Talk:Brazilian jiu-jitsu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Origin vandalism

DrParkes and others, please explain your systematic removal of all mention of Judo from this article despite it being the root art of BJJ, *not* Tenshin Shinyo Ryu (which is one of the contributing arts of Judo).

I have attempted to revert it as best I could to before the removal.

Raider like Indiana, please do not revert the article back to the version where Tenshin Shinyo Ryu is falesly ascribed as the source of BJJ, all mention of Judo is gone, and "Japanese" is consistently misspelled, among other errors.

Edits rolled back. A Raider Like Indiana 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism but it is incorrect. Sources are the best way to end this edit war will try to get on to add some tonight. --Nate1481 08:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to introduce WP:POV edits - at least back it up with sources. There is also not enough room in the info box to include all considered famous.Peter Rehse 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maeda entered the Kodokan at 18 or 19 and got his reputation there. It is not known exactly how much Tenjin Shinyo-ryu he studied as a boy but it wasn't a huge amount - he was not an expert. He was a Judo guy - simple as that. Oh and its spelled Japanese.Peter Rehse 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of editing to hopefully keep things in perspective.Peter Rehse 11:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It' a shame to see this kind of vandalism which goes without any sources to back it up. Maeda, the father of BJJ was an incredible Judoka. Let's see what the book about Maeda by Stanlei Virgílio (ISBN 85-87585-24-X: bibliographic information: Virgílio, Stanlei - Conde Koma: O Invencível yodan da história / Stanlei Virgílio - Campinas - SP, Editora Átomo: 1-Japoneses - Brasil, Norte 2. Jiu-jitsu - Brasil 3. Judô - Brasil 4. Maeda, Otávio Mitsuyo)

Born in November, 18, 1878 in Aomori province, Hirosaki city, Funazawa village he attended to Kenritsu Itiu, a school from Hirosaki. While a child, although with a defined physic with strong arms and hips and legs he didn't have the ideal body for sumo practice, the sport he was practicing without much success. For this reason, after hearing comments about confrontations between Judo and the jiu-jitsu of that time, in which were exalted the names of Yokoyama, Shiro Saigo, Yamashita, Hajime Izogai, Suiti Nagaoka, Oda Tsunetane and other heroes of the Kodokan, who formed the first generation of fighters and teachers of that entity, he choose to follow the path and ideals of Judo since he thought it was the best for him.

This way, at seventeen year old, in 1894, he entered Waseda university, in the capital, and registered too in the Kodokan, which had moved from Hongo Shinsatyo to Koishgawa Shimatozokatyo, with a dojo of 100 tatamis.

Maeda came to the Kodokan with 1,64m and 64 kg, arriving at the capital from the rural country, was confused with the paper boy. Master Jigoro Kano with great discernment spotted him and recognized his valor and put him under the smaller of the teachers, Tsunejiro Tomita, showing that in Judo size was unimportant. Timita was a 5th dan and took Maeda under his care.

Well, this is a great book, I could go on and on to show that Maeda was a Judoka, not a Tenshi Ryu practitioner. But I will not. The information provided above will be merged in the Maeda Article, but I have to find time to do that. But in the light of seeing this vandalism in the BJJ article I am writing it, translating it from Portuguese to English in a hurry (as can be seen in the bad spelling and grammatical errors above...). It's consensus that BJJ came from Judo. I would even not list Ju-Jutsu in the origin since Maeda was a Judoka and to a less extent a Sumo fighter too. Regards Loudenvier 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

March, 12th, 2007 vandalism

I have tried to contact the user DrParkes who is constantly vandalizing the BJJ article, which we all fought hard to improve (still need lots of attention though). I have provided the reasoning on the section above, but the user keeps misbehaving himself and reverting the edits which were backed up by historical facts and references, introducing his own interpretations on the facts. He completely ignores the talk pages and also his own talk page. I don't understand this disrupting behavior, nor what one gains by doing so. Wikipedia is already criticized (without justification) for its inaccuracies, we do not need to help this wrong image prevail. I really would like some help from administrators to solve this issue. I would start by blocking this user from editing this article for a few days. Regards Loudenvier 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This has since been reverted. --Nate 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit war

