Which is better to study first, judo or shuai chiao? [Archive]

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Kymus
I'd go with SC, cause I've heard that a lot of Judo has become more sport oriented. Kinda like TKD, but not nearly as bad (since TKD is simply martial art based sport now). But if you can't find a SC school then go for Judo I guess. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Judo, I want to learn it, but I am unsure now that I've read a thing or two about how it's become more sport oriented. :rolleyes:

StickyHands

07-25-2003, 09:27 PM

I think he heard it too late, the whole birth of Judo was so Kano could make jujutsu sports oriented and easy.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 09:27 PM

StickyHands

07-25-2003, 09:31 PM

TW, unlike the UFC or free fighting matches, 'most' Judo VS Judo tournaments, rely on tactics of throwing and counter throwing, hardly any grappling involved. but when it's involved my bet is it's done as a seperate match.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 09:47 PM

StickyHands,

Simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about. Seperate submission match? Where did you get that crap?

I'm no Judo expert, or competitor for that matter but I'll try to explain. You can win by points (for different levels of takedowns/throws and I believe hold downs of a period of time), throwing your opponent on their back, or by submission.

Groundwork is allowed for...something like 30 seconds...leglocks and a few other submissions aren't legal (chokes and armbars are legal). Since there is a timelimit on groundwork many fighters on the bottom just go to all fours and stall till the ref stands them up.

Just a little info for ya. If anyone wants to add go for it

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 09:58 PM

You are right that most matches are based around throws but there is the chance for a more submission orientated person to work.

...or submissions off of standing techniques or to counter them:

http://www.shockandvibration.com/judo/video/other/juji.mpeg

http://www.judoclub.ca/mpegs/chris.mpg

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:00 PM

There are many Judo videos...techniques and competitions at:

http://www.judoinfo.com/

I'm about to download everything LOL

StickyHands

07-25-2003, 10:06 PM

Isnt that what I just said that 'most' of them are, you just admit it, I suggest you go and edit your post. Most Judo matches execute throws. I am saying it from personal visits. May be too much BJJ for ya for tonight? 90 perecent matches I seen ended up with throws and counter throws, they didnt even bother going to the ground. I even saw one where there was Judo pracitioner against a BJJ, the BJJ got his ass kicked by a simple counter, embarassing for that guy. My guess is because it was throws only match.

Ya i found that site yesterday from yahoo, judoinfo.com, gonna download later.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:27 PM

"My guess is because it was throws only match."

There is no such thing as a "throws only" or "submissions only" match. If both competitors don't care to do ground fighting they do nothing on the ground and are stood back up...or I guess they could do so on their own.... but if one of the competitors wants to work on the ground the ref waits to stand them back up after a certain amount of time. Unfortunately that amount of time is pretty much up to the ref :(

There is another rule where if you have a lock on your opponent from the bottom and your opponent lifts you off the ground the match is restarted standing. Unfortunately this is left up to the refs to call and often the match is restarted standing when the top guy simply stick his ass in to the air.

My former BJJ coach Lloyd Irvin (former becuase I'm a lazy bum) trains and trains with Rhadi Ferguson (2003 US National Judo Champ at 100Kg) and they help each other out with their respective specialties. Anyways in an international Judo tournament about a year ago Lloyd won a couple of his matches by submission. In his final match he slapped on some from the bottom but the ref would stand them back up earlier than the rules call for (he wasn't lifted off the ground) while he is cranking the locks... I think two armbars and a triangle choke. He ended up losing the match when the guy DDTed him (which is illegal) knocking him out and compressing vertabrae in his neck (most likely in retaliation for Lloyd's submission attempts)
.... but that is beside the point. My point is that he could have and probably should have won that match by submission.... if the ref had followed the actual rules instead of what is the norm in Judo matches.

Anyways....that's my ramble for tonight.

StickyHands

07-25-2003, 10:36 PM

Gosh man, you're stubborn one aint ya? Ok, since I dont carry the rule books with me and you seem to know a lot of about judo even if you never practiced or visited too many matches if I may presume. Then tell me why if it wasnt a rule per se, why all the competitors the place I went stuck to using throws and nothing else? Hmmm.... may be it's one of the "unwritten" mystical rules. Dude, all Im saying, most of those matches do adhere to throws alright? I didnt say grappling doesnt exist in it, but that's how the nature of the fight is and that's how it ends up. And if the BJJ guy isnt satisfied with his throwing skills, then if I were him, Id stick to what BJJ do best. But it did seem strange than he wanted execute a lousy throw, the types that you use to get a striker to the ground.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:42 PM

http://www.shockandvibration.com/judo/video/tamura_2002_alljapan.rm

http://www.judoclub.ca/mpegs/-90M.mpg

http://www.nfld.net/judo/adams.wmv

http://142.163.110.217/nlja/common6.mpg

http://142.163.110.217/nlja/common1.mpg

http://142.163.110.217/nlja/common8.mpg

http://142.163.110.217/nlja/common9.mpg

StickyHands

07-25-2003, 10:44 PM

yay! u know u can simply just say it's in judoinfo.com

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:47 PM

"Hmmm.... may be it's one of the "unwritten" mystical rules."

