With some old film and pictures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0fH_8kv7ac&feature=g-vrec

Awesome, thanks Tim!

Well.....lets say BJJ still struggles with history. At least due credit is finally given to Judo through Maeda, but...

That early video footage isn't Maeda. The pics are, but the video is Sadakazu Uyenishi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eALLe1wghSA

Maeda apparently fought this guy.

Kosen Judo didn't even start (1914) until long after Maeda left Japan (1904).

Actually Maeda first arrived in Brazil at the end of 1914, as Jake recently reminded me with the inspiration for the name of the 1914 Gis.

I wonder if these guys are following Bunasawa's "biography" of the man, which is basically historical fiction.

I think they confuse "Kosen" with "Fusen," a lot of people seem to believe that Kosen was a style of JJ that brought the ground work to Judo, rather than a subset of Judo that kept the old rules in high school competitions.

Tim, they weren't high school competitions, they were, and are, college competitions.

Aside from Fusen, there are other high-ranking judoka today who are lineage holders in other styles of JJ. As was the case in Kano's time, what they bring to judo from their JJ background varies in depth and quality.

The whole Fusen thing is a bit problematic as well...Tanabe was clearly a lineage holder there, but present day Fusen-ryu has nothing like Judo newaza. So where did it come from?

It may have been an adaptation specific to his line or to him, ideally suited to that day's style of inter-art competition.

One could argue that Takeuchi-ryu may have had more of an influence on Judo newaza than Fusen-ryu. TR also has kata specifically developed for those kinds of competitions.

More plausibly, the whole Tanabe thing and interest in groundwork was happening just before Maeda left Japan - so he would have been a beneficiary of a time at the Kodokan when groundwork was a focus.

As well, back then there was nothing like the distinction between Judo and jujutsu/jiu-jitsu (i.e. traditional jujutsu) that is made now. Even in Kano's writing, they were viewed as largely the same thing or simply variations on a theme. Kano grafted a more modern moral and educational theory onto the practice than was seen in the older schools.

Even now as Abdullah has noted there are lineage holders in classical JJ who are ranking Judoka today, and you can't watch Judo kata (required for ranking)without seeing classical JJ...Maeda's own teachers were not only Judoka but classical jujutsuka. Not to mention that Tanabe (NOT a Kodokan Judoka) is shown in Yokoyama's Judo Kyohan demonstrating "Judo" groundwork (some of the other names there are Takeuchi-ryu men....)

Seems the boundaries between Judo and JJ were more permeable, and there was much less of a proprietary approach to "Judo" (even that a term borrowed from earlier times)in the days of Maeda's development than since.

I recently listened to an interview with Rener, Ryron, and the other R Gracie kid.... and I really liked their approach and attitude. They spoke of making a distinction between BJJ and Jiu Jitsu (If I remember correctly Renzo does as well, and he takes it further by spelling it Ju Jitsu as a homage to the old school), in that BJJ is sport oriented and "true" JJ incorporates self defense, kicks, punches, etc. So where do we stop calling it JJ and call it Lute Livre, MMA, Vale Tudo????

BTW Check out www.1914bjj.com for some of the best gi's you will ever find on the market (he, he... shameless plug for my awesome sponsor!!!!)

Thanks
JAB

The "jiu jitsu" spelling is simply an older romanization. Old school Japanese jujutsu books in English often used "jiu-jitsu."

Older, older school (koryu) didn't even call it jujutsu, having a variety of terms that eventually came under the catch-all of jujutsu. I saw one school with a listing as teaching "taijutsu, yawara, kumi uchi" - which are essentially three different words for jujutsu: Yawara specifically being the ju kanji (Chinese rou).

Some old schools used different terms for different parts of their curriculum as well: so using the terms above taijutsu might be their overall close combat (armed and unarmed), jujutsu might be their competition grappling, and kumi uchi might be their armed grappling with swords, or something like that.

The term is so malleable and has so many meanings that I think you could put all of it together, from Kodokan Judo to MMA to armed close quarters combatives and call it "jujutsu."

Great points Kit!
Linguistically speaking, strictly, what are the origins and breakdown of jiu jitsu?

Ju-Jutsu

Rou Shu

(Rou as in soft/flexibile/pliant)

Shu (skill - like Wu SHU)

Japanese also have native pronounciations and for Ju it is "yawara." They may have more.

Jujutsu as a term is apparently relatively late, though now even some of the older schools that didn't call themselves jujutsu "then" do now. But something like Takeuchi-ryu, which calls itself "jujutsu" includes unarmed striking/self defense, unarmed "competition" fighting for the old school inter-school fights, armed "self defense" tactics (including with pot lids and parasols and stuff!), and armed and armored close combat - all making use of similar tactics. Araki-ryu, which I studied, calls itself Kenpo (i.e. Quanfa) in one tradition, yet includes similar things and is actually descended from Takeuchi-ryu. Sosuishi-ryu calls itself "jujutsu" but the extant curriculum is practiced as iai and grappling using different terms.....so, even the classic schools changed and varied their terms as they referred to their curriculae.

So really the word has no connotation towards any specific genre? In other words it is not specifically referring towards joint manipulation, or just striking, or weapon based or non- weapon based arts? Not surprising then that folks used the term loosley.
Thanks Kit!
J

Exactly - though there is definitely a tendency toward a grappling orientation, some jujutsu methods were more known for striking, others throwing, others locking...while Draeger tends to overstate things, the overall arc of jujutsu development he addresses, from what was basically a violent combat version of sumo where they threw the opponent down and stomped him to death (you still see some of this in koryu kata), to fairly comprehensive grappling in armor, to grappling in support of drawing and using a sword (a lot of iaijutsu has grappling applications), to a rough and ready version of Japanese vale tudo, to a "degeneration to aesthetic type" which was more conceptual stuff of little combative value, pretty much was what happened.

Some of Kano's writings have been published and they are an absolutely fascinating window into this process.

Thanks Kit! Your insight and knowledge on the subject is deeper then you ever give yourself credit for.
Can you point us ignorant masses to the specific writings you refer to of Kano's please?

Thanks
JAB

Jake

Judo Memoirs of Jigoro Kano:

http://www.amazon.com/Judo-Memoirs-Jigoro-Brian-Watson/dp/1425163491

Some very interesting stuff.

Mind Over Muscle is good too, but this one is like a direct line into his diaries across a span of time.

JudoForum is also loaded with a ton of great information on the historical aspects.

Thanks Kit!

Thanks Tim,

An awesome documentary, in 5 minutes.

Gives a good overview on the origins of BJJ and IMO is an important factor in the development of martial arts in the western world.