Two editors were blocked moments ago for violating 3RR on this article. I would like to remind all the involved parties to avoid edit warring and take your differences to the talk page. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for 24h trying to stop vandalism. My talk page has more info to anyone interested in this unfair treatment I received! Anyway, I'm back now. Loudenvier 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WIKIBJJ

Please put back wikibjj.com in the techniques external link section. thanks. 209.234.104.130 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)bob

This site does not qualify under External Links policies. If, after reading the aforementioned link you still think this site deserves mention, please discuss it first here in this section of the Talk page, but rarely forum (wiki included) sites are eligible. Regards Loudenvier 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the wikipedia rules that are being broken by the other links I would argue that this one not only breaks less but has far more potential than the others. But then again you clearly strong arming the community by not allowing edits on the page.67.180.71.99 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you examine the history of the page, a temporary locking will seem quite necessary. FlowWTG 07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me that protected the page. A vandal was reverting every single edit to the page doing havoc here. This measure was necessary. I will clean-up the links section once again. Loudenvier 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Vandal' has a point

While I have nothing against BJJ itself - it is an excellent fighting system/sport - I find it extrmely aggravating, to put it mildly, that the Gracies and their followers far more often than not fail to acknowledge judo, particularly kosen judo, as being the true root of BJJ. Sensei Mitsuyo Maeda, the man who introduced jujutsu (or jiu-jitsu, as they insist upon spelling it) to Brazil in the first place, spent four years training extensively in judo and traditional jujutsu in his native Japan before traveling to Brazil where he taught Carlos Gracie. I say this as a shodan (black belt) in judo and a practitioner of Brazilian jujutsu. You've got a great system, guys; just do not forget that Jigoro Kano, Mitaemon Tanabe' and, of course, Maeda are the grandfathers of what you call "Brazilian" jujutsu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.214.47.178 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

How do you figure? Have you ever read Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Practice by Royler and Renzo Gracie? The authors definitely emphasize the importance of Kano and Maeda in the development of BJJ. Akqjt 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is a misconception to say that Maeda practiced jiu-jitsu. Maeda was the second generation of Kodokan Judoka. He did Sumo as a youngster but with 1m64cm and 70kg he wasn't fit to Sumo. He went to train Judo at the kodokan. He never did "old-school" jiu-jitsu. When Maeda, Lako, Shimitsu, Satake and Okura arrived in Brazil all the newspapers acknowledge Maeda as a jiu-jitsu world champion even being sent from the Kodokan. Judo was almost unknown outside Japan, and all the Japanese fight was jiu-jitsu. That's the source of the confusion. It was only in 1956 that the Kodokan sent Yoshio Kihara to Brazil to introduce the nage-no-kata and to specifically separata Judo from Jiu-Jitsu, but that was too late for the Gracies to embrace a new name and BJJ is Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu, not Brazillian Judo. Regards Loudenvier 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys, wouldn't it be fair to say that the 'ownership' of BJJ's origins is largely about politics? I don't see anyone claiming that Judo is 'just' from Kito ryu and Tenjin Shinyo Ryu jujutsu- all arts have started from somewhere and moved on in their own direction. Just as Judo did, so did BJJ; and the origins of both are plain to see. Just as Judo changed its training and technique from the earlier arts, so did BJJ (else surely they would be identical). The roots are in Judo of course, but also wrestling, Vale Tudo etc etc- and so if you go far back enough Jujutsu as well!Atillashardermate 09:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling and vale-tudo aren't roots to BJJ. In fact BJJ despised wrestling up until the UFC. They always said wrestling wasn't as technical as BJJ. Vale-tudo, on the other hand, has it's roots in BJJ, but Maeda, a Judoka, and many other ancient judoka fought in fights with less rules than vale-tudo, which, in fact, isn't a martial art, but just a kind of competition where almost every techinique is valid (vale = acceptable, tudo = anything/everything: vale-tudo = everything's acceptable/anything goes). It has nothing to do with politics, it's history. To be historically correct we must state what happened: a judoka (Maeda) taugh Carlos Gracie the kodokan Judo. Maeda as a great Judoka, both in tachi-waza and ne-waza, so the Gracies learnt what was fastest to learn which was newaza, which also happens to be more efficient in one-to-one street-fights... There are also many people who claim that BJJ is simply Judo without throws... I myself think that they differ only in the trainning regime Loudenvier 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"In fact BJJ despised wrestling up until the UFC." This is not true. Rolls Gracie (son of Carlos, brother of Carlson, Carlinhos and Rilion), one of the first BJJ phenoms and main influences in the art, cross trained in wrestling (luta-livre and greco) and incorporated it in his teachings, in the late 70's. Black belt students under him were Mauríçio Motta Gomes (Roger Gracie's father) and Jacaré Cavalcanti (the founder of Alliance BJJ). —Preceding Bostonalex comment added by 24.128.143.3 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...