You may be exactly right.... there is one set of rules but apparently many refs in general and refs from different parts of the world are different in the way they execute the rules regarding ground work including the amount of time on the ground and breaking locks when someone stands.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:48 PM

it looks like half the competition videos on judoinfo.com end in submission... interesting

Chang Style Novice

07-25-2003, 10:52 PM

It's great you like judo, but - do you actually know anything about Shuai Chiao? There's more different about it than just "no ground work," for starters.

PHILBERT

07-25-2003, 10:53 PM

I went to a Judo match last November, only got to see the senior finals. Good site to see, lots of good matches, some lasted less than 3 seconds, others went on for 10 minutes. I saw one, big guy, referee said "go" and it was over before he finished his word.

I remember looking at all the hot girls there and thinking "Geez I study the wrong martial art."

But yeah, most of them were throws. The only one I saw that really was on the ground was the one that lasted 10 minutes. It kept being broken up and starting over and over and over. My friend was like "Geez when is it gonna end?" and I said that if its on the ground they gotta do a choke or arm bar and then explained to her what an armbar was. It ended with an armbar.

But over all most the matches were throws, and a few went to ground fighting/wrestling.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
It's great you like judo, but - do you actually know anything about Shuai Chiao? There's more different about it than just "no ground work," for starters. Well of course I was talking about competition Shuai Chiao :D I guess they can train whatever they want outside of competition.... did you know BJJ has strikes?

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 10:58 PM

...and Judo has leglocks :p

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 11:01 PM

Oh yeah... and I say take Judo over SC to start with. There is a probably a (free) Judo club in your area.... google.com

PHILBERT

07-25-2003, 11:07 PM

I say take Shuai Chiao now, and then Judo later. As CSN said, its like surfing the net for free porn or watching a solar eclipse, you only see one of those in a life time. Shuai Chiao is very rare, Judo is much more common.

Besides doesn't Judo have alot of Shuai Chiao type throws in it? If ya study SC and take Judo you know alot already.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 11:09 PM

....and what does SC have that Judo doesn't? Leglocks? Strikes?

Chang Style Novice

07-25-2003, 11:12 PM

"There is a probably a (free) Judo club in your area."

All the more reason to study shuai chiao if the opportunity prevents itself. Judo's great stuff, but it's everywhere. Shuai Chiao is great stuff, too, but if you miss your chance to study it, the chance may not come again.

I've said this three times already, but I'll try to explain it in terms truewrestler can understand: Let's say a BJJ instructor from your town was giving a seminar the same day Rickson Gracie was giving a seminar one town over. Which seminar would you go to?

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 11:12 PM

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 11:15 PM

"Let's say a BJJ instructor from your town was giving a seminar the same day Rickson Gracie was giving a seminar one town over."

Let me seee.... Apples to Apples = Apples to Oranges = NO

That is BJJ versus BJJ... we are talking Judo versus SC. You don't think since the talent pool for Judo is so much bigger that there is a better chance you will find a better Judoka than SCer?

Chang Style Novice

07-25-2003, 11:15 PM

truewrestler - Combat Shuai Chiao incorporates striking into throws, as well as setting up throws with strikes and following them up with strikes. As you've correctly pointed out, competition shuai chiao forbids these techs, but they remain in the curricullum because most shuai chiao in the US comes from Chang Tung Sheng, who not only competed but also policed.

truewrestler

07-25-2003, 11:18 PM

Chang, I understand...

but why not just train San Shou then? :p

this forum is great

Chang Style Novice

07-25-2003, 11:19 PM

You've managed to totally miss the point of my comparison. It's about making choices based on opportunities. Rickson and local BJJ guy may teach the same art, but they'll teach it differently. I would prefer to sieze the rare opportunity, whatever it may be.

The talent pool issue is more interesting, and deserves further consideration, (edit) especially if you start considering national and international level competition.

Chang Style Novice

07-25-2003, 11:30 PM

Returning to Phantom's original question:

If the thrust of your query was will study of SC or Judo cause problems when I shift gears from one to study the other, I don't think it'd be a problem, since they are fundamentally very similar. I also don't think it would matter much whether you went SC then Judo or Judo then SC, assuming the level of instruction in each case was pretty good. You'd be learning a lot of the same entering, throwing and gripping stuff in either case. As mentioned above, SC won't prepare you for Judo groundwork (newaza) and Judo won't prepare you for SC's striking aspect, but I'd say it's a pretty even trade.

SevenStar

07-25-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by StickyHands
Gosh man, you're stubborn one aint ya? Ok, since I dont carry the rule books with me and you seem to know a lot of about judo even if you never practiced or visited too many matches if I may presume. Then tell me why if it wasnt a rule per se, why all the competitors the place I went stuck to using throws and nothing else? Hmmm.... may be it's one of the "unwritten" mystical rules. Dude, all Im saying, most of those matches do adhere to throws alright? I didnt say grappling doesnt exist in it, but that's how the nature of the fight is and that's how it ends up. And if the BJJ guy isnt satisfied with his throwing skills, then if I were him, Id stick to what BJJ do best. But it did seem strange than he wanted execute a lousy throw, the types that you use to get a striker to the ground.

