Jump to content

Talk:Jujutsu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David from Downunder (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 27 May 2008 (→last Japanese divergence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not so serious as there are less than a handful but each of those remaining links seem to refer to a very limited subset of jujutsu or area. None of the links really add anything to the article. Personally - with the internal links we have I think the entire section should be removed. Just a suggestion.Peter Rehse 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say instead that none of the links currently there should remain. But surely there's some general external web site that's relevant? JJL 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a bit of time and could not find a good general site and then this morning we got hit by what, in my opinion, should be avoided. I removed the section for now. Let's see how that goes.Peter Rehse 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising your system

I don't think an encylopaedia article should be used to advertise a particular system of Ju jutsu in preference to any other. Granted, important Japanese old schools deserve a mention in the history section. Claims based on opinion that 20th century schools such as small cirle ju jutsu have re-invented the wheel for instance is pure propaganda designed to advertise a system at the expence of explaining Ju jutsu, which is what the article is supposed to be about. It is worth reminding potential contributors to the article's that Ju Jutsu evolved over 2000 years in Japan. Before that, many if not all of the techniques and strategem probably already existed in Chinese systems of combat. Nobody post 1700 AD is going to invent anything revolutionary in the martial arts, its all been done before. That includes Gracie, and grappling arts. New systems are not being invented or discovered now. They are simply re-discovered. Don't try to take credit for a unique method or system, it doesn't wash. This article should be about Ju Jutsu, not you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sources

This article is really missing sources and citations (much more important than extranal links).Peter Rehse 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Sources have always been absent for this article. It has been formed by the coagulation of personal opinion and handed down history from instructors to pupils. There are authorative texts on Jujutsu history, but no scholor of these texts has contributed to wiki

I've reasently got a couple of books and can make a start on bits in new year, but will be largely 2nd hand or sources to look to. ::Books are prob less help than I thought.--Nate1481 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also to the person above: you say this like its a good thing, or at least unavoidable, well sourced info is better than hearsay, even if a diffinitive answer is not possible an authoritative opinon (e.g. japanese military historian) is better than unsupported opinion which can be challanged and changed leading to edit wars etc. --Nate1481 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing problem.

The problem with sourcing from books is that one must chose a reputable author, especially when referencing a historical statement. Many Sensei authors give views that they haven't themselves researched. Second hand folklaw written in Ju Jutsu technique books and sourced from the views of the author should not constitute an adequate reference. Rather, it is better to find one's references from books on the history of Ju Jutsu that have been written by scholor's such as post graduate students, post doctorate scholors or professor of history. A good example of a Ju Jutsu history scholor is Stephen Turnbull, who writes many books upon the Samurai. In order to adequately research Ju Jutsu, one would need to read translations of Japanese books written during Japan's feudal period. Information on individual schools is probably most accurately sourced from interviewing the Soki of that school who may have access to historical records of his system.

First sentence changed

It's a minor change, but it's important. Previously the introductory sentence suggested that Jujutsu was a Japanese Martial Art, instead of properly stating that Jujutsu never properly refered to a particular art or system, but rather refers to a whole class of very different systems and schools that were practiced in antiquity and continue to be developed in Modern times. The rest of the article properly reflects this: in fact, the article does a tremendously good job of underscoring this. But the first sentence didn't reflect this important distinction at all.

It's important because many people believe that Jujutsu is a single martial art, much as Kodokan Judo or Shotokan Karate might be. This has much to do with marketing, I think. Judo, a tremendously popular sport and martial art that traces its roots to Jujutsu, often talks about Kano Jigoro refining "Jujutsu" and "removing" a number of techniques considered needlessly dangerous from the art. In actuality, Kano Sensei studied in a large number of different Jujutsu schools throughout his life, and he distilled what he learned from those into one unified system, Judo. But because the Japanese language lacks plurals, one never says that Judo is derived from Jujutsus, which would strictly speaking be more correct.

The result is that lots of (mostly modern) martial arts have attempted to hijack the term Jujutsu and apply it to themselves: a frequent claim, for example, is that their art is Judo with the dangerous bits left in, before Kano "watered down" the martial nature of the original art.

