What's the difference between Shuai Chiao and Judo? [Archive]

SevenStar

12-20-2005, 04:17 PM

I guess I'll start... I won't touch any question about who you should take SC from, but as far as differences between sc and judo, I'll list a few.

sc is actually more similar to sumo in that they crash into the opponent in some instances, as opposed to judo's more passive kazushi.

sc throws, while similar in look, usually involve limb breaks somewhere in the throw.

the goal of a judo throw is for your opponent to land flat on his back. In sc, you want him to land on his head.

judo has plenty of groundwork, sc has none.

sc has a greater concentration on strikes. judo has strikes, but often times, you don't learn them until black belt level.

sc has more apparatus training - pulleys, rock pole, brooms, bricks, belt cracking, etc. judo utilizes inner tube training in a similar method to the pulley.

judo tends to rely on gi grabs, even though you can train to grab muscle, use hooks, etc.

I'll let that be a starter. Others can add if they wish.

lkfmdc

12-20-2005, 05:10 PM

I guess I have to post something now :cool:

Earth Dragon, cover your ears because you're going to be very unhappy to learn that I also have credentials in Shuai Jiao. I'm no "master" but I've studied with Jeng Hsin Ping, a direct student of Chang Tung Sheng...

My Judo knowledge is based upon the research and writings of many, but certainly Mark Tripp, a close friend, was influential

Judo as envisioned by Kano was NOT a "sport" in the sense that most think of today. Kano instead wanted a modern martial art that was efficient, effective, had good physical education values, would educate and envigorate his nation. "sport" is not the correct term to describe his central idea, rather it is "randori" or alive practice that is the key. IE dangerous techniques were not so much eliminated as side lined so that a regular alive practice could be made possible. Regular alive practice made for functional skills.

At the time, certainly it was easier to practice grappling with relative safety as opposed to striking. They did not have the advances in head gear, gloves, shin pads, elbow pads etc that the 21st c martial artist has

The history and purpose of Judo has been obscured because after WW II all martial arts were BANNED in Japan. The ONLY way that the Kodokan could re-open and Judo live on was for Kano's son (Kano had already passed) to re-package and "sell" Judo to the occupying forces as nothing but an elaborate Asian gym class.

IN fact, certain writing of Kano's were surpressed by his son and the "new" Kodokan. The history of challenges matches, etc were also surpressed

As far as Shuai Chiao, if you want to compare it to Judo you are on tense policitcal ground. The Japanes controlled Taiwan for many years and introduced Judo there. When Shuai Chiao arrived in Taiwan, Chang Tung Sheng expressly desired to remove this Japanese martial art influence and viewed Judo as his key enemy. The recent comments by his grandson show that even today, this uneasyness with Judo is alive and well

A LOT of the people Chang converted to Shuai Chiao had judo backgrounds (Daniel Weng as example)...

Extremely delicate, and what wil bring YouKnowWho here most likely and other Shuai Chiao people and maybe create the flame war of the holiday season, is how much Judo influenced Shuai Chiao

Historically, Shuai Chia PRE dates Judo, and gusy as respected as Donn Draeger say they thought Judo was probably influenced by Shuai Chiao as far as technique. Chang for example had a very old tapestry with Shuai Chiao techniques similar to techniques the Kodokan only adopted much later...

But in Taiwan in the 1950's and 1960's, I think that any honest historian can see how Shuai Chiao adopted things from Judo, mostly STRUCTURE... No one has ever convinced me the black belts levels existed in China before Chang came to Taiwan

Technically speaking, Shuai Chiao is probably closer to what Judo was like BEFORE WW II... more a combat art supplemented by a "sport" or randori...

modern Judo has pushed things like weapon defense and striking into the corner in favor of skill in randori, principally jacket wrestling

Shuai Chiao still spends a lot of time on weapon defenses, striking, these subjects, probably meaning their players are less skilled in pure jacket throwing than the Judoka who do nothing but jacket throwing

Shuai Chiao is less modern, and less open to change. They are stil proud of their primative training devices while the Kodokan embraced modern western weight training as early as the 1950's...

Kodokan embraced Ne Waza (ground prctice) early in its history, but relatively late in the broader history of martial arts. Ne Waza was not a huge subject in classical Bujitsu, ie Samuari fighting arts...

Shuai Chiao has basicly no Ne Waza to speak of. Comparable to the classical Jujitsu Ryu that relied upon "deadly" techniques that could not be tested live

ShaolinTiger00

12-20-2005, 08:02 PM

Way to go David..

Following a post like that it won't nearly be as comical when I say

Judo actually works.

:D

Merryprankster

12-20-2005, 08:35 PM

I have not done SC, so I won't pretend to be an authority.