They stick to using throws because the goal is to win by ippon - a full point. ippon is awarded for a throw that results in your opponent being thrown squarely onto his back. half and quarter points are awarded for throws that don't result in such a clean landing, and from there, groundwork can begin. A 30 second pin = ippon, and submission will end it. BUT, the refs usually only allow 10 seconds on the ground unless noticable progress is being made. That rule is the reason why you don't see alot of groundwork - time on the ground is severely limited in judo matches.

Kymus

07-26-2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by truewrestler
Judo too sport oriented? Does SC even include any ground work at all? Why not just study Sumo wrestling.

I don't know what your problem is seeing as I wasn't trying to disrespect any art, but you must of clearly not understood what I have said. <b>sport oriented</b>, meaning a shadow of what it once was, like TKD. Since the WTF got ahold of TKD, it's taken measures to make it more flashy, and better as a sport, and less as a real Martial Art for self defense. From what I have head, Judo has started to follow the same path, where they have altered the art itself to make it more sport and less combat effective. There is a real big difference in an art that is recognised as simply sport (Muay Thai, Boxing) and an art the started as a martial art and has been watered down to be more of a sport.

SevenStar

07-26-2003, 07:47 AM

Arts like judo and muay thai were actually enhanced when they became sports... why? because they became very competitive, meaning that the competitors HAD to train hard, HAD to stay in shape, HAD to stay on top of their game... It also made it harder to BS your credentials in those arts the way you can with many non-sport styles. You can bet that the avg. sport fighter trains harder than the avg TMA or CMA that you see today for that very reason, making it irrelevant whether or not the sport art is "watered down"

Chang Style Novice

07-26-2003, 05:46 PM

SevenStar - but that's in large part because the sport was

a - popular enough to draw a large talent pool

b - challenging enough to draw a high level of talent

c - created with rules that permitted a high degree of contact

Basically, not all sports are created equal.

Kymus

07-26-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by SevenStar
Arts like judo and muay thai were actually enhanced when they became sports... why? because they became very competitive, meaning that the competitors HAD to train hard, HAD to stay in shape, HAD to stay on top of their game... It also made it harder to BS your credentials in those arts the way you can with many non-sport styles. You can bet that the avg. sport fighter trains harder than the avg TMA or CMA that you see today for that very reason, making it irrelevant whether or not the sport art is "watered down"

I agree with you about sport fighters training harder. I took Muay Thai for a while and that is one he|| of a work out for your endurance! But the fact that some things are watered down can make a difference for someone who is looking for combat training. It all depends upon how much. I don't know about how much (or little) Judo has changed as my source of information about it is limited to text unfortunatly. Something like Muay Thai could be used pretty effectively on the street, but TKD I have my doubts about unless the other guy just likes to act tough and really is a wimp.

StickyHands

07-26-2003, 06:32 PM

This is rich.... JUDO WAS NEVER created to be used as self defense or deadly combat, it comes along with training yes and shows those aspects as part of the training. But the whole reason Kano watered down Jujutsu so it would be LESS deadly and self defense oriented and more competition material, safe to execute. I know what you mean by sometimes being ineffective as TKD, but why are talking just about Judo, that applies for any art. Judo, again was never designed to be self defense or "feudal times samurai war combat."

Concerning taking SC over Judo be perhaps a good idea since the opportunity is so rare, but there still the danger of the teacher not being as good how traditional SC teachers are. Just because it's exclusive, doesnt guarantee it's efficacy. It's like Bujinkan Taijutsu (Ninjutsu), I got one in my neighborhood, and they are so hard to find over the country, but what I heard from people, the dude cant teach very well, even if he himself good.

PHILBERT

07-26-2003, 07:53 PM

well check him out Sticky Hands, you might find he is quite good before forming an opinion. Judging others based off opinion of others without meeting is kind of, well, arrogant.

As for truwrestler, lets try it this way. Would you rather learn Brazilian JiuJitsu from the Gracies, personally? Or would you rather take sport TKD?

StickyHands

07-26-2003, 07:59 PM

Oh no, lol, that was example, sorry if it seemed real. I wouldnt have said it otherwise.

StickyHands

07-26-2003, 08:01 PM

I intend to check it out yes, but Im not entirely judging, just what friends said. So that's why I didnt exactly give the instructor's name. hehe.

JusticeZero

07-26-2003, 08:53 PM

I would NOT study BOTH.. As you said, they are similar, this is precisely WHY you should not mix them. They may be similar, but they will most certainly have many, many subtle differences. I have been training in my school for two and a half years; I still occasionally find myself having to try to pry some piece of movement left over from my previous teachers (IN THE SAME ART! Though not the same lineage..) which at one time may have been a boon, but now is a liability and a hindrance. Something like trying to duck your chin down and bounce on the balls of your toes (Bam! Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!) while trying to execute a Taijiquan push based on the principles of keeping the spine straight and heels firmly rooted.
If you're going to study two arts, study two arts that are so radically different that their ranges never cross. Greco-Roman Wrestling and Savate, for instance..