Of course at the time, Judo was seen as a kind of Jujutsu, one of many schools. But again, because most people don't realise that Jujutsu is not properly speaking a single martial art, they instead imagine a sort of lineage: "Badass Samurai Ninja Art - Jujutsu" gives birth to watered down martial sport, "Judo". Consider, for example, how frequently people who don't know better suggest that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is derived from Jujutsu as if the latter were actually some sort of unified system (not that I'm making any disparaging remarks about BJJ, it's a great martial art).

So of course every charlatan grandmaster who wants to impress would-be students adopts the name Jujutsu and claims to teach it. Wikipedia should underscore the fact that saying that you teach "Jujutsu" by itself doesn't mean anything, because Jujutsu itself doesn't really mean anything. There are many martial arts called Jujutsu, which are actually tremendously varied in style, form and philosophy. Unless your instructor can specify what ryu or school he's from, he's pulling your leg. This is a tremendously common martial arts scam.

I've written a lot about this now so I'll stop, but I hope you guys see my point. Cheers! 70.132.11.78 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But cf. the articles for Karate and Taekwondo, say, which also have many substyles; they start as this one did before the change. This is a standard way of describing things and it doesn't mean that there's only one way approach to it or one tradition of it. The Kung Fu page is different, but I think that Kung Fu is used even more generically than jujutsu--it's used to mean all CMA, whereas jujutsu is certainly not used to mean all JMA. Hence I've changed it back (with other changes). I'd be happy to work on this page toward a consensus opening if there is interest in doing so. I think both ways of saying it are defensible, but that this is more in keeping with what's done for comparable articles (like Iaido, which also has many substyles).
As an aside, it is not an uncommon opinion that there is indeed only on jujutsu. I disagree with those who say that there is only one jujutsu, but not everyone feels the same way. JJL 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can see both sides so would suggest an additional sentence along the lines of "There have always been various sub styles of jujitsu applying the same principles to different sets of techniques, usualty based around diffrent 'ryu' or schools." Modern versions can be left to that section. --Nate1481 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. I've made an attempt to do something along these lines; is it helpful? JJL 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. --Nate1481 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good compromise, I guess. Didn't realise that there was much disagreement among those in the know.
As an aside, though, I think that comparing the variety of styles that are called Jujutsu to the various branches and offshoots of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, or Judo fails to underscore how much more variation there is in Jujutsu than in the subdisciplines of those martial arts. But in this case I think the rest of the article does a good job of driving that point home, so it's not really a big deal to me. 70.132.11.78 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick point; Judo, karate-do, aiki-do are different systems. The word style refers to differences in personal interpretation of one system; for instance by the esthetic quality of performance by one indivitual compared to another. One could say aiki-do promotes by its movements a more flowing style, whilst karate-do by its movements promotes a more hard/sharpe style. These are descriptions of performance and not necessarily the system itself. In point of fact, all these 'do' systems are branches of specific Jujutsu ryu (deviations). Karate-do is a study of striking within the Ju-jutsu ethos (a sort of specialization). The ethos of the Japanese systems are similar although the technique set may vary. Style is an individual interpretation of any system. Some systems lend well to practitioners of a certain body type, hence they will perform with more grace and style. The point has been made that most divergent systems were developed by certain Jujutsu masters who branched off and started their own schools to suit their own preferences in technique and strategy. However, the root of these systems is the same. The prefix 'Ju' is particularly apt when describing Jujutsu. Many jujutsu ryu remain flexible by avoiding specialization into one branch of the system. Aiki-jutsu, Karate-jutsu and Jui-do all specialize to a greater extent. Just as philosophy has brances, so does jujutsu. And even the branches have sub branches and leaves. If the trunk of the tree is Jujutsu, and the brances are sub-systems within jujutsu, then the leaves are divergent systems. This would leave the roots to be the central ethos of all martial art systems (as a somewhat utopian system perfect in all balance of ethos and strategem). One can never learn everything, so systems look to mimic some pattern or quality of the root of marital arts. Of course trees produce fruit which goes on to form new trees hence proveing that all divergent systems can diverge again and again. I would by opinion say that Jujutsu and Gung Fu as terms mean similar things in Japan and China. Both names refer to trunks which have sprouted many branches. Of course, Chinese martial arts have diverged to a greater extent because they have had more time to develop, and because Chinese systems were not restricted by the ridged Japanese combat tradition (such as armour and etiquette, weaponary and strategy). Jujutsu is not the only name used in Japan for 'martial arts'. Yawara was also used in a similar general context. There are some other names too, but they escape me for now. Jujutsu became the most popular name, that is evident. This maybe because the meaning of Jujutsu (flexible art) is in itself all encompasing. 86.4.59.203 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.[reply]


