Judo vs Tai Chi

[Miles Teg]

"Miles, I want to be sure I understand you: you believe Japanese martial artists are above human weakness?"


Of course not. Its just that Judo is put out more in the public eye(media) compared to Taichi. E.G the octogon, pride etc. Taichi has yet to prove itself in such events. If there is any martial art that has seomthing to prove its TaiChi - not Judo. Hey, I do wing chun and that is the same as Tai CHi in that it is very effective but hasnt proved itself against other martial arts in media events yet.
The best example of a style that has achieved this is BJJ people. They will go up against anyone if it is to be televised. Wing Chun or Tai Chi people havent made a name for themselves in this way yet.

Look, the point of the story coming on this this thread was to show that Tai Chi is superior to Judo. I am not saying that it isnt just that this thing that took place shouldnt be looked upon as some historical event that proves the case. People shouldnt base the effectiveness of Judo verses Taichi on the relaying of this event. We dont know who this world class Judo guy was. Now through someones observation we know that this person is not Japanese which throws light on the questions I had before about language barriers, happening to be in the same country, and why a world class Japanese judo guy would bother when there are so many better ways that they can and do prove themselves.

Base your opinion on what is a better style on your own experience not this story.

By the way, Judo was not designed to be a PE activity for Japanese high schools as someone above pointed out.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Miles Teg
Of course not. Its just that Judo is put out more in the public eye(media) compared to Taichi. E.G the octogon, pride etc. Taichi has yet to prove itself in such events. If there is any martial art that has seomthing to prove its TaiChi - not Judo.

I understand you. Tai Chi's multi-faceted approach to combat, health, and spirituality does have a way to make it seem lees of a combat art. After all, it's what old peole do, right? At least, tht is the perception. There are people who practice it as a combat art, but they are far fewer in numbers than other arts out there. It would be just like Judo players proposing that their art is as much of a promoter of health and spirituality as Tai Chi is.

Hey, I do wing chun and that is the same as Tai CHi in that it is very effective but hasnt proved itself against other martial arts in media events yet.

Well, yeah, but they are very different arts.

The best example of a style that has achieved this is BJJ people. They will go up against anyone if it is to be televised.

Everyone? All the time? Is that a given?

Wing Chun or Tai Chi people havent made a name for themselves in this way yet.

Well, that may also be due to the nature of the art. I know plenty of tai Chi artists who will take a challenge but will not make it public because the act of combat, restricted or not, is not a public matter. Perhaps a hot-headed Tai Chi person will stand in the spotlight and change that perception.

Look, the point of the story coming on this this thread was to show that Tai Chi is superior to Judo. I am not saying that it isnt just that this thing that took place shouldnt be looked upon as some historical event that proves the case. People shouldnt base the effectiveness of Judo verses Taichi on the relaying of this event.

I thought this was a given in this thread. Perhaps that was not clear.

Base your opinion on what is a better style on your own experience not this story.

I refer back to my explanation above about people being complicated, chaotic beings.

By the way, Judo was not designed to be a PE activity for Japanese high schools as someone above pointed out.

Well, it certainly was not meant for combat. I assume you are familiar with Jujitsu and know how different it is from Judo. The same goes with Aikijutsu, Aikido, and "softer" styles therein. While it was meant for preserving the culture (among other non-combative things), Judo is not taught with killing people on a battlefield in mind. Give a tough Jujitsu man a tanto or a wakazashi, and you will see one bad dude emerge.

Doug M

[Miles Teg]

Well, I dont see why it cant be considered a combat art. If its not a combat art then neither is BJJ. BJJ has its roots from the guy who created Judo. If Judo or BJJ are not combat arts then what does that say about the many martial arts that have lost to BJJ and Judo guys in the Octogon?



As for the BJJ question. Well as far as I know there is a certain take on all challenders philosophy that they foster. Apparently you can walk into a Gracie dojo and throw out a challenge and they often accept.

[Doug]

Well, what are you emphasizing in the -do art? By definition, Judo is all about finding one's way or path. It is not about killing other men. You know that the theory or philosophy behind a given art makes a big difference. This is such a case.

I'll go back to Aikido for a moment. Its roots are in a much harsher, combat-style system of killing. There is no philosophy as in the Aiki sense; you control the opponent(s) and kill. If you ever talk about the differences between a -jutsu or a -do system with a practitioner who practices either system opposite yours (Aikido or Aikijitsu), you will not only hear how different the system is but feel it too: someone who trains to kill has a far different "energy" than someone who is trained to better one's self.