Chang Style Novice

07-26-2003, 09:58 PM

Something just occured to me: how can Judo be watered down jujutsu when it has fewer techniques? That sounds like concentration, not dilution.

And in fact, that's the main argument why judoka beat jujutsu fighters way back when - they worked fewer techniques harder and got better at using them

And, in fact, that's a large part of the argument of the superiority of sportfighting generally: that only reliable techniques are used and they're trained to as close to perfection as the practicioners can achieve.

And not only is it logical, it seems to be empirically demonstrated a lot.

So, repeat after me: sport fighting isn't watered down martial arts, it is concentrated martial arts.

StickyHands

07-26-2003, 10:19 PM

I dont think by concentration, you mean to say squeezing the orange juice and getting rid of the pulps? I think by watering down, it meant getting rid of the deadly throws, whatever they were. My guess why Judo beat Jujutsu is simply because they trained harder, and a lot more counters for every moves, they fought principle based, had perfect timing for everything, required better skills than which jujutsu team had, and all and all, they were probably were just lucky like most good fights. Some would also argue that Kano was a lousy practitoner as a traditionalist. So he found ways to modernise it or make it easier for his students to train, or simply, make Japanese budo popular. All in all, it's relative. But when people means watered down, they mean lousy instructors who dont give a hoot about their students but simply advertise for customers.

PHILBERT

07-26-2003, 11:13 PM

I can't figure out why people say Judo can't be used in the street. Ok so punches/kicks aren't big, and you focus on sport, but if you throw your opponent on concrete out on the street and he lands on his back, that is going to hurt like a *****, because while he lands on his back he'll probably land on his head too. Or better yet, just don't complete the throw. Get about half way through and let the guy go and let him land on his head.

StickyHands

07-26-2003, 11:16 PM

no one says u cant. lol. u can use ur spit as a method of self defense. but when we say judo isnt self defense art, as pseudo historians, we mean it was first refined to be toward competitive bout than a battlfield budo.

SevenStar

07-26-2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
SevenStar - but that's in large part because the sport was

a - popular enough to draw a large talent pool

b - challenging enough to draw a high level of talent

c - created with rules that permitted a high degree of contact

Basically, not all sports are created equal.

I don't disagree, but pretty much all fighting sports fall into those categories, with the possible exception of TKD because of contact.

SevenStar

07-26-2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Kymus

I agree with you about sport fighters training harder. I took Muay Thai for a while and that is one he|| of a work out for your endurance! But the fact that some things are watered down can make a difference for someone who is looking for combat training. It all depends upon how much. I don't know about how much (or little) Judo has changed as my source of information about it is limited to text unfortunatly. Something like Muay Thai could be used pretty effectively on the street, but TKD I have my doubts about unless the other guy just likes to act tough and really is a wimp.

I've seen an olympic style TKD friend of mine kick arse in a fight. I've had the wind knocked outta me from his kicks too.

truewrestler

07-27-2003, 06:27 AM

http://www.tacomajudo.com/History.htm

"Because Jujutsu was strictly an offensive combat technique, application of such techniques was generally viewed as potentially very dangerous to its victims."

Sounds like Kung Fu ehhh? Good thing someone came up with San Shou

Water Dragon

07-27-2003, 08:46 AM

Arguing over something like this on the internet is like playing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

truewrestler

07-27-2003, 09:22 AM

Water Dragon, get some of your own material. That is old

:p

Kymus

07-27-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by SevenStar

I've seen an olympic style TKD friend of mine kick arse in a fight. I've had the wind knocked outta me from his kicks too.

I'm sure his kicks are real strong. But the question is, how skilled were his opponents? I'm not trying to put your friend down in any way at all, I'm just trying to put things into place.

SevenStar

07-27-2003, 10:14 PM

doesn't matter how skilled they were. What he was trained in served him well when he needed it. The majority of the skilled people you fight will be in the ring, not on the street, IME. On the street, it's not my opponent's skill I'm worried about, but moreso their mindset.

PHILBERT

07-27-2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by SevenStar
doesn't matter how skilled they were. What he was trained in served him well when he needed it. The majority of the skilled people you fight will be in the ring, not on the street, IME. On the street, it's not my opponent's skill I'm worried about, but moreso their mindset.

Sorry, had to bolden the part that caught my eye. Assuming you train for the ring will that apply, but some people never train for competition. I use to practice with this one guy, he wouldn't last 5 seconds in a match with rules because he'd break every rule.

ShaolinTiger00

07-28-2003, 08:04 AM

I see alot of information about judo on this thread that is completely false.

But the whole reason Kano watered down Jujutsu so it would be LESS deadly and self defense oriented and more competition material, safe to execute.