However, that said, grappling is grappling. I wrestled and have done some judo. As ST00 can attest (he also wrestled), a "throw is a throw is a throw." If you know how to grapple, you know how to grapple. Anything you are likely to see in one, you will be able to draw a direct analogy to the other.

There are differences in execution to be sure - but whether I call it flying mare, seoi nage or one arm shoulder throw or something else entirely, it's pretty much the same.

My advice? Go with whatever has the best instruction in your area. The skills will transfer over just fine. What will happen is, if you switch around or something, people will say "no, like THIS!," and want you to step more in one direction, or cut harder here, or move your hand to a different spot.

It's all the same ****. The game changes a little without handles (or with them, depending), but being good at one will just about automatically make you at least competent in the other.

Green Cloud

12-20-2005, 08:48 PM

Because they never leave their brothers behind:) in response to what dave said about the Greeks. I knew Chris would get my twisted humor. Unfotunatly a bunch of historians jumped in to correct me. Not that they werent informative about good old Alexaner who never left a soldiers behind. Lets not forget about the but lick kune.

Green Cloud

12-20-2005, 09:04 PM

I guess I can understand why people get mad at dave. He's so dam smart, not to mention he is a great San Da coach, he's also very Informative when it comes to the Lama Pai system an almost extict and un herd of style of kung fu. Of course Dave did wright many informative articles on Lama choy lei fut and Di sing peck gwa. And to boot He speaks Mandarine and Cantonese fluently. Yup he certainly is arrogant at times. What daves problem is that he has not yet learned to Clark Kent his super intelectual powers from all the stupid people who feel a bit inferior. Yup I hate that guy lol;)

Green Cloud

12-20-2005, 09:18 PM

Oso

12-21-2005, 06:12 AM

Isn't there a rather long history of Judo out there somewhere by Mark Tripp?

ST00, didn't you post a link to it a while back? I just tried a search for it but didn't find it.

Mr Punch

12-21-2005, 06:37 AM

Here. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/fight/judo/kano.html)
..........

Oso

12-21-2005, 06:39 AM

Thanks.

8 9 10

Finny

12-21-2005, 07:17 AM

FWIW, there are some inaccuracies in both the article and Coach Ross' post (only one, really).

EITHER it is jujutsu or judo. There is NO middle ground here.

Early Judo was also called Kano Ryu Jujutsu.

Dragger spells this out plainly in his works on Bujutsu both old and modern; to wit 1. No Belt Ranks 2. No sparring, only kata and one steps 3. Training for the Battlefield only I could post more but you get the point. ALL traditional bujutsus were about killing someone in the course of defending or storming a castle, or fighting a large-scale battle.

Not really. The no belt ranks part is right, but several koryu jujutsu ryuha practised some form of sparring/randori - including the Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, which is one of the two ryu that Kano studied, and based Judo on.

Not all traditional bujutsu were battlefield oriented. In fact, most were founded after the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate - when the country was at peace (ie. no battles to fight..). There is a marked difference between the techniques of say, Takenouchi Ryu Kogusoku Koshi no Mawari, and Tenjin Shinyo Ryu jujutsu. Takenouchi Ryu was founded around 1500, during the warring states period, and is geared toward close quarters combat, with a variety of weapons, while wearing armour, and fighting someone wearing armour - ie. a strong battlefield combat focus.

Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, founded around 1830, is largely a plain clothes, 'self defence' style of jujutsu, with no battlefield focus. There are some weapons defences, and a focus on joint locks, strangulations, breaks and throws. Takenouchi Ryu focuses on controlling the enemy, then stabbing them through weak points in their armour - ie. mainly has the exponent using a weapon (although there are unarmed techniques.).

Yes, there are a few styles in Japan keeping their old traditions alive. Just like some people in this country go into the woods and play "Civil War" for a few weeks every year. These are not living, changing, adapting systems; but people who enjoy playing Samurai. Nothing wrong with that; but don't try and sell it as a modern effective system.

No offense, but Mr. tripp obviously has very limited experience with the koryu bugei. Comparing them to someone 'playing civil war" is pretty rude - and I'm sure with some experience he would change his mind about that. And to dismiss them as ineffective with no experience in them... arrogant much? The Tenjin Shinyo Ryu is still (very) alive and well, and is just about one of the most awesomely brutal and effective grappling systems I've ever seen.

The fact is, using Draeger's definitions of Bujutsu/Budo as Mr. Tripp has is wildly inaccurate. Draeger's definitions were used for a purpose, and that was to highlight the fact that kendo, judo and karate were not classical systems. FWIW, having read Mr. Tripp rant on about the differences between the 'battlefield bujutsu' that Judo was (supposedly) based on, and the 'personal budo' that it became, it might be interesting to note that Draeger himself considered Tenjin Shinyo Ryu Jujutsu, Kito Ryu Jujutsu (the two jujutsu ryu Kano studied, and based Judo on), along with other koryu founded during the Edo period, as 'Classical BUDO' - not bujutsu - he only considered ryuha founded before the Edo Period (Maniwa Nen-Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, Katori Shinto Ryu etc.) to be 'Bujutsu'.