Did the changes ever appear? As I can see in the article the changes has either not been made or later on deleted/changed..? Dexter999 01 November 2007, 17:03 (UTC)

Alteration to the introduction

I have altered the introduction to Jujutsu. The previous introduction gave too narrow a definition (ie self defence is only one part of Jujutsu), and failed to distiguish what made Jujutsu systems evolve differently from other martial arts like Karate, Kung fu or tai chi. I think this introduction paints a better picture of what makes Jujutsu unique and how it developed that way. Signed DD.

With the Chinese influence references moved further down, I have tried to edit to match my understanding (some Chinese influence but much less (noticeable?) than in other systems). Please edit out any inaccuracies in my limited understanding of this history! JJL 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed description of 'Style'.

I have changed the 'Style' description as it wrongly labelled Jujutsu as 'primarily grappling'. Jujutsu is not primarily a system for grappling. Although grappling skills were practiced by samurai, they were a minor part of Jujutsu training. Usually a ground fight during combat would be ended using knives which samurai carried with their swords. The majority of Jujutsu training involves learning to defend attacks using throwing, and joint locking techniques, with lesser emphasis on striking and grappling. Grappling has become more popular as a result of sports like wrestling and Judo, and derivations of Judo such as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. BJJ is primarily grappling unlike most Jujutsu ryu. In fact Jujutsu ryu are hard to pidgeon hole in terms of 'style' as there are so many ryu all with their own unique ways. 86.4.59.203 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Joe.[reply]

Only so much info. fits in that box. As currently practiced, most jujutsu styles emphasize grappling with perhaps a secondary emphasis on weapons. We need a gloss first with more detail later. JJL 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grappling is fighting on the ground. It is a minor component of Jujutsu ryu. If your club practices mostly grappling, then it is practicing BJJ/MMA or Judo type sylabus and not Jujutsu. Even Judo is mostly throws. Jujutsu is mostly throwing techniques, self defence counters and stand up joint locking. It would be more accurate to call it a throwing art.86.4.59.203 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)joe.[reply]

According to Grappling it refers to the gripping, handling and controlling of an opponent without the use of striking. I guess that would include throws and locks. However, in the aikido info box we have all three. I kind of prefer the aikido version but will let others do the edit. Depending on what's decided maybe we should change the judo entry also.Peter Rehse 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the defn. of grappling you cite. It certainly is not just groundfighting, in any event. In my opinion aikido is the one that is out-of-balance. JJL 04:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was pure punishment.Peter Rehse 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as a neutral party I am going to say user_talk:01110111zeroone is serious about this topic but needs to work on his editing. He stuck a pretty nasty editorial mistake in the article here.
user:Nate1481 sometimes edits things he doesn't know about like here.
I would also say that "Primarily grappling techniques" is not a good description of this style. Or even "Grappling". Some mention of Kobudo and striking is definitely in store. Can we agree to place "grappling, striking, and kobudo (or use of weapons) under this style's description?