Kano crated judo because he saw jujutsu as a scattered group of techniques with every school touting their art as the best way and as he himself was studying two forms of jj, he was taught different soultions for the same problems.

Kano was an educated man and modernization thru the meiji was the way to go. Kano merged jujutsu schools and based his judo on two principles.

Maximum efficiency thru minimum effort. This principle dictated the syllabus of techniques. If this prinicple didn't apply, Kano didn't want it.

and mutual benefit and welfare. - This was Kano's moral code. You and I shining together.

Judo was very much a Self defense art Prior to the American occupation of Japan in 1947. Don't believe me? Ask W.E. Fairbairn, the 3 founders of Sambo, and many other masters of TRUE self defense systems.

It was only after the war that judo had to become more sport oriented to survive..

and as far as judo not being applicable to self defense..

A must read. (http://www.realfighting.com/0702/danaherframe.html)

More reality (http://www.realfighting.com/0503/jdanaherframe.html)

StickyHands

07-28-2003, 12:21 PM

you're entitled to your opinion. but perhaps you're the one being deluded. from all the sources i read so far, they stated kano 'concentrated' (which means yes, he kept what worked for him), isnt what i said before?) even my current teacher going back to judo's history, cited kano's contribution on such matter.

Originally posted by StickyHands
by concentration, you mean to say squeezing the orange juice and getting rid of the pulps? My guess why Judo beat Jujutsu is simply because they trained harder, and a lot more counters for every moves, they fought principle based, So he found ways to modernise it or make it easier for his students to train, or simply, make Japanese budo popular.

another words, what the hell did that mean genius? my mistake if it was hard for you to grasp, but I could care less.

judo was furbished toward sports tournament and is safe to execute since hardly too many people ud see leave in stretchers. kano was the one who came up with belts and rank system for it as well, which became foundation for other arts. im sure judo is self defense no denying that, but what did i say, kano came up with for sport competitions so as to introduce to japan and more more people can practice it... if you go back and READ all the my posts, I always credited judo for having self defense appeals, agh forget it, some people just likes to play with rhetorics even the da.mn meaning is the same sh1t! some people here are so da.mn abnoxious, instead of giving constructive criticism to the person who asked the da.mn question in the first place, they like to invent and twists new meanings for worthless arguments's sake. enough!

http://usadojo.com/aboutjudo.htm

ShaolinTiger00

07-28-2003, 01:09 PM

My guess why Judo beat Jujutsu is simply because they trained harder, and a lot more counters for every moves, they fought principle based, So he found ways to modernise it or make it easier for his students to train, or simply, make Japanese budo popular.

Your guess is wrong. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but you seem to be dogmatic about this.

Judo defeated jujutsu because judo's training centered on

RANDORI

This was Kano's genius.

And this fact has been proven to be unequivocal.

StickyHands

07-28-2003, 07:59 PM

good for you. let see you advocate for the other part as well where judo wasnt refined by Kano for competition or sport.... im sure ur guesses are as accurate as... eh nah! was the link enuff for ya? i suppose jujutsu didnt have randori in their curriculum, i suppose Kano came up with randori all by himself, and the jujutsu school focused its trainings on something else??

Black Jack

07-28-2003, 09:25 PM

ShaolinTiger- On the money bro. On da **** money.

All I need to say is Bernard J. Cosneck. You know who I am talking about ShaolinTiger. :D

StickyHands

07-28-2003, 10:06 PM

:o *yawn* more whitewash....

ShaolinTiger00

07-29-2003, 07:03 AM

Black Jack has snuck up on this thread, and broken it's neck with the correct.. :)

SevenStar

07-29-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by PHILBERT

Sorry, had to bolden the part that caught my eye. Assuming you train for the ring will that apply, but some people never train for competition. I use to practice with this one guy, he wouldn't last 5 seconds in a match with rules because he'd break every rule.

the same thing applies. I've never been in a fight where my opponent was skilled, and have only seen a few where the opponenet was skilled - most of those were gang members, who at one time wrestled or took part in amateur boxing. I've seen several where the mindset of the person is what made all the difference. Were they skilled? No, but they were dead set on one thing - beating the crap outta their opponent.

SevenStar

07-29-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00

Your guess is wrong. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but you seem to be dogmatic about this.

Judo defeated jujutsu because judo's training centered on

RANDORI

This was Kano's genius.

And this fact has been proven to be unequivocal.

absolutely correct.

apoweyn

07-29-2003, 10:22 AM

Stickyhands,

judo was furbished toward sports tournament and is safe to execute since hardly too many people ud see leave in stretchers.

Don't you think that's due more to the years and years that judoka spend learning how to fall without being injured?

Stuart B.

Chang Style Novice

07-29-2003, 10:25 AM

Anybody got video of this Bernard Cosneck? Now you got me curious.

ShaolinTiger00

07-29-2003, 10:54 AM

CSN

B J Cosneck founded American Combat Judo and published a book on the subject in 1944. Mr. Cosneck taught his system to the US Coast Guard.