You mention that someone can walk into a Gracie Jujutsu school, make a challenge, and actually confront someone from that school. How many people die from these encounters? How willing are the Gracie people to kill the challenger? Unless I am wrong, death is not something that happens in these encounters. Could they? Sure, the potential to kill is high and fairly easy to resort to if need be. But the decision not to kill someone marks the difference I speak of: rather than responding with death, another option exists--life. Comparing "ultimate fighting" with real combat is a mistake. The fact that people walk away from these things with "changed" perspectives is quite different than not walking away at all.

So, yes, you can turn a -do art into a more combat-oriented one, but at least two consequences. The change will contradict the -do art and cease being what it was originally intended for. One of the treasures of Tai Chi is that it is supposed to be something like a -do and -jutsu system (and more). The same cannot be said of a lot of martial systems. Trying to make Judo into a -jutsu art is the same as making Aikido into a -jutsu system as well; it radically changes the art into a system.

The other result is that the -do artist will be conflicted if training this way. If primarily trained under a -do art, a practitioner will find that training to kill--literally--is at odds with his former self, who was usually training to gain some type of insight into himself and the world around him. What will often happen is that he will reject the -do art or the -jutsu system in order to fully incorporate his current practices. He may also try to merge the two into one concept in his mind, which physically appears to work; however, the conflict will remian in his mind and affect how he interacts with himself and others in the chosen -do or -jutsu form. Thus, truthfully remaining faithful to both systems at the same time will tax his study and his mind.

Much depends on a practitioner's disposition and what he takes with him to a given -do or -jutsu form. People, complicated and chaotic, are more inclined toward life (-do) or death (-jutsu). Tai Chi was designed to develop both of these without the practitioner having to choose either one.

Doug M

[ShaolinTiger00]

Originally posted by Shooter
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...highlight=Judo

I wouldn't say I only used Tai Chi in the matches. I would say that I do Tai Chi, Judo, and MMA

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Doug
By definition, Judo is all about finding one's way or path. It is not about killing other men.

Judo has its roots in "battlefield" fighting. One of the original purposes of judo was to make it more effective than the "battlefield" arts of the day.

Judo has a wide variety of chokes. All one has to do is not let go of the choke once the opponent losses consciousness and death will occur. If this is not about killing, I'm not sure what is.

Originally posted by Doug
You mention that someone can walk into a Gracie Jujutsu school, make a challenge, and actually confront someone from that school. How many people die from these encounters? How willing are the Gracie people to kill the challenger? Unless I am wrong, death is not something that happens in these encounters. Could they? Sure, the potential to kill is high and fairly easy to resort to if need be. But the decision not to kill someone marks the difference I speak of: rather than responding with death, another option exists--life.

And how many people die in tai chi practice, challenges, or tournaments? How many people even get hurt, or choked out? I would imagine that it is far less than that which regularly occurs in BJJ and judo.

BJJ has an ever increasing repetoire of force available to the practioners beginning with non-violent control techniques, moving into incapacitating limb breaks, and going all the way into lethal force techniques.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Judo has its roots in "battlefield" fighting. One of the original purposes of judo was to make it more effective than the "battlefield" arts of the day.

The same is true for Aikido and its parent arts. But having its roots in a battlefield system does not instantly make it the battlefield system. That is why it is a -do art.

Judo has a wide variety of chokes. All one has to do is not let go of the choke once the opponent losses consciousness and death will occur. If this is not about killing, I'm not sure what is.

I stated this in my last message. Killing is the easy thing to do; giving someone another chance is not unless it is systematized into a form. Because another option exists--killing is not the only option--there is a difference between the two. The potential to kill does not equal a battlefield system. If you are trained in a -jutsu system and a -do system, you will know the difference immediately.

And how many people die in tai chi practice, challenges, or tournaments? How many people even get hurt, or choked out? I would imagine that it is far less than that which regularly occurs in BJJ and judo.

I do not know. You probably would not hear about them when they happen. Then again, Tai Chi does emphasize the -do and -jutsu aspects, and it is entirely possible that restraint is of higher consideration to internal martial artists than systems focused on one aspect: killing the opponent(s). Whatever point you are trying to make is unclear. Why not re-state your concerns in another way so that I can better gauge your question?

BJJ has an ever increasing repetoire of force available to the practioners beginning with non-violent control techniques, moving into incapacitating limb breaks, and going all the way into lethal force techniques.

Well, duh. How is this in conflict with what I already said?

Doug M

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Doug
Why not re-state your concerns in another way so that I can better gauge your question? [/B]

My point is that, if anything, Judo and BJJ are more likely to be killing systems, since they regularly practice their killing techniques at full force against resisting opponents who are also doing the same.