User5802 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users have disputed the style being labeled as "primarily grappling", User:Bradford44 modified this article yet again calling the style "primarily grappling". Until some proof can be showed that the classical art of Jujutsu, as practiced by the samurai was also primarily grappling, I don't agree with this style being labeled "primarily grappling". That is a description that should probably fall under Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. User5802 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the outset, please be aware of the purpose of an infobox. It is a essentially a depository of "almanac" style information, just the bare technical information such as dates, founder, location, etc... As such, a 30+ word description is wholly inappropriate, and defeats the purpose, which is at-a-glance statistical information. See also Help:Infobox.
Now on to the description here, which really needs to be no more than five or so words long. My understanding of koryu jujutsu (which should be the primary focus of the article, rather than sport jujutsu or other derivatives), is that the techniques developed beneath the umbrella of the term "jujutsu" were for the purpose of dispatching an enemy in situations where the use of weapons was prohibited (or at least restricted to "minor" weapons, i.e., not a katana). Striking is not particularly useful against an armored opponent, and very it is very difficult to immobilize/neutralize even an unarmored opponent without fully engaging them - drawn out fisticuffs is not an option when attempting to foil an assassination attempt. Therefore, the techniques of primary focus were upon takedowns (often culminating in a strike with a limb or small weapon), such as throws, pins, holds, breaks, locks, etc... Although you may use the term "grappling" only to refer to sport wrestling, if you will view the grappling article, you will see that all of these things technically fall within the category of grappling techniques. I realize that traditional jujutsu schools are also schools of sogo bujutsu, and teach weapons and strikes, I think it is fair to say that primary focus of the study of "jujutsu", taken alone, is the ability to study the aforementioned throws, pins, holds, breaks, locks, etc..., or in other words, "grappling." (Please see the Meik Skoss article currently in the "References" section as a source for all of this). Bradford44 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bradford, I am aware of what the infobox is for and still believe grappling, striking, and the use of weapons should be listed here. I agree that "a 30+ word description is wholly inappropriate" and "grappling, striking and the use of weapons" is actually 7 words (3 if you do not include "and the use of").
Others have shown their agreement that "primarily grappling" is not accurate. Perhaps kobudo is not be the correct term for the use of weapons, however.
I did indeed read the grappling article prior to making the decision to remove the descriptor "primarily grappling". The grappling article gives reference to striking in its use towards the benefit of grappling and clearly states: "controlling of an opponent without the use of striking" under its initial description.
The grappling article does not state anything with regards to "grappling includes the strikes mawashi geri, mae geri, ushiro geri, yoko geri, or any similar strike included in multiple styles of Jujutsu which are used for the sole purpose of striking. -- These techniques are not necessarily used as a lead in towards a grappling technique and can be very destructive on their own.
The Meik Skoss article is good, and itself explains "Some define jujutsu and similar arts rather narrowly as “unarmed” close combat systems used to defeat or control an enemy who is similarly unarmed. Basic methods of attack include hitting or striking,..." -- I think this gives more proof towards jujutsu being a striking style as well!
Just trying to explain our two viewpoints I think I may be able to offer a scenario:
An old samurai faces an enemy. While duking it out one samurai throws a side kick to the others shin, taking him down quickly and effortlessly. The enemy states "What the heck was that?" The winning samurai in my opinion probably would have said "That's jujutsu buddy".
At the same time an old master invites a bunch of samurai to study jujutsu for the day. Many show up naked except for one samurai who carries his sword. The master probably would have said "What the heck are you doing with a sword? Today we are studying Jujutsu!"
But to illustrate why I think jujutsu should indeed have the style label "striking" included. You must understand that within certain schools of known jujutsu, hours of jujutsu study can include nothing but striking. Striking to pressure points, striking with weapons such as the bo. Founders of these styles of jujutsu included striking as a foundation of their art because the samurai did not have karate, tae kwon do, or a specifically striking art. When a Samurai went to war and needed to learn hand to hand combat, or any form of striking, he asked to learn Jujutsu.
Just my two cents User5802 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the detailed answer, but it would be good to get some more points of view before declaring a consensus. As a related topic, I'm sure you're aware of the navbox at the bottom of the page (also viewable at template:martial arts); would you also argue that jujutsu should move to the "multi-discipline" portion of the navbox? Bradford44 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, we still need a consensus on this. Hmm, the muti-discipline portion of the navbox is a tough one. When I think of multi-discipline the first thing that comes to mind are modern arts that have taken historical arts and merged them. At the same time it is almost contradictory not to have it listed as such, yet have the info box state "striking, grappling and weapons use". I think until we come to a consensus on the style for the info box, it should be best to leave jujutsu under the grappling portion of the navbox. User5802 00:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<- In the case of 01110111zeroone's edits I simple reverted as the essay was not appropriate and the article covers the wide range of JJ styles later an it was the previous consensus. Had hoped he would put something coherent if he edited again, but this didn't happen. When this last came up, my view was that "primarily grappling" indicates there is more to it but the in general JJ is about grappling with other bits. It should be noted that JJ was not exclusive to the samurai, even thought it originated there, after the decline of the samurai it was maintained as self-defence and street fighting where it was adapted of the new environment and requirements. The 'whatever works' side of the style is a key part of any battlefield originating art and different schools having different preferences and focusses is also key. I have changed the def slightly but feel that grappling techniques (including joint locks and throws) are the core. My own parallel (supporting what I have read) is having punched someone wearing modern body armour & seen the complete lack of effect grappling would have been key in armoured combat but not exclusive. Atemi strikes, such as to the knee, where armour would have been weak are certainly part of JJ. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't agree on the "primarily grappling" part, but it's a lot better now with the inclusion of striking and weaponry. If anybody else with experience in jujutsu has an opinion as what the style should be labeled as, please write your opinion here User5802 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My own experience (6yers) & what I've read from various sources support that grappling (broad def) is the core sourcing something like this is a pain as its not a specific claim but will have a look at the couple of refs I have @ home. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to learn in L.A. ?

