads...
It's a lot easier.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to know that I could just touch someone and they fall down or be like the old master and kick the crap out of a group of young studs because of my superior chi powers. I'm just not fooling myself and won't lie to myself.

Doesn't the characters for the phrase "kung fu" mean something like - "hard work..." Tim can verify but it's pretty simple as that.

good training,
Joe

Tim - going to call you on your cell tomorrow morning.

http:\thestudywithin.blogspot.com

my "cell phone" is only available to inmates for 5 minutes, 1 day a week.

Bob#2

""take the dim mak out of Tai Ji and what do you have?" Tai Ji Chuan that works."

haha, well said. Do I believe in striking acupoints? Well about as much as I believe in acupuncture. There is a time and a place for it. If you cant strike someone anywhere because they are better fighters than you, I wouldn't count on striking them exactly on one little inch wide point at the exact right angle with the right type of power. Basic skill means a lot more in a fight than deadly techniques.

Thank you for the interesting conversation guys
i appreciate it

adam

You're welcome.

Bob#2

what submission do you use on a guy that you have total positional dominance over?

any one you want.

i didn't mean to end ALL discussion with my insightful and succinct analysis of grappling.

You did! Thanks!

ok

I was discussing this with my wife, your quite negative reaction to pressure point striking and her responce was, "how hard is it to step on an ant". quiet apt i thought.

The next time I'm attacked by an ant, I'll keep that in mind.

Now, for uncooperative human beings that are trying to hurt you, you may want to rely on good sound techniques that are pointed out here in the thread...

BTW - loved your book, "A Wealth of Nations"

good training,
Joe

www.thestudywithin.com
http://thestudywithin.blogspot.com