Well, I just know that most of the jiu-jitsu guys, at least in the Atlanta area, tend to ignore their Japanese roots. One dojo in particular I'm thinking of, they have a Brazilian and an American flag side by side, but no Japanese flag. I insisted that they put one up, but of course I couldn't force them. Also, you know that legendary "Fight", so-called anyway, between Maeda and Gracie? Yeah, well, they try to make it sound like it was a fight, but, truth be told, it was Gracie demonstrating his ability to take a lot of falls, not much else.

Here in Brazil we call BJJ simply Jiu-Jitsu, no need to call it brazilian jiu-jitsu. Only in english language advertising the brazillian is pre-pended. You won't find a jiu-jitsu (by that I mean Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) academy with japanese flags around here... It's considered (and indeed it is) a brazilian martial art (or should I say sport?). Since 1920s it almost evolved by itself, with the Gracies. It's even harder to see this japanese root acknowledged overseas... But, even if it descended from old japanese jiu-jitsu, then this would be a japanase root too. You won't find a brazillian football (soccer for USA residents, football for the rest of the world) club with english flags, even tough football come from england. I think that's the correct reasoning behind all that. Loudenvier 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I think this is because in the U.S., it is marketed as "Brazilian" Jiu-Jitsu, specifically as opposed to modern Japanese Jujutsu (and Judo, and other forms). Even though there is a valid historical derivation there, from Japan to Brazil and then to the rest of the world -- I don't think anyone is denying that -- sometimes the Japanese connection is downplayed slightly to differentiate the art from the many Asian ones. I don't think there's any intentional whitewashing or disrespect going on. --Kadin2048 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Don´t try arguing with Loudenvier or his alternate sockpuppet identities. Loudenvier/FlowWTG/Nate will just get you banned and have your contributions hounded off Wikipedia. Disagreeing with anything they say is punishable by eradication. One only has to look at that proud martyr to Truth, DrParkes.

I don't understand the rivalry.

I do judo, I do traditional jujitsu and I do BJJ. They shouldn't be rivals; they all compliment each other perfectly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThakarianDwarfTorvor (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

To be honest neither do I, with this article we just want the facts correct. --Nate 09:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2005 World Championships

Just wondering why only 2005 results are listed, was there no 2006 championships? If its held only every other year, maybe someone could incorporate this in the article.

Criticisms section added

It is my intention for this section to be for valid criticisms against Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. This section is added for informational purposes only. I think it is good for a person using wikipedia that may be potentially researching a martial art to understand the criticisms of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu whether they are real or perceived. Rockpyle26 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind this sounds too much like original research. This article is already plagued by lack of proper references and reliable sources, this kind of entry hardly deserves to be in a encyclopedia. But if you can provide reliable links with criticism about BJJ then it will be great (lack of striking and throwing emphasis in training, possibly not so well suited to face multiple oponents in a real world scenario, lack of a strict moral code to follow are just a few problems that came to my mind, but my opinion simply doesn't matter here, we need to find RELIABLE SOURCES that state that...). Regards and thanx for opening this discussion. Loudenvier 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hid the section as it's empty currently --Nate 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where to learn in L.A. ?

or a website for finding well respected locations to learn ? or world and national headquarters for various styles ? 