BJJ practioners and Judoka know exactly what it takes to kill someone, as most have effectively done so by choking opponents into unconsciousness more than a few times. I'd be willing to bet that there are almost no tai chi practitioners who have come that close to killing someone, so, basically, they are only theorizing that their "killing" techniques are able to be used in a real situation.

[SPJ]

Agreed that most people practice Tai Ji for health and fitness.

Most Judo practices are sports versions.

So it is up to the students or practitioners.

If you learn how to fall safely, a throw may not be able to hurt you.

So always know how to protect your self.

There are more protecting strategy in Tai Ji.

What is the protecting strategy in Judo?

There is both defense (Yin) and offense (Yang) in a Tai Ji move.

Thus the name is Tai Ji.

Peace.

[Miles Teg]

Just a guess here as Im a beginner but ........

That would be positioning yourself in a way that makes it difficult for the opponent to use his/her weapons effectively.

[Miles Teg]

Whats the protection strategy for Tai CHi?

[Doug]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
My point is that, if anything, Judo and BJJ are more likely to be killing systems, since they regularly practice their killing techniques at full force against resisting opponents who are also doing the same.

Then you are in conflict with the -do art.

BJJ practioners and Judoka know exactly what it takes to kill someone, as most have effectively done so by choking opponents into unconsciousness more than a few times.

Why is this being repeated? Is there someone here saying that a -do art practitioner is unable to kill? Is that even the argument? Hey, children know what it takes to kill someone. Have you ever seen them play with other children or talk--playfully--about what to do to other people, say, in their sleep? For the last time, killing is not the difficult part.

I'd be willing to bet that there are almost no tai chi practitioners who have come that close to killing someone, so, basically, they are only theorizing that their "killing" techniques are able to be used in a real situation.

Your claim is an assumption and belongs somewhere else. Only a study of every practitioner of Tai Chi and Judo will give an idea as to what you are claiming, and that will not even be accurate. But your argument also works against you because anyone can accurately claim that most people who study Judo or Jujutsu have also not come close to killing someone. What is your point, aside from seeming to hold a grudge against Tai Chi?

Doug M

[Miles Teg]

Doug
I believe it was you who started with the whole killing idea. I wasnt sure where you were going with it and Im not sure where you're going with the whole Do verses jutsu thing. What difference does it make what you call it?

If you look at your post it basically says that Judo/BJJ is not a killing art. This opens the implication that Taichi IS a killing art although not clearly stated. Thus Knifefighter's justified comparison between Taichi and BJJ/Judo as killing arts.



POSTED BY DOUG:
"Well, what are you emphasizing in the -do art? By definition, Judo is all about finding one's way or path. It is not about killing other men. You know that the theory or philosophy behind a given art makes a big difference. This is such a case.

You mention that someone can walk into a Gracie Jujutsu school, make a challenge, and actually confront someone from that school. How many people die from these encounters? How willing are the Gracie people to kill the challenger? Unless I am wrong, death is not something that happens in these encounters. Could they? Sure, the potential to kill is high and fairly easy to resort to if need be. But the decision not to kill someone marks the difference I speak of: rather than responding with death, another option exists--life. Comparing "ultimate fighting" with real combat is a mistake. The fact that people walk away from these things with "changed" perspectives is quite different than not walking away at all."

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
My point is that, if anything, Judo and BJJ are more likely to be killing systems, since they regularly practice their killing techniques at full force against resisting opponents who are also doing the same.
. I'd be willing to bet that there are almost no tai chi practitioners who have come that close to killing someone, so, basically, they are only theorizing that their "killing" techniques are able to be used in a real situation.

THat's not true Knifefighter. Chen taiji and the notrious wu sustems were both ( wu a deritive of chen) created specifically for combat and were absolutely a first port of martial defence call back in the fuedalisms. Baring taiji sword in mind, I am sure on rehash , you will also appreciate this.


on the above post, how many ppl walk into a school and lay down a death challenge these days anyway?? That was old school hongkong for the most part and that was for survival. Let's stick to reality ha.

[Buddy]

"THat's not true Knifefighter. Chen taiji and the notrious wu sustems were both ( wu a deritive of chen) created specifically for combat and were absolutely a first port of martial defence call back in the fuedalisms. Baring taiji sword in mind,"

While I disagree with knifefighter about Judo and BJJ (they are sports, add a knife or multiple opponent and they fail) you know nothing about Taiji. Which 'notrious" Wu are you referring to? Hao? Name someone from this system known for fighting? Wu Jianquan? an offshoot of Yang. Fuedalisms? WTF does that mean? These styles came into the public eye within the last hundred years. And just how long did you study Taji sword? Your opinions mean nothing. Get a job and raise your child like a good little girl.