Hmm they don't allow this in competition.. (http://www.allinfighting.com/EyeGouge.html)

or this (http://www.gutterfighting.org/EOHcosneck.html)

But of course Stickyhands never thought judo had strikes... :rolleyes:

W.E. Fairbairn "The father of modern hand-to-hand combat",was a 2nd dan taught by Kano himself.

Col. Rex Applegate was a student of Fairbairns and also an advocate of judo. (read "kill or get killed")

and there were many men along these lines who knew that judo wasn't always sport.

Chang Style Novice

07-29-2003, 11:03 AM

Thanks! I'd heard of Fairbairn and Applegate before, and seen some of their old material posted here and there.

In Stickyhands' defense, he was certainly talking about Kodokan.

ShaolinTiger00

07-29-2003, 11:06 AM

Where do you think these Americans got it from?

Chang Style Novice

07-29-2003, 11:08 AM

Coulda been almost anywhere. But I see your point.

ShaolinTiger00

07-29-2003, 11:16 AM

Coulda been almost anywhere.

You must have missed this:

"W.E. Fairbairn "The father of modern hand-to-hand combat",was a 2nd dan taught by Kano himself.

:)

Chang Style Novice

07-29-2003, 01:12 PM

As a very great man once said: d'oh!

truewrestler

07-29-2003, 01:28 PM

A very greater man once said: When you've got a d'oh, make a d'ohnut

Black Jack

07-29-2003, 05:04 PM

If we are talking old school poke and kick judo than we should also list Captain Allan Smith who was the 5th Caucasian and the 1st Scot to get his Shodan at the Kodokan way back in 1916.

Dressed by the way for the ceremony in his full Highland outfit, plaid kilt and all. He was a unarmed combat instructor at Camp Bening in Columbus Georgia from 1917-1918 teaching streamlined Kodokan judo/jujitsu to the infantry. He also published a great book called Secrets of Jujitsu-A Complete Course in Self Defense.

The very 1st American to get a Shodan was David T. Weed back in 1910. The first Russian was V.S. Oschchepkeu in 1913.

SevenStar

07-29-2003, 05:12 PM

When it comes to MA history and obscure arts, BlackJack is da man

StickyHands

07-29-2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
CSN

But of course Stickyhands never thought judo had strikes... :rolleyes:

When the hell did I say that?? But it's true, many schools include atemi, many dont.

Water Dragon

07-29-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00

But of course Stickyhands never thought judo had strikes... :rolleyes:

I have a LOT of respect for Judo. But saying Judo has strikes is like saying Shuai Chiao has groundwork. Yeah, technically it's in there, but...

StickyHands

07-29-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by apoweyn
Stickyhands,

Don't you think that's due more to the years and years that judoka spend learning how to fall without being injured?

Stuart B.

That wasnt my point, but it was to whether ancient jujutsu moves had life threatening moves which was strictly there for the kill. Kano discarded it all of that and saved the ones that's feasible without getting hurt and good for the sport, easier, etc. Now that doesnt mean you cant use current judo moves to hurt someone. Also, jujutsu had intensive atemis, fists and kicks, to bruise their opponents and such. In current judo, the strikes are there not be brutal, but simply to get in there or distract the oppoent for long enough to give himself in in order to execute the throw. Judo strikes dont have the same intent as boxing.

Chang Style Novice

07-29-2003, 08:15 PM

Speaking of early Judo practicioners, I'd like to once again point out that modern art great Yves Kline studied and lived at the Kodokan, graduating with his blackbelt in 1952, then returning to his native Paris to teach. He wrote the first French Judo textbook, and it wasn't until his failure to make a living as a martial arts instructor that he took up painting for a living, later branching out as a father of conceptual and performance art.

It takes all kinds, don't it?:D

Christopher M

07-29-2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by StickyHands
judo was furbished toward sports tournament...

Are you sure you're accurate in your assessment of Kano's intentions? Have you read his articles on the matter, or even better (as they relate to striking as well) Tomiki's?

They seem, to me at least, to be quite explicit about their intentions: that randori is a method for empowering techniques from kata, not limiting them, nor orienting them for sport, as you indicate.

You can find aforementioned articles here (http://www.judoinfo.com/articles.htm), especially following the first two links.

GGL

07-29-2003, 08:48 PM

I am a firm believer that nobody reinvents the wheel...

Judo has its ties to Shuai Chiao in the beginning...

So I think it still comes down to the teaches.. as Chang Style initially stated..

If the Shuai Chiao teacher only practiced for 2 years.. would you go to him\her

If the Judo teacher didn't wrestle.. would you go to him\her

I think we are living in a age of commercialism and it comes down to..

Can you teach me to defend myself in any given situation..

:D I would of course choose Shuai Chiao, but I am kinda biased..

just my opinion..

Greg

StickyHands

07-29-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M

Are you sure you're accurate in your assessment of Kano's intentions? Have you read his articles on the matter, or even better (as they relate to striking as well) Tomiki's?