Judge Pen

12-21-2005, 07:31 AM

I have little to no knowledge of either of these arts other than what I have read here and there and the following useless piece of ancedotal evidence. But since it's a slow day at work I'll share. :D

My future father in law is a black belt in judo (he hasn't practiced in years and he's not in any physical shape to teach me anything unfortunately) was recruited from Japan to BYU to wrestle for them. He told me that the toughest person he ever fought was an aikido practitioner because he would grab and control his wrists and hands so well and this was illegal in judo.

Ok, go back to SC and judo. John Wang's post reminded me of that story.

ShaolinTiger00

12-21-2005, 09:10 AM

the judoka breakdown

- SC uses more circle motion; Judo uses more straight line motion.

-judo has both. ex the kusushi (offbalancing) and tsukuri (entering)for osoto gari is very linear, while a throw like hiza guruma or O guruma are very circular. practically swinging off your opponent like square dancing!

- SC uses more "stealing step – move one leg behind the other" to advance, Judo use more "covering step – move one leg in front of the other" to advance.

- tsugi ashi one foot leads the other follows. and tai sabaki must be done very swiftly as it involves turning movements. The feet rarely come together because of the desire to always have the most balance available.

- SC uses more "equipment training", Judo uses less "equipment training".

-Agree. tatame and a gi and you can do judo.

- SC has sole forms, Judo has no sole forms (not sure on this).

- Yes judo has no solo forms all judo forms are 2 man sets.

- SC uses more "tearing – break opponent's grab", Judo uses less "tearing".

-Grip fighting? judo has alot of it.

- SC uses "elbow cracking" to break grab. It's illegal in Judo.

-What is this?

- SC guy likes to run behind his opponent. Not sure about Judo.

-There are throws from the rear like ura nage and tani otoshi.

- SC uses more brutal force (run down your opponent), Judo uses less brutal force.

- Depends on the player from my experience.

- SC guy likes to control opponent’s elbow, Judo guy likes to control opponent’s wrist.

- Some judoka want wrist control, others want elbow (like me) others want double lapels.

- SC guy likes to hurt opponent’s hand grab (Black Hand techniques), it may be illegal in Judo to do that.

-some grip breaking is pretty nasty.

- Some major moves in SC are considered illegal moves (such as leg twisting, inner leg blocking) in Judo.

-Can you explain these?

- SC move such as “knee seizing – one hand push on shoulder, one hand pull below the leg” may be illegal in Judo.

no, judo has takedowns and pickups.

- SC has no ground fight, Judo has ground fight.

-yes. newaza

- SC uses 10 to 1 Dan (1 Dan is the highest), Judo uses 1 to 10 degree black belt (10th degree is the highest).

-yes

- SC starts from separation, Judo starts from grab on each other (no sure it has been changed or not).

- judoka start free standing about 6 feet from each other.

- SC uses force to force opponent to make commitment, Judo waits for your opponent to make commitment (not 100% sure on this).

Push when pulled, pull when pushed. judo often wants to turn existing motion into an offbalancing for a throw.

- SC is similar to XingYi, Judo is similar to Taiji.

-that's an insult. take that back!

- SC match do not allow you to grab on your opponent’s pants. Not sure about Judo.

-allowed.

- Most of the SC matches are performed outdoor. Judo matches are performed indoor.

-true.

- SC uses different “break fall” than Judo.

-yes.

- Joint breaking are legal in SC but may be illegal in Judo.

- You are allowed to joint lock the elbow in judo and your opponent is expected to tap out.

- In SC tradition, your opponent can turn down your challenge if he does not have SC jacket on. Not sure on this for Judo tradition.

- "challenges" do not exist. you just train and compete.

- In SC tradition, if you are killed or injured by your opponent when you have SC jacket on then you cannot sue your opponent. Not sure on this for Judo tradition.

- I'd like to hear a lawyers opinion on this one..

- Even in sport SC (not combat SC), some kind of striking (such as hook punch followed by head lock) before throwing are allowed. Striking is not allowed in Judo.

SC requires shoes during matches, Judo uses bare foot.

SC jacket is tight, Judo uniform is loose.

-yes.

- SC guy puts on his jacket infront of his opponent to show no hidden weapon (in the ancient time). Not the case for Judo guy (you would never know whether the Judo guy hides a gun or knife inside his Judo uniform or not).

-ooookkayyy.....