Hello,

I'm looking for a place to practice in L.A. Where would I figure out how to find something? While I don't think the article or talk page should directly advertise specific locations to learn, I think it should be more helpful in directing someone who is interested in the right direction. Thanks. Tkjazzer 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that google provides enough assistance with people looking for places to trainThekiwifish 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It actually is very difficult. You end up getting a lot of MMA or non-traditional places, it is difficult to find an authentic place. Tkjazzer 08:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

edit on 09:09, 30 May 2007 by 80.34.17.209

This was a revert to a version from 3 months back that was supported by an editor who is now banned for edit warring, the key difference is the origin s on bjj in judo vs jujutsu. Just wanted to explain my edit summary or 'rvv' here. Also to warn editors if you read the first 3 section of the talk page this may continue. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Judo= Kano Ju-jitsu

I was under the impression that even into the 1920's Judo was also known as 'Kano Jujitsu' (I have an English book from 1930's with that title). Is it not possible that this was also a reason why BJJ was referred to as JJ not Judo?

Very likely not one I'd heard but not surprising --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made this kind of comment before... even Kodokan Judo stated that Judo started as Kano's ryu of Jiu-jitsu. So that, in a sense, Judo is/was Kano's Jiu-Jitsu. There was no differentiation about Judo and Jiu-Jitsu in the beginning of the XX century until the middle, at least not outside japan. Read Mitsuyo Maeda article to see how international newspapers always called Kodokan judoka as Jiu-Jitsu world champions :-). Regards. Loudenvier 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Graduation

I have myself passed by this custom. It's very common here in Brazil. It's analogous to the old Judo custom of being choked-out by the sensei when receiving the black belt, now almost forgotten. Sometimes it is not applied inside the mat, everyone just waits to get the unlucky but happy graduated in the washroom, where he would have dressed out his gi and the hits with the belt would hurt more. Not very nice, but no one complained much since receiving a graduation more than counts for the pain. But, even this being true, for a wikipedia entry it should be backed-up by an external reference. Can anyone provide one? Loudenvier 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Seen it myself in the UK but it's going to be hell to source, a BJJ article in Black belt magazine possibly? As I said was going to let the removal go till I saw the edit summary. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As a studnet myself, I have seen the same a playful guanltet happen for birthdays but not graudations. Those who acheiveing ranks usually receive throws from the head instructor(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.119.240 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation not needed

Re the text 'Such a training regime is responsible for the great advances in ground fighting introduced by Brazilian Jiu-jitsu[citation needed], and also for weaknesses in standing grappling, which some remedy by cross training in Judo and/or Wrestling. In addition, like Judo, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu encourages "randori" or free sparring against a live, resisting opponent.'

I don't think that any citation is needed nor is one really possible. It's pretty self-evident that if you spend more time training in groundwork, then your groundwork will be better (on average) that the Judo guy who didn't spend as much time on it. (Just as no citation was required for the assertion that BJJ was weaker at standing grappling.) Also, I am not aware of any "great advances" introduced. Any time I've seen anyone quote these "great advances", I can point back to earlier history of Kano Jiu-Jitsu.

We should also remove the unnecessary use of the Judo term "randori" in that paragraph. So, I suggest we change it to simply say:

'Such a training regime is responsible for its great strengths in ground fighting, and also for its relative weakness in standing techniques, which some remedy by cross training in Judo and/or Wrestling. Like Judo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu encourages free sparring against a live, resisting opponent.' David Broadfoot 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The rephrase is better and probably sourceable, (e.g.UFC 1)

p.s. New sections should normally be added t the bottom of a talk page. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

yikes, I realised that and I was just moving it when I got an edit conflict with you telling me it should have been at the bottom. Anyway, I've now moved it (along with your reply). I've also made some changes to the above, so please read it again. Thanks. I don't understand how UFC1 is a really useful reference. I think that my suggested edit is along the lines of being bleeding obvious that it almost doesn't merit inclusion! David Broadfoot 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. As to UFC 1 (or most of the early ones) Royce won all his fight on the ground and was trained almost exclusively in BJJ so demonstrates it's effectiveness. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was aware of that, but I think it's unnecessary to mention in the context. No need to cite/source every sentence in wikipedia! David Broadfoot 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got my eyes set on getting this to at least good article standard by the end of the year & right now it is poorly sourced --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll help with some sources, but I think that paragraph is OK without citation. Or perhaps it should just be deleted anyway. David Broadfoot 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gracies & judo.