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

Hello,

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

Why is "Sengoku" capitalized?

Why is "Sengoku" in "Sengoku jujutsu" capitalized? Is the reason valid as per the WP:MoS#Capital letters? I understand that it is the name of a period in Japanese history, but, for example, the name "medieval period" is not capitalized. -Pgan002 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosen Judo and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

BJJ was not based on Kosen Judo. Otávio Mitsuyo Maeda, who taught Judo to Carlos Gracie, left Japan around 1905. At that time, Kosen Judo didn't existed yet. It started as inter highschool Judo competitions, and its "founding" was at Tokyo Imperial University in 1914. That's why I reverted the wronging about the origin of BJJ in Kosen Judo, since it clearly, and without controversy, started from Judo. Loudenvier 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Version

The term "west", does not refer to Central and South America. The term "West" refers to Europe, British Commonwealth and the USA. mpampa 9:43pm EST, July 29, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Info box and headings

I have reverted the edits made by user:01110111zeroone again as the level of detail in the info box is to much, 'primarily grappling' is not great but considering the 90% of Jujutsu techniques are grappling, even with the use of strikes as an aid, it's the best you can do without including most of the article!. I'm not sure if edits to the text were made with the section headings but I have reverted them as Wikipedia:Lead section states

Although the lead section is considered a section, it has no section heading; an "Introduction" headline should not be added at the beginning of an article

the pronounceation thing, I'm not 100% sure on but suspect is correct in the restored version. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 01110111zeroone:

Also did you read the Guide_to_layout on headings in the lead?--Nate1481( t/c) 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quaterstaff or Quarterstaff

Which is the correct spelling? User_Talk:01110111zeroone believes it is spelled Quaterstaff. Anybody have information on this? User5802 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Quarterstaff. Bradford44 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw the wikipedia article but the user User_Talk:01110111zeroone seemed to indicate Quarterstaff was incorrect by modifying the word in his last edit. Still looking for more information on the spelling "quaterstaff". User5802 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also appears the term quaterstaff is still in use in this article User5802 22:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does he have any references for "quaterstaff"? Is a "quaterstaff" supposed to be different from a "quarterstaff", or just an alternate spelling? Bradford44 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need technical support

The page has a technical issue that appears to stem from having spaces in the wrong place under the subheading "Meaning". I can't fix it without removing the Japanese characters. Requesting some help with this... User5802 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem appears to have been resolved by User:Bradford44 User5802 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

safeandfit.com

had a link to their website posted at the bottom of this article citing "One Of the Top Jijitsu Schools in the Country." here First off this article isn't about "jijitsu" and second off, I'd like to see some proof that Steve Sohn's Jujitsu Concepts Scarsdale is one of the top "jijitsu" schools in the country. This is an advertisement for their company, blatantly placed in an encyclopedic article on wikipedia for commercial interests and is disrespectful to the art. The students of such a school should be embarrassed and ashamed of this. If I am wrong give some proof that this Steve Sohn guy is a necessary inclusion in Wikipedia's article on jujutsu. User5802 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this kind of thing is added placing {{uw-spam1}} (& is successors) on the users talk page can be a good idea. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Originally added relating to this is it still needed? A discussion on the 'style' field issue is being had here input would be helpful. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Going to remove it unless I here more. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what you're saying Nate, but I think the style issue is resolved for now. User5802 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jujutsu" as the word