- Most SC throws starting with one grab and get the 2nd grab when opponent moves in. Judo starts with 2 grabs.

- depends on the throw. most involves both hands gripping

SevenStar

12-21-2005, 10:04 AM

Early Judo was also called Kano Ryu Jujutsu.

yes, it was, but the name was technically incorrect as judo is not a koryu style. Consequently, it cannot be considered a jutsu...

SevenStar

12-21-2005, 10:16 AM

ST00 covered these pretty good, but there are a couple I will add to.

- tsugi ashi one foot leads the other follows. and tai sabaki must be done very swiftly as it involves turning movements. The feet rarely come together because of the desire to always have the most balance available.

I think the other thing here is that SC lacks sacrifice throws. Consequently, "steal stepping" is safer for them than it is for judoka.

an insult. take that back!

:D

n SC are considered illegal moves (such as leg twisting, inner leg blocking) in Judo.

can you explain these?

I think he's talking about grapevining the leg (inner leg blocking). If so, then yes, it's illegal. I dunno what leg twisting is, unless he's talking about leg locks.

SevenStar

12-21-2005, 02:40 PM

I thought you said in SC pants couldn't be grabbed? In judo that would be fine. But, as you are throwing him onto his front instead of back, you wouldn't get any points for it.

shuaichiao

12-21-2005, 04:19 PM

- You are allowed to joint lock the elbow in judo and your opponent is expected to tap out.

Yes but your allowed to throw with the locks in shuai chiao, your not allowed to do that in judo.

shuaichiao

12-21-2005, 04:20 PM

I thought you said in SC pants couldn't be grabbed? In judo that would be fine. But, as you are throwing him onto his front instead of back, you wouldn't get any points for it.

You can grab the leg but not the pants.

Finny

12-21-2005, 06:51 PM

yes, it was, but the name was technically incorrect as judo is not a koryu style. Consequently, it cannot be considered a jutsu...

LMAO

It was technically incorrect? according to who? 'cannot be considered a jutsu'??

One of the points I was trying to make with my post was that, although Draeger's black and white definitions served a valuable purpose - they are inaccurate generalisations, that most budo scholars disagree with these days.

Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu is not a koryu - I don't hear anyone saying it 'cannot be considered a jutsu'. An art is named by whoever creates it. Whether it is called jujutsu, yawara, koshi no mawari, kogusoku, torite, kempo, hyoho, kumiuchi... whatever - it's all 'correct'. These things are not black and white. They go case by case. There are numerous modern arts which are called xxx-jutsu. There are also several koryu which specifically call themselves or consider themselves budo. In fact, Kano was not the first person to use the term 'judo' - Inoue Jibudayu of the Jikishin Ryu called his art 'Jikishin Ryu Judo' way back in 1724 - is that incorrect too?

To quote from a book by Ellis Amdur - An associate of Donn Draeger's, and holder of both the Shihan license in Toda-Ha Buko Ryu, and Inkajo in Araki Ryu:

...Parenthetically, I might mention that Donn Draeger's formulation of bujutsu (martial arts/techniques) and budo (martial ways) was regarded by my instructor [in Araki Ryu - Finny], and in fact, by most Japanese, with bemusement when it was presented and amusement when it was explained. Araki Ryu, for example [a close quarters combat system, focusing on grappling with or without weapons, also practices kenjutsu, naginatajutsu, nagamakijutsu, kusarigamajutsu, chigirikijutsu, etc etc - Finny], which is surely one of the crudest and roughest of koryu, with a savage attitude towards combat, always referred to itself as a budo. For most Japanese involved in such practises, there was not a clear distinction between self-perfection and self-protection. One could become 'enlightened' with blood on one's hands....

...Japanese certainly understand the nuances of the words bujutsu and budo, when the two are used in conversation. Yet I have heard pugnacious individuals dismiss martial systems like aikido with the phrase "that's not budo." Only in America have I ever heard the phrase, "that's not bujutsu."

For the Japanese, anything can be a 'way' of being, even that of the bloodiest warrior, particularly if he devotes his life to something greater than himself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are no 'categories' which you can lump the Japanese arts into accurately - 'jutsu' is koryu, 'do' is modern is a semi accurate generalisation, but one with many holes, and doesn't really work the way most people seem to think. It's not "you can't call a modern art '-jutsu'" it's more "most people who created or practised martial arts after the Edo period chose to call their arts '-do'." Folks following the Meiji Restoration were swept up in the modernisation movement. Martial arts were regarded as useless relics, and anyone wanting to promote them would have a better chance if they were advocated as a 'way' towards physical fitness and self-perfection - hence many Post-Meiji martial artists called their arts '-do' arts in an effort to highlight that fact. That doesn't mean that if someone called an art they invented in 1900 xxx-jutsu it's 'incorrect', just that it's not in line with the trend at the time. Toyama Ryu Battojutsu was created after the First World War, and calls itself Battojutsu. Never heard anyone call Nakayama sensei 'incorrect' for it.