They seem, to me at least, to be quite explicit about their intentions: that randori is a method for empowering techniques from kata, not limiting them, nor orienting them for sport, as you indicate.

You can find aforementioned articles here (http://www.judoinfo.com/articles.htm), especially following the first two links.

O boy... not you again! http://usadojo.com/aboutjudo.htm

I never they said are limited to strictly kata or techniques and not for principle, I said Kano conceived them for SPORT AND COMPETITION, which is effective anywhere else, street... etc!

As far as the argument goes, who cares... different school nowadays tend to propagate different origin of history, I told what my current teacher said. Im more interested in learning the moves, better than seating around and doing research when it comes to MA.

Btw, Ive read your first post on "degrading to kickboxing," is this seriously your impression of styles? I used to do that when I was 12, ooooooh, big bad kung fu, invincible! Hillarious!

Originally posted by Christopher M
Well... kickboxing and other sport or modern martial arts are basically "low-level." This means they're very basic and there's no skill involved; like two kids fighting. Traditional arts, especially chinese ones, are very "high-level" - basically, alot better. But if someone who is high-level has something holding him back, he's going to look low-level... just like if someone low-level has something holding him back, he's gonna look even stupider. And the main thing holding back chinese martial artists is that they have to be really carefull not to kill their opponents during sparring, or if they stoop to the crude level of sport fighting for some reason. Basically, they have to hold back all their best techniques for fear of killing their opponent... it's like fighting with one hand behind your back, so obviously they look worse... and since kickboxing is worse, they look like kickboxing. I think that about covers it.

Christopher M

07-29-2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by StickyHands
I said Kano conceived them for SPORT AND COMPETITION... different school nowadays tend to propagate different origin of history, I told what my current teacher said.

Why speculate when you can read what Kano had to say for yourself? :confused: And especially why be so adamant about your speculation, especially if it doesn't matter? :confused:

Btw, Ive read your first post on "degrading to kickboxing," is this seriously your impression of styles?

Actually, it was at least mildly ironic. Kind of like your non-sequitor to it here.

Subzero

07-30-2003, 02:23 AM

HI i havent done SC but i have done judo.
Whilst i can't advise u about wether SC or judo is better i can say that in my opinion Ju jitsu is better than judo.

JU jitsu incorparates everything that judo does and we use more locks, strikes, wepons, pressure points and more. and put grappeling into a realistic self defence enviroment.I think it's hard to find a good ju jitsu club thou.

So u should have a lokk at JJ in your area and see what you think.

SevenStar

07-30-2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Water Dragon

I have a LOT of respect for Judo. But saying Judo has strikes is like saying Shuai Chiao has groundwork. Yeah, technically it's in there, but...

I see what you're saying, but that will vary from school to school. There's a guy here in town who trained in combat judo - studied in Japan. His judo is pretty darn awesome, and he incorporates the striking into his curriculum, or at least he used to - I haven't been by his place in a while. I'm sure the majority of clubs don't make it an integral part though.

SevenStar

07-30-2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Subzero

JU jitsu incorparates everything that judo does and we use more locks, strikes, wepons, pressure points and more. and put grappeling into a realistic self defence enviroment.I think it's hard to find a good ju jitsu club thou.

Less concentration...

Subzero

07-30-2003, 03:34 AM

Erm what did u base that on?
Maybe we train diffrerntly to ju jitsu clubs wherever u are but over here (in britain) ju jitsu has a good name.BUt is not widely taught and from what i understand it is only taught well from a small no. of people.

I don't caome one here and say karakte requires less concentration.atleast i put some thought into my argument.And i'm sure some people prefer judo to ju jitsu but i'm the other way round.

So in what way does ju jitsu require less concentration.
Or was it simply a refernce to my crapy typing/spelling skills? :D

shaolin kungfu

07-30-2003, 03:50 AM

I think he meant it doesnt concentrate as much on one aspect, not that it takes less concentration.

I could be wrong though.

ewallace

07-30-2003, 06:22 AM

It's funny this thread got moved. Its not like shuai chiao is cma or anything.

Silly Canadians.

ShaolinTiger00

07-30-2003, 06:53 AM

I have a LOT of respect for Judo. But saying Judo has strikes is like saying Shuai Chiao has groundwork. Yeah, technically it's in there, but...

I agree. but only because judo's path was altered by WWII.

Go to Mark Tripp's judo club and ask him, or see what his judoka are doing. :) or other judoka preserving the classic judo system.

In current judo, the strikes are there not be brutal, but simply to get in there or distract the oppoent for long enough to give himself in in order to execute the throw.

Wrong.

and the jujutsu guy....

Jujutsu is dead. Modern jujutsu is rarely nothing more than conglomerate of judo, karate, kempo and the hapkido seminar he attended 2 yrs. ago..