The change made with this diff [1] again implie a direct lineage from Japanese jujutsu to bjj without judo, going to revert as we've had this discussion's before, and I believe Helio holds rank with the Kodokan! --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Organizations section

Removed this as its asking for adverts --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Kosen

I restored the paragraph comparing Kosen Judo with BJJ that was deleted by an anonymous user. If you think that paragraph is incorrect, please provide areference to current Kosen Judo rules that show that Hikikomi (disallowed in BJJ) is no longer allowed in Kosen Judo or in any schools of Japanese jujutsu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user has deleted that paragraph again, so I have restored it. It's a valid comparison, showing the range of emphasis of three similar sports, ranging from Kodokan Judo, to BJJ, to Kosen Judo. If factually incorrect, please provide information to the contrary. --David Broadfoot 08:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fusen Ryu

There is no reliable evidence found anywhere that connects M. Maeda to Fusen ryu; or any other school outside of Judo (including his biography). Although it is obvious that M. Maeda was very skilled and picked up many tricks of the trade, it is hardly conclusive to say that he trained seriously in anything but Judo & wrestling. So, does anyone object if I remove the Fusen Ryu reference? Thanks! Mekugi 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that whole sentence should just be deleted, even if not for that reason, for the reason that wikipedia articles should be kept concise and, in general, avoid repeating information contained elsewhere. Also, I've been thinking that under 'parenthood' the text "Judo (major), Japanese Jujutsu (minor)" should just be simply "Judo" as I am not aware of any Jujutsu techniques that are incorporated into BJJ that did not exist in pre WW1 Judo. --David Broadfoot 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On the major/minor, I think I put that in when re-writing to show that it was pre WW1 judo which was still widely call jujutsu, and didn't have as many restriction as the modern sport people are familiar with, though maybe that needs clarification in the judo article not here. Only other pro is it reduces drive by changes. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been thinking about that a bit. One of the problems with these debates comparing BJJ with Judo, etc, is that they need to be anchored to some time frame. The term "Judo" by itself is meaningless, because it changed dramatically in 1888 (only two years after Kodokan Judo's first dramtically successful UFC test against all the jujutsu schools) when Kodokan Judo got trounced by Fusen Ryu jujutsu in their next big UFC challenge, leading Kodokan Judo to incorporate Fusen Ryu into Judo. That is the the style of Judo that became BJJ. The next big change was in 1925 when the rules were changed again to reduce the amount of groundwork. The big change after that was in 1947 when the Kodokan reopened with the proviso that Judo became a sport, as a direct result of US occupying forces demands. Later rules changes further de-emphasised groundwork (with the four second progress rule for example) and now Judo has moved a step closer to BJJ with the four second rule being extended to fifteen seconds. Last year's new "dynamic edge" rule change (wiping out 34 years of danger zone issues) has also aligned Judo more closely with BJJ (with the edge rules of the two sports now being identical, at least for standing techniques.) Fortunately, the Gracies preserved a lot of the original character of pre-1925 Judo, so that the 1888 UFC lesson was able to be re-learned in 1993 when Royce Gracie reminded the world of the importance of effective groundwork in real-life unarmed self-defence. I agree that the "minor jujutsu" reference should remain until the whole thing is clarified properly, particularly by elucidating the temporal issues. The other issue of relevance is that of the somewhat subtle difference between a "do" and a "jutsu". Also, generally forgotten but also very important is not just the techniques themselves, and the "do" versus "jutsu" issue, but also the other innovations introduced by Kano, and adopted of course by BJJ: the belt system and the teaching and training methods. The only things that BJJ discarded were the katas, and (along with later Judo) some of the more dangerous tecnhiques. --David Broadfoot 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. If memory serves from my stint at the Kodokan library/archives, the Fusen-ryu folks didn't win everything. They just won more than they lost. Another thing that is interesting is that Fusen-ryu really didn't have any particular groundwork associated with it. Essentially, their strategy was to literally sit down with the Judoka in tow and use some of the techiques from kata on them, intended for standing use. This didn't mean that they were any great shakes at newaza- they just knew that Dr. Kano and his men would pound them on the green-tatami if they tried playing a throwing game, so they took advantage of a weak spot and won the day. That must have totally put things into perspective for Dr. Kano - but it doesn't mean he/they gleaned any significant kata from them. It does indicate the he and the Kodokan went looking to improve their ground fighting.