Kristoffer

12-22-2005, 06:58 AM

Good thread.
As posted earlier, joint manipulation and striking is a big part of SC. However, most modern competitions doesn't allowe these. You can lock let's say the elbow, but only if it's followed by a throw/sweep. Traditionally you could set up a throw with an elbow attack. Atleast Chang SC has the mindset ''strike first''.

Mr Punch

12-22-2005, 07:28 AM

yes, it was, but the name was technically incorrect as judo is not a koryu style. Consequently, it cannot be considered a jutsu...Yep, like Finny said: says who?!

Who is defining jutsu and do for you there?

Originally Ueshiba named aikido aikijujutsu, because he'd been schooled in koryu jujutsu and kenjutsu, and the same for Kano and his schooling and naming of judo. Who's to say they were incorrect?

Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu is not a koryuWho says this Finny? They claim the origins back to the 12th century and Yo****sune... I know the records were destroyed in a fire in whichever castle it was but doesn't mean it7s false or it's not koryu surely?

In general, although I like Tripps article as a general overview, I think Finny's criticisms of it are relevant.

SevenStar

12-22-2005, 03:44 PM

two things

1. the ref must see it

2. it must blatantly look like a strike

I mean, sure, I can drive my knee into someone's thigh as I am stepping through for a throw, or do any of the things that you mentioned. It's not sportsman like, but it can be done without being seen. I've been head butted in competitions. If the ref sees it and deems it as a strike, you'll be penalized.

Merryprankster

12-22-2005, 09:58 PM

Let me say that you can absolutely do all of those things in a Judo match - provided you don't get caught. :D

LOTS of people throw uppercuts as they are jacking somebody for a throw.

Finny

12-23-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally Ueshiba named aikido aikijujutsu, because he'd been schooled in koryu jujutsu and kenjutsu, and the same for Kano and his schooling and naming of judo. Who's to say they were incorrect?

Exactly - except for the part about Ueshiba training in kenjutsu (a common myth). Ueshiba was actually considered one of Takeda Sokaku's most gifted and senior disciples in Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu - and he taught his art as just that (DR AJJ) - till he and Takeda had a 'falling out' over Ueshiba teaching and not paying Takeda his due and Ueshiba (allegedly) ran away... and started teaching Aikido.

Who says this Finny? They claim the origins back to the 12th century and Yo****sune... I know the records were destroyed in a fire in whichever castle it was but doesn't mean it7s false or it's not koryu surely?

Sorry - I was definitive for argument's sake. I do know about the lineage tracing back to the 12th Century and the Minamoto Princes - Yosh!tsune and his brother etc etc.

This has been debated for years, with no sign of a concrete conclusion. Daito Ryu is a member of the two major koryu organisations (Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai and Nihon Kobudo Kyokai), and is regarded by most as 'quasi-koryu'. The art is taught in a semi-koryu fashion, but it's lineage is highly dubious for a number of reasons.

The major problem with Daito Ryu's 12th century lineage is lack of documented evidence - most all other koryu have both first hand and independent documentation. That is, they have their own scrolls dating back to whenever, but they are also mentioned in other documents of the time. Daito Ryu has neither - the earliest documented evidence of Daito Ryu's existence appeared with Takeda Sokaku (and he actually called it several different things over the years - it was initially called 'Yamate Ryu). The obvious rejoinder to that is that it was a secret 'palace art' of the Aizu (refering to the Oshikiuchi ["inside the threshold"] that he learned from Saigo Tanomo, and was therefore not recorded (a similar argument to that of the 'ninjutsu' folks). That's fine, but without documentation, there is no evidence. The story is that Oshikiuchi was a secret palace art taught to high-level Aizu clan members for use while unarmed inside the Lord's Palace, for those interested.

On top of these issues, there are several things which point toward Takeda Sokaku being the 'inventor' of Daito Ryu (DR even describes him as the chuko no so or 'reviver' of Daito Ryu - indicating that he played a major part in shaping the Daito Ryu practiced today). The art itself bears all the characteristics of being a Meiji Era invention - it involves extremely complex and sophisticated manipulations of the opponent - often at arms length. This is in stark contrast to the older (verified) grappling traditions like Takenouchi Ryu and Araki Ryu, which involve body-on-body grappling in armour, with a variety of weapons. Daito Ryu is more of a self-defense type of art, with the exponent usually unarmed - the high level of sophistication and arms-length joint locking type techniques became a feature of jujutsu toward the end of the Tokugawa period. If Daito Ryu was originally formed during the 12th century it would probably not look and behave like it does.