I believe a discussion about the meaning of the word "Jujutsu" should be engaged, because I believe writing it means the "art or science of softness" is rather wrong.

The word "Ju" means "soft" and "jutsu" means "art" - whether "jutsu" also means "science" I do not know..? (source, perhaps?) My respect for this fight-art, as we call it in Denmark, is incredibly high - it is most most definitely the best thing that has ever happened to me throughout my short 18 year long life (seven year Budo-career) - therefore I also feel obligated to not give a wrong impression of this art. I have always been told by my (now previous) Sensei (trainer of self-defense / Jujutsu) that it meant "soft art" - of course it can be described as a "science" which, according to Wikipedia's own article about science, means "knowledge", as it is a knowledge you obtain. But my thoughts then came across writing it is " a "soft art" or a "science of softness "? Dexter999 12:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Dexter999 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you getting at. Translating is always a bit difficult between cultures as words may have different minor aspects. "Ju" means Gentle/soft/compliant while "jutus" means art/study the are not exact but the description gives the same correct impression. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a very good point, and perhaps should also be discussed at WP:WPMA. The problem is, jutsu (術) simply has no perfect English translation. Perhaps the most common translation is "art", but if you translate it that way, how do you distinguish it from gei (芸), which also means "art"? My kanji dictionary gives a pretty accurate definition for jutsu (in my opinion), which is "practical art". But I'm not sure that's clear enough, either. Bradford44 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all languages, certain words can take on a variety of meanings. When translating between languages, one has to be careful to specify which sense of a word we are talking about (something that many dictionaries often ignore). Wiktionary provides ten definitions for the English word art. The sense that matches the Japanese term most closely is the final definition:
  • Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation.
This is why "jutsu" can also be translated as "skill" or "technique." Here are some non-martial arts words which include "jutsu." These should give you a sense of how "jutsu" is used in Japanese:
  • 芸術 - art (The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.)
  • 技術 - technique; technology
  • 戦術 - tactic; tactical
  • 戦術家 - tactician
  • 術語 - jargon; specialized terminology
Hope this helps. -- A-cai 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree in your view of the use of the word Jutsu / Art. It is indeed a skill you obtain by study, practice, or observation but nevertheless the second one as well as the third one - 2nd: "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."; 3rd: "Activity intended to make something special." - also fits in my opinion. The fourth - "A recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgements." - can also in some way fit, if you not only practice basics but also practice self-defense drills and exercises where you learn to react in a given situation (e.g. someone comes and tries to strike you...)
By the way; I only get question marks for your last links... --Dexter999 13:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the links did not work for the last two words was that an article had not been created for them. I have now created an article for each, so the links should now work.
With respect to your objection to my explanation of the meaning of jutsu, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Is it based on your knowledge of the Japanese language or are you providing your opinion about the philosophical underpinnings of the practice of jujutsu? If you're talking about the actual etymology and current usage of the Japanese term jutsu, then my explanation would apply. I base my understanding of the term on the explanation offered in standard Japanese to Japanese dictionaries, for example (copied from Japanese Wiktionary):
  1. (じゅつ) わざ。技能。
  2. (じゅつ) 不思議なわざ。妖術。魔術。
  3. (すべ) 手段。方法。
  4. (ばけ) てだて。はかりごと。
Let me know if you would like a translation of the above (if you do not speak Japanese). If you do speak Japanese, could you provide some example sentences which demostrate the use of the term jutsu in the way that you describe? -- A-cai 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entry of 術 in Kenkyusha's J-E Dic. says
  1. (技術) an art, a technique, a skill, (the printer's) craft. 術に富んだ人 an artful (a resourceful) man.
  2. (手段) a means, a way. もはや施すべき術なしだ be at the end of one's resources (tether). be at one's wit's (wits') end. do not know what else to do.
  3. (計略) an artifice, a trick, craft, stratagem, resources. 術を授ける teach tricks to (someone).
  4. (魔術) magic, witchcraft, conjury. 術を使う practice magic. 術を使う人 a conjurer, a witch, magician. ~に術をかける lay (cast) a spell upon (a person). bind (a person) by a spell.
Here are some Japanese words using 術. 手術;(hand + 術) surgical operation. 算術;arithmetic, figuring, counting. 錬金術:alchemy. 話術;art of narration/conversation. 催眠術;hypnotism. Hope my post helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly school and Jujutsu practice took away the time available for studying Japanese - I am Danish, and therefore only understand the words learned at training. I used the meanings of the word "art" in Wikipedia's Wiktionary - English one.
Please do translate the Japanese words used. --Dexter999 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I dislike the translation of the character "ju" as "soft". I prefer the translation "yielding". I was admonished by another martial arts teacher once at a seminar I was teaching for showing bone breaking techniques because he thought jujutsu was supposed to be soft and gentle. Also, I believe that when applied to a martial art the ending "jutsu" denotes a combative battlefield style art as opposed to "do" which denotes an art practices more for personal perfection. Karatejutsu -> Karetedo, Aikijutsu -> Aikido, Kenjutsu -> Kendo etc. That's just my personal opinion and 25 years in martial arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltyDawg (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful about the difference between a useful way to conceptualize "jū", and how the references available to us routinely translate it. I wouldn't begin to question what jujutsu means to you, SaltyDawg, but I would argue that every Japanese dictionary I've seen consistently translates 柔 as "1. soft, 2. gentle", including Wiktionary, and those are the words we should use when translating the term. Bradford44 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the most literal translation would be "soft techniques". You could maybe trace this sense of "soft" all the way back to Laozi. See verse 76, for example. --Mujokan (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended changes for this article