It is nothing like the classic jujutsu ryu. Judo killed jujutsu. I'd wager that you couldn't trace your schools lineage back without going thru the Kodokan in the early 1900's.

you are studying judo plus kempo. don't kid yourself...

apoweyn

07-30-2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by StickyHands

That wasnt my point, but it was to whether ancient jujutsu moves had life threatening moves which was strictly there for the kill. Kano discarded it all of that and saved the ones that's feasible without getting hurt and good for the sport, easier, etc. Now that doesnt mean you cant use current judo moves to hurt someone. Also, jujutsu had intensive atemis, fists and kicks, to bruise their opponents and such. In current judo, the strikes are there not be brutal, but simply to get in there or distract the oppoent for long enough to give himself in in order to execute the throw. Judo strikes dont have the same intent as boxing.

Well then I guess we're even, because you're missing my point too. Kinda inevitable with debates like this, I suppose.

Kano made modifications to make it possible to train a style in real time. The throws could be performed on an individual with intensive training in rolling with those throws, which allowed practitioners to go full tilt at one another. Perhaps Kano felt that real-time hands-on experience in a set of moves left one better prepared to deal with reality than did a larger set of moves that you couldn't practice on somebody in real-time.

I mean when was the last time you practiced killing moves full tilt on someone?

Every art makes concessions. Either by placing restrictions on techniques but practicing the remaining ones in real time and at a high level of intensity or by retaining a wide body of knowledge but being unable to actually apply those techniques at full-tilt.

You could say that if you punched someone in the throat, they'd go down. But you can't tell me you've consistently managed to punch someone in the throat. Can you? Can you tell me you've consistently managed to apply a small joint manipulation at full tilt?

Stuart B.

StickyHands

07-30-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00

Wrong.

It is nothing like the classic jujutsu ryu. Judo killed jujutsu. I'd wager that you couldn't trace your schools lineage back without going thru the Kodokan in the early 1900's.

you are studying judo plus kempo. don't kid yourself...

Why cant you get it to your narrow head that different schools have different ways of practicing things? Oh look, these judo girls are beating the crap out of each other, yeah they are bloody and bruised, someone is giving them blood tranfusion, da.mn those lethal strikes- http://www.shockandvibration.com/judo/video/tamura_2002_alljapan.rm

And as for Jujutsu, oh my you're pretty arrogant for your "source" of information, the omniscient "Shaolin Tiger" who knows everything concerning Japanese Bujutsu. So ahhh who died and made you the next Kano? :D You sound more like Gichin Funakoshi.... big air!

StickyHands

07-30-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M

Why speculate when you can read what Kano had to say for yourself? :confused: And especially why be so adamant about your speculation, especially if it doesn't matter? :confused:

Actually, it was at least mildly ironic. Kind of like your non-sequitor to it here.

The reason that I take vehement approach toward your post, is well... ahhh I forget, oh yes, good insight on kickboxing is a lot kids fighting, inferior to kung fu, hmmm... I am sure you have your sources pinpointing that as well. Im sorry, were you being sarcastic on that post about kickboxing, because that's the only way ill find it satiric. More pseudo-intellects... the world the world...

dre_doggX

07-31-2003, 07:27 AM

its kungfu, and like anything you need to train in the basics. People say Kungfu is too fancy, but if you just train in the basics its never too fancy, I practice alot of the movements in the Tai chi Yang form, but I mostly shadow box and spar with only a few. my favorite ones. and the basic 8 movements .

I like getting really good at the basics, its not boring at all.

Christopher M

07-31-2003, 09:47 AM

Stickhands,
This might help:

Non sequitur: n. 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it.

Irony: n. 1. a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

StickyHands

07-31-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by StickyHands

More pseudo-intellects... the world the world...

Thank you for the definitions, Ill send them to your english teacher. lol. Good insights on your MA proficiency, especially since all the sources you accumulate. Low level, high level. Such an accurate observation..... interesting. And you're also speaking for Judo... More faux pas in this forum..... sigh leave him be...

Christopher M

07-31-2003, 12:40 PM

The definitions were to aid in your comprehension, not my english teacher's. I called something ironic, to which you replied it would only be ironic if it were sarcastic. So clearly you didn't know what I meant with the words I used; no big deal (except that it makes your claim that others here are pseudo-intellectuals rather ironic :p ).

The non-sequitur claim, btw, was in reference to you using an unrelated topic as a means to avoid the present one.

StickyHands

07-31-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by StickyHands

The reason that I take vehement approach toward your post, is well... ahhh I forget, oh yes, good insight on kickboxing is a lot kids fighting, inferior to kung fu, hmmm... I am sure you have your sources pinpointing that as well. Im sorry, were you being sarcastic on that post about kickboxing, because that's the only way ill find it satiric. More pseudo-intellects... the world the world...

I think someone has a concussion from practicing "high level" kung pao. I dont recall saying ironic, and so it's my comprehension that requires attention huh? If you read below your reading level, lol, you'd see I clearly asked were you whether you were being sarcastic when you orchastrated an opinion that only a 12 year old would conceive of, hence I wondered was it a satirism or what pertaining to the original claim posted in on the kickboxing topic; certainly a man of your intelligence wouldnt have bipolar disorder. lol.