On top of that, there are significant similarities between Daito Ryu and Ono-Ha Itto Ryu kenjutsu. In fact, many of the jujutsu techniques are simply Ono-Ha Itto Ryu done without a sword. Takeda Sokaku was an expert in Ono-Ha Itto Ryu, and later taught it alongside Daito Ryu. Of course Ono-Ha Itto Ryu was a Tokugawa period creation of Ono Tadaaki, who was the senior student of Itto Ittosai, founder of the Itto Ryu, and was formulated nearly half a millenia after the 12th Century.

This is not to say that Daito Ryu was definitely created by Takeda out of whole cloth - perhaps the Oshikiuchi he studied from Saigo Tanomo formed the basis of DR, and was expanded upon and influenced by his expertise in Ono-Ha Itto Ryu. Perhaps he amalgamated the bits and peices of jujutsu he had learned over the years, combined them with his knowlege of Itto Ryu, and formulated DR. That's the problem - no-one knows. In any event, he was without a doubt a martial genius, and is (along with Kano) one of the most famous jujutsu experts of the Meiji/Early 20th century era.

hehehe - sorry about the rant.

Merryprankster

12-23-2005, 07:42 AM

You would probably get warned for something that blatant, then penalized.

Striking isn't allowed in a Judo tournament, but there are all kinds of things people do. It's just not legal.

Gripfighting is nasty in and of itself and people often hack at joints. Footsweeping can fast become an exercise in low kicks.
"neck wrestling" is often important and can lead to headbutts, etc.

It's all about gaming the rules to cover up illegal activity, and aggressive play often helps cover up that behavior.

But it certainly isn't legal.

But remember, this is sportive judo. There's no reason you couldn't incorporate something like that from a self-defense perspective if you wanted to.

Just wanted to make a comment on the SC and Judo being natural enemies thing - that might have been true in Taiwan or wherever, but SC isn't big enough compared to Judo for anybody in the Judo community to care. If you say "Shuai Chiao" to 99% of Judo guys, they'll probably go "What the hell is that?" then if you tell them, go "Oh, that's interesting" then go back to practicing.

I really don't know why people get exercised over this stuff anyway.

tjmitch

12-23-2005, 09:02 AM

I have done some of both. As far as the breakfalls go, to me what is important is what they have in common, not the differences. They both teach you through repetition not to do what comes instinctivly; to put out your hand to break you fall.Also to tuck your chin so your head doesn't bounce off the floor, not to let your knees knock together, etc.

Then if you look at the throws - take for example the shoulder throw in SC and the judo throw who's name escapes me that is basically the same throw. In SC, you are told to get his arm all the way over your shoulder, and in judo you use more of the crook of your elbow to hook his upper arm. They both work, so to me neither one is 'wrong' and I would rather know and be able to use both variations.

As far as the 'SC is more dangerous, you attack joints and drop people on their heads' , you can drop someone on their head just as easy with a judo throw. And all of this joint attacking must make for pretty short practices. Yes, I was shown throws that attack joints (ie, the outer shoulder throw) but when practicing it, you always make sure to get close enough to the guy that that you don't damage his elbow. In a real fight, screw his elbow. Well, if you look at a judo throw like tai otoshi, when you practice it you always have to make sure to get low on the guys leg to not damage his knee. In a fight, screw his knee. So its the same thing.

The one thing from SC that was different and I try to do is to not always grab the gi, to try to make sure you have a handful of opponent.

shuaichiao

12-23-2005, 09:29 AM

As far as the 'SC is more dangerous, you attack joints and drop people on their heads' , you can drop someone on their head just as easy with a judo throw. And all of this joint attacking must make for pretty short practices. Yes, I was shown throws that attack joints (ie, the outer shoulder throw) but when practicing it, you always make sure to get close enough to the guy that that you don't damage his elbow. In a real fight, screw his elbow. Well, if you look at a judo throw like tai otoshi, when you practice it you always have to make sure to get low on the guys leg to not damage his knee. In a fight, screw his knee. So its the same thing.
.

This is true but this thread is about the differences between the styles and there is a difference between a style that trains to throw to injure and one that can be adapted to do so, Just like there is a difference in practising safely if one guy focuses on how to do it in a fight while the other focuses on how to do it in a tournement.

SevenStar

12-23-2005, 10:08 AM

I dunno if I'd put it that way... the judo throw can definitely injure - especially if the opponent doesn't know how to fall - his head is gonna bounce on the concrete like a basketball.

shuaichiao

12-23-2005, 04:59 PM

I dunno if I'd put it that way... the judo throw can definitely injure - especially if the opponent doesn't know how to fall - his head is gonna bounce on the concrete like a basketball.