I understood that the Fusen-Ryu guys would simply sit down, without even having the Judo guy in tow. I also thought that they had game that stayed oin the ground (grappling) whereas the then current Judo tecnhiques taken from Tenjin Shinyo-Ryu only involved transitioning to the ground briefly to apply a wrislock for example, and then standing up again. --David Broadfoot 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I would agree totally that BJJ is more like pre-WWII Judo and that Judo had a Jujutsu flavor to it; the lines between Judo and Jujutsu weren't "drawn in sand" as it were. Anyone up for a re-wording?

I have been thinking about doing such a re-write and have been doing a lot of reading and note-taking on it. I'd like to keep it as short as possible. Judo certainly had a jujutsu flavour to it - it was mixed-jujutsu, but with something extra: new training methods and resucitation techniques for example. Also, one of the key things to understand is that they all (judo, jujutsu, and BJJ) had a vale tudo flavour to them that is no longer there in any of the sporting forms - another reason why people get confused when trying to understand how things evolved (or, as in the case of many, not much trying to "understand" but rather having a religious-like faith in some dogmatic beliefs they have been fed.) I've also been looking into the rules changes over the years as a key to understanding how things evolved. However, I have very little information on how BJJ rules have evolved. --David Broadfoot 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mekugi 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would putting "Pre WWII Judo " and linking to the history of judo section work?

But BJJ spun off Judo as it was from 1888-1925, not pre-WW2 Judo. And since then, BJJ has dropped a lot of the old Kano Judo techniques. I had lunch with my mum today and she told me how she learned "Jiu-Jitsu" in the army in 1943. Even then it was being called Jiu-Jitsu (in Australia) although that term had long since been replaced by "Judo" in Japan. I disagree with doing it by linking to the history section of the Judo page. The Judo guys want a whole lot of extra detail that would be of no interest to the BJJ guys. The Judo writeup also uses Japanese terminology like "newaza" whereas for the BJJ guys we simply want "groundwork". I have already removed some Judo terminology from the BJJ page as I don't think it belongs there. The BJJ page deserves a very simplified history linking jujutsu, judo and BJJ, written from a BJJ perspective, not from a Judo perspective. The Judo page can include the same info with extra detail. --David Broadfoot 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As to re wording, which bit?--Nate1481( ^t /_c) 08:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing could do with a re-write :-) --David Broadfoot 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This bit:

"The system developed from pre-World War I Kodokan Judo, which was itself then a recently-developed sport derived from multiple schools (or Ryu) of Japanese Jujutsu. One of those schools was Fusen Ryu, whose focus was on ne-waza (ground techniques). At that time, Judo was also known as "Kano Jujutsu", and, even more generically, simply as Jujutsu."