It seems to me that this article has not yet been developed to its full potential. Many parts of it seem to weak and some parts seem to be written from a singular unsupported view.

More importantly I think the article stands largely unsupported by sources and there are some cases where the footnotes only weakly support the statements made.

It is my inclination to rewrite parts making them to coincide with the works of people like Draeger, Mol and Skoss (and Kano and Daigo in terms of connections to judo) however I see such spirited discussion here on the boards that I hesitate to do so.

Perhaps if we could put together a list of things we feel could make the article stronger we might be able to make improvements while ruffling relatively few feathers? --Mateo2006 03:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is the key thing. I'd like to do more but edit from work largely so sourcing is difficult for historic stuff. Would starting a draft re-write on a sub-page and then moving it here periodically when it's done help? It would reduce the likely hood of edit wars and allow a steady build up of the article. The first stage should be deciding a provisional layout (i.e. what the Table Of Contents will look like). --Nate1481( t/c) 10:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly recommend not to include too much from other martial arts unless it is to write that they are originated from Jujutsu. E.g. you could write that the throwing techniques used in both Aikido as well as Judo are Jujutsu techniques just evolved in another direction than normal Jujutsu (for example "The techniques used in Judo are techniques taken from Jujutsu and developed so you mainly learn to throw and fight on the ground, while you in Jujutsu learn to defend yourself all-round.").
Otherwise my recommendation would be to change the opening line as I also have proposed in " "Jujutsu" as the word " (the one right above this one).
Also a link to the International Martial Arts Federation (IMAF or Kokusai Budoin) because there is a lot of fakes, the Kokusai Budoin is one of the only federation with direct connection to the Japanese emperor which means they are entitled to give out titles some other unions or federations aren't. --Dexter999 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say don't mention any organisation as the fall out from linage wars will just damage the article, keep it to the facts of the art. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Current TOC

In response to Mateo2006's original request for suggestions on improving the article, I think that the Description section in particular suffers from a very muddled style. Technical Characteristics could be laid out more clearly, and some explanation of the principle of Ju itself is surely vital here. The piece on Jujutsu and Judo doesn't seem to know what it's there for, and would benefit from being a succinct comparison of Jujutsu with its most famous offshoot (perhaps coming under Derivatives, along with equally succinct reference to Aikido and BJJ - I also think that Derivatives and Schools should be two separate headings). I'm happy to start the ball rolling on this, if there are no objections? OnlyShodan (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage and Philosophy

I've made some small changes to this section, mostly addressing the neutrality issue. Firstly, I've changed the opening sentence 'All Japanese Jujutsu have cultural indicators...' to 'All Japanese Jujutsu schools have cultural...', as the absence of a noun such as 'schools' or 'ryu' looks like a typo.