I'm not saying anything bad about judo but judoka mostly train for the sport and throw for the ippon. When the heat is on they're going to throw the way they've done it thousands of times not the way they think about it once and a while and the judo throws mostly throw people so that they pretty much breakfall decently even if they don't know how, unless they reach for the ground. Also since you practise at your school more than you compete or fight most judoka pull up on the arm as uke falls which will help him fall properly and prevent his head from smashing into the ground. I've done a couple of short stints at a couple of different judo clubs and I find myself doing that constantly when I work out with my old shuai chiao buddies and when I spar at san shou. I can't imagine how a long time judoka wouldn't do that in the heat of the moment. Sure judo is definatly capable of hurting someone but they train more not to while most shuai chiao guys focus more on the fighting side of the art than the sport.

lkfmdc

12-23-2005, 05:03 PM

I've formally trained Shuai Chiao, and have plenty of Judo friends, while in THEORY the Shuai Chiao throws have more potential to hurt you, the reality is that even the "sport" judoka throws very f-in hard. Even on tatami and knowing how to fall, Judo throws are not pleasant. If they were on concrete :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

lkfmdc

12-23-2005, 05:52 PM

The intention of Judo throw is trying to take down your opponent and then start a ground fight there (again, I may not be correct on this).

You should read Mark Tripp's article....

Regarding "early" Judo (around the time of the police challenge)

"Judo at this time was a slamming art with some strikes and pins. The art of submission was VERY limited"

The evolution so to speak, came later...

"another jujutsu ryu-ha saw the need to change their training methods and they too joined the Kodokan and began using the Judo training methods. This school after watching many randori and shiai sessions at the Kodokan made a simple observation; it was VERY hard to slam someone until they quit."

IE, later in it's development, the submission or ground work was adopted so that if the throw did not KO, you had something to follow up with!

Finny

12-23-2005, 09:47 PM

FWIW, early Judo did contain some ground work (Tenjin Shinyo Ryu teaches a number of pins, chokes and 'submissions' ie. breaks)

But from what I heard, it was after the Kodokan held challenge matches with the Fusen Ryu folks that they really began to devote some time to ground work. The Fusen Ryu guys apparently spent a fair amount of time on the ground, and used this to their advantage when challenging the Kodokan - and apparerntly Kano learned from that... and that's where Kosen Judo comes from.

At, least, thats what I heard - could just be myth.

Merryprankster

12-26-2005, 11:17 AM

YouKnowWho;

No, you are not correct re: Judo. The purpose of Judo is to finish the fight with the throw's impact.

ShuaiChiao, you are also not quite right. I say this because you must look at the training methods.

Simply: Do you try and injure your training partners when you throw? I'm betting the answer is no. If that is the case, then you are using "sportive training" type methods too, just like the Judoka. I am not interested in what people SAY is true about something - I am interested in what they DO.

The truth is that we all follow rules when we train. We all simulate fighting or else we can seriously injure our training partners and ourselves - and ultimately, it is better for us to follow those rules than not train for a while - or forever even if it's bad enough.

What people really wind up arguing about, IMO is what constitutes a "better" set of training rules, not "which art is more effective." Is it better to "Pull" certain shots or techniques with the understanding that those are "fightenders?" Or is it better to ban them completely and not pull anything?

That's really what this always turns into - a difference on training approaches. Neither art is superior. Just different training emphases - but doesn't make one better, worse, or even substantially different, given that a throw by any other name still uses the same principles and general mechanics (as I asserted in my previous post.)

As far as throwing to the back, that is considered "winning" because an opponent thrown to their back is considered "finished" on a non-tatami surface. Not an unreasonable assumption for a sport. Judo has one of the highest injury rates in the world, and my reconstructed left shoulder is a testament to how hard throws can be even on a mat.

lkfmdc

12-27-2005, 10:47 AM

Merry,

Something to consider, there is an argument about the "belly up/back on mat" concept.... soem feel it is western wrestling influenced. I do think we can safely say that the new jujitsu trend has taught people that you CAN fight off your back and not only survive but win...

The Tokyo police for example have modified their training to get their officers used to putting a suspect face down, to keep him from getting to weapons, to control him, to cuff him...

Me personally, a slam is gonna hurt whether it is onto your face or back... but the stuff I've read on this argument is interesting

SevenStar

12-27-2005, 01:34 PM

As far as throwing to the back, that is considered "winning" because an opponent thrown to their back is considered "finished" on a non-tatami surface. Not an unreasonable assumption for a sport. Judo has one of the highest injury rates in the world, and my reconstructed left shoulder is a testament to how hard throws can be even on a mat.