Pre-WWII or Pre WWI- Judo; from what I can tell, did not derive any groundwork techniques from Fusen-Ryu simply because it seems that Fusen-ryu did not have a focus on ground work, especially nothing preserved per se in kata. Fusen-ryu was pivitol in the actions of the Kodokan researching and adding additional groundwork to Judo as it stood at that time, but nothing implies or is recorded that the school itself had the exact ground-work that was used in the famed-but-ill-little-known-about matches between the Kodokan and the Fusen ryu. Mataemon Tanabe was the person present in 1906 representing Fusen-ryu from Himeji, but little is on record from him at the meeting and it is far from conclusive. In fact, it seems that Takenouchi-ryu "Bitchu-den" has a more complex system of groundwork that are preserved in kata - so unless we truly know, anything could be attributed to anyone. I think it is best to leave Kodokan Judo as the stand alone link there and remove the other references to Jujutsu and groundwork- letting the Judo article take care of any gaps. After all, this article should be primarily about BJJ, and not Judo or the old schools. While the article on Judo may hold no interest for the BJJ readers, the information still has to be documented (which there is very little of as of yet).

- Hope that makes sense!

- Mekugi 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I have incorporated what you said simply by deleting a bunch of stuff about Japanese jujutsu and judo. I also did a general cleanup. I left it open as to the possibility of re-introducing any history with more detail. --David Broadfoot 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Edit. Perfect! Not too broad, not too narrow.

Mekugi 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Far from perfect, but OK for a simple pass through without a big rewrite. Re your comment about the extent of groundwork in Fusen Ryu - it seems that there were multiple schools of Fusen Ryu each with varying focus on groundwork. In general, Fusen Ryu seems like it was a fairly complete style. --David Broadfoot 01:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins

<-Major/minor thing was added back, that I could live with but including wrestling based on a single lock is nonsense. Especially as I highly doubt the lock was exclusive to wrestling. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. That lock (ude-garami) existed in the old judo and jujutsu, and the so-caled Kimura is a variation of it. Ude-garami didn't come from wrestling. Wrestling either got it from judo, or, more likely, developed it independently. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to list every art that may have contributed one or two techniques. I'm still unaware of any technique introduced to BJJ from jujutsu that didn't arrive via judo, so that 'minor' origin should also be omitted. The correct wikipedia way to handle any contentious issues like this is to provide references to back up the claims. I have thus introduced references now to back up the claim that BJJ derived from Kodokan Judo. So now if anyone wants to assert any other influences, they need to provide suitable references. --David Broadfoot 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross training

I reverted the cross training reference to be "Judo" rather than "Judo and Wrestling" as all my experience shows that to be the case. Note, I am only referring to BJJ cross training - not MMA or no-gi submission. I think you would need some statistics to justify including Wrestling in that claim. David Broadfoot 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but speaking as a BJJ and Judo practitioner, wrestling is just as common as Judo for BJJ cross-training. No-gi BJJ is still looked at as BJJ by the way (points for passing the guard, obtaining mount, advantages for submission attempts - if it's gi-less it's still BJJ), as contrasted to no-gi submission fighting under, say, catch wrestling rules. I don't think the wrestling mention needs any more referencing than the Judo. FlowWTG 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think our experiences are probably different because we are in different countries then. I was never happy with referencing either as cross-training arts - it's not relevant enough to BJJ itself, and it's rather obvious as it is written (what is of slightly more interest is that the rate of cross-training between judo and BJJ is reportedly rising.) I will delete the references to cross-training - people can 'undo' if they disagree. One can argue, however, that no-BJJ is not true BJJ (as much as no-gi judo is not true judo) because the official rules for both sports clearly make reference to the gi - both are threfore variations (I practice both judo and BJJ, and I practice both with gi and without.) David Broadfoot 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

School Directories

We currently have 6 linked & more may get added any one know which ones are better so we can trim down to 1 or 2? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that there might not have been any simple answer to your question. However, I checked all the school directories for BJJ in Australia, for example, and there were two clear winners: grapplingarts.com and onthemat.com both listed most of the the major schools, whereas the other directories were not very useful at all. Grapplingarts.com has 1463 entries wordlwide, and onthemat.com seems to have a similar number. Perhaps someone else might want to check some other countries. Paring it down to those two would have the added advantage that some switched-on schools wouls target those two directories on the basis that they are the ones linked to from wikipedia. I think, however, that it might also be a good idea to list all the directories in a new 'schools' section under Martial Arts. That would provide a useful service for people there. But for BJJ, it might be just those two. --David Broadfoot 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)