I've deleted the next sentence - 'The more traditionally Japanese...' as it seems a little tautological ('the more Japanese a school is, the more Japanese it will be'). I've also deleted the first 'cultural indicator', namely 'an atmosphere of courtesy and respect...', as this is hardly a uniquely Japanese trait, and painting it as such would seem to violate the principle of neutrality. Courtesy and respect take many forms and may be present in a dojo which expresses them in a very Western manner.

Next I've deleted the phrase 'you are not likely to see stars and stripes or camouflage uniforms' from the line on clothing. I'm sure it's true, but in this context it comes across as a snide remark addressed at the supposed shallow gaudiness of Western schools. As such, it's insulting to Americans (in suggesting that the incorporation of their flag into a uniform is a bad thing), and suggests that camouflage uniforms are common in the Western Jujutsu community. I've personally seen hundreds of Jujutsuka from Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Italy and Belgium in action and not seen one camouflage uniform. Of course, if anybody knows any different...

I've deleted the line about 'lack of tournament trophies' etc. for much the same reason. Again it may well be true that these things are absent from Japanese dojo, and even that they are common in the West, but calling them 'superficial distractions' is a judgement call. Sure, badges are superficial, but are they a distraction?

I've left it at that, but the paragraph about Japanese religion needs the attention of someone better qualified on that subject than I am. The first sentence is suspect as it suggests that Japanese religion (as opposed to Eastern religion generally) has influenced all martial arts. I also wonder if Taoism and Confucianism really are common in Japan - can anyone help on that? OnlyShodan (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes for sound reasons.--Mateo2006 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

"The third, the Art of the Non-fulcrum Throw is employed through throws that involve little or no contact with the opponent." As far as I know, it isn't possible to move someone without touching them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.94.10 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Jujitsu

I've heard of at least 3 independent styles that describe them selves as sport jujutsu (various spellings), ignoring Judo and BJJ as sports. The Jitsu Foundation is the one I have come across most (I'm UK based), the description on the World Games site here sounds similar to the TJF stuff but I'm not that familiar with their companions. Regardless of this and what other 'Sport jujutsu/ju-jitsu/jiujutsu' is out there, should we have a section on jujutsu as a sport? --Nate1481(t/c) 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes. Sport jujutsu belongs in the jujutsu article or in an article of its own - as it is more associated with that than Judo or BJJ because it include strikes (in the sport itself, rather than peripherally as in Judo and BJJ.) Here is a google search. David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


last Japanese divergence

This article states "Some schools went on to diverge into present day Karate and Aiki styles. The last Japanese divergence occurred in 1905 when a number of jujutsu schools joined the Kodokan. The syllabi of those schools was unified under Kano Jigoro to form judo."

The judo article states "Various jujutsu schools, principally Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū, Kito-ryū, and Fusen-ryū".

The Kodokan article states that the Kodokan was established in 1882.

It seems that judo (or Kano jiu-jitsu) was created in 1882 based principally on Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū, Kito-ryū, with Fusen-ryū incorporated after the challenge match 1900.

Therefore, there are some problems with that quoted paragraph:

  1. the article describes judo as a divergence when it is more of a convergence (of technique, though a divergence of philosophy.)
  2. the article makes it sound like judo was created in 1905.
  3. the statement is unsourced
  4. the schools that joined the Kodokan are not named (they might be important schools upon which judo was based; or they may have been schools that had little influence on judo; or perhaps they had no influence and it was merely a termination of that school and the incorporation involved only the instructors and students themselves?

-- David from Downunder (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jujutsu&oldid=215256451"