This is the point I was getting at. In judo, "the big ippon" is the goal. A person landing flat on their back, HARD, regardless of surface can take the fight out of them some, if not completely end it. As an added benefit, if you don't know how to fall, there is a good chance that your head will bounce upon impact.

shuaichiao

12-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Simply: Do you try and injure your training partners when you throw? I'm betting the answer is no. If that is the case, then you are using "sportive training" type methods too, just like the Judoka. I am not interested in what people SAY is true about something - I am interested in what they DO.
.

Some techniques can't be trained at full power or full speed the way we would like to do them. I still think it's better to practice the throw martialy and more controled than to help your opponant fall safely. On other throws like a hip toss or shoulder throw for example we don't come up on our tows and project the guy outwards on more of an ark that will help him rotate to his back the way judo teaches. We more or less bring the guy over and drop him. If you've been properly trained in falls you can twist yourself and take the fall but an untrained person would land on thier head, neck, shoulder or reach out for the ground and damage thier arm. We do a lot of fowards throws that would plant a guy on his face and chest. Agian if you haven't been trained in how to fall most people will reach for the ground and hurt thier arm or shoulder. Then thier are some throws that are meant to slam you on your back and flatten you out to expose the seperations in ancient armor that allowed for movement. These throws and strategies are one of the reasons that shuai chiao people fall the way they do.

SevenStar

12-27-2005, 03:26 PM

Some techniques can't be trained at full power or full speed the way we would like to do them. I still think it's better to practice the throw martialy and more controled than to help your opponant fall safely. On other throws like a hip toss or shoulder throw for example we don't come up on our tows and project the guy outwards on more of an ark that will help him rotate to his back the way judo teaches. We more or less bring the guy over and drop him. If you've been properly trained in falls you can twist yourself and take the fall but an untrained person would land on thier head, neck, shoulder or reach out for the ground and damage thier arm. We do a lot of fowards throws that would plant a guy on his face and chest. Agian if you haven't been trained in how to fall most people will reach for the ground and hurt thier arm or shoulder. Then thier are some throws that are meant to slam you on your back and flatten you out to expose the seperations in ancient armor that allowed for movement. These throws and strategies are one of the reasons that shuai chiao people fall the way they do.

Right, but that first sentence is what MP is concerned with - you can't train them at full power and speed. That makes your training just as sportive as a judoka's in that regard. The ones that you can train at full speed, you do. the others, you do not. The only difference here is that the judoka can train all of his at full speed. There is nothing less martial about it, IMO. A throw is a throw. Whether he lands on his back or his head, the end result is similar. Whether or not you break a limb prior to / during the throw not as relevant.

shuaichiao

12-27-2005, 04:27 PM

Right, but that first sentence is what MP is concerned with - you can't train them at full power and speed. That makes your training just as sportive as a judoka's in that regard. The ones that you can train at full speed, you do. the others, you do not. The only difference here is that the judoka can train all of his at full speed. There is nothing less martial about it, IMO. A throw is a throw. Whether he lands on his back or his head, the end result is similar. Whether or not you break a limb prior to / during the throw not as relevant.

Maybe. When you throw a guy on his back it can be painful. Maybe it will knock the wind out of him. It's possible he can bang his head, although it's pretty instinctive for most people not to let there head snap back even without training and the support methods I mentioned earlier help prevent that aswell. The idea of slamming him on concrete is fine but both arts were created before concrete. Would slamming him in the grass, sand or mud have the same effect? You may obtain a decided advantage but most likely the fight continues. It's a law of physics that slamming someone on a larger surface (back vs head) will spread the force out more and cause less damage. I don't think practising something the most damaging way but controlled is as sporting as practising it in a more helpfull manner. In anycase I'm not attacking judo. I've done judo for a few years and like it just fine but it's different. this thread is about what those differences are. Each time I point out one of those differences you feel the need to defend judos version of it but it doesn't need defending, not from me and not in this thread. But the truth is that shuai chiao strikes, locks, or whatever first and throws last and judo looks to throw first and continue from there.

SevenStar

12-27-2005, 04:56 PM

I've done some of both as well - more of one than the other - but it's not defending, more debating. You said something, I disagree. Nothing more. IME, it's not true that most people instinctively know to tuck their heads. I've seen the opposite both in the school and in the street. And yes, the force is dispersed, but the pain is still very present. And yes, this would also apply to a grass surface. Getting slammed on virtually any surface can hurt. mud would depend on the depth. that would also apply to throwing them on their head. On water, a judo throw would hurt more, however neither would inflict anything serious, unless it was from a decent height. But this is getting silly....

as far as practicing in a controlled way, the point is that it's not live. they are not fully resisting you the way they would in competition or on the street. that is a key factor. you are practicing something more damaging, but in a less realistic way. a judoka would do the reverse - less damaging (in regards to broken limbs) but more realistically. It's a trade off.