The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System 3.8: 7th Kyu

The final grade in the mon system is 7th kyu, red belt. 

The titles of the below sections are taken from the grading sheets in Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his jujutsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997).

Breakfalls (Ukemi)

Bridgefall, and backwards flat, sideways flat, forwards roll, sideways roll separately over an obstacle. 

The bridge fall, aka o mae ukemi, is the same as in the previous grading.

While responding to a comment on my Facebook post sharing the previous blog post, I remembered that I neglected to explain why sideways roll is so uncommon in the martial arts. It's because most ukemi comes from judo and there is no need for a sideways roll from judo techniques.

I was also reminded that there are some (aikido) that teach a backwards roll that starts to resemble a Jan de Jong (JDJ) sideways roll. That is true, but it is more of a backwards roll than a JDJ sideways roll, however, having said that, it is worth noting because a JDJ sideways roll transitions into a backwards roll.

This is one of the aims of these series of posts, if not this entire blog, and that is to encourage those engaged in martial arts to engage in critical thinking, to seek insights that produce a new and better understanding, rather than just teaching and training what is taught.  

For progression, the o mae ukemi could have been performed over an obstacle in this grading. There is a 'trick' to performing o mae ukemi over an obstacle. 

The trick to performing o mae ukemi over an obstacle, I discovered by observing John Poulton  (ikkyu) in the instructors class way back when. John Poulton is front left, beard, in this photo taken from the JDJSDS Yearbook 1986 - Hakusho. He was performing o mae ukemi over obstacles when none of the other instructors pictured could and ever did. It is simply a forwards roll that you don't come out of; a forwards roll terminating in a backwards flat. :)

There is a lot of history in that photograph. Do the current JDJ ryuha know and study that history and share it with their students? Who can name all in the photograph and their legacy? This blog is about preserving and understanding the history of the JDJ tradition.

Wakai no Kata

You will recall from the 'Historic Ikkyu Part 1' post that JDJ developed wakai no kata to replace Yoseikan Budo's (YB) happoken and sanbogeri. He then moved the kata to nikyu and included it in 7th kyu, the last of the mon grades before the kyu system. Happoken taught blocking and striking skills and sanbogeri taught kicking skills. JDJ's wakai no kata is designed to teach blocking, striking, and kicking skills.

The issue of using a block in conjunction with an evasive body-movement (EBM) that was discussed in a previous post is present in this kata.

Last year I saw a JDJ ryuha yudansha demonstrate this kata while teaching it to their students. I would fail that performance if a grading candidate presented it for their 7th kyu grading, let alone a yudansha that has supposedly performed it in two gradings. 

JDJ's wakai no kata includes pencak silat's depok and sempok stances. Same stance but looking forward or backward. It is an extremely versatile stance in terms of an EBM and setting up for strikes, kicks, and unbalancing. 

In the abovementioned performance, the performer did not perform the stances correctly (or simply did not know how to do so), which nullified their tactical effectiveness.

Then of course there was the issue that the kicks were poorly executed, wafting upwards rather than 'shooting' in and out, and the timing of the defensive combinations was all wrong. Basically, it was a blur from start to finish interrupted only by the performer being unbalanced when performing the depok and sempok stances. 

These issues were also common with the performances within the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS), including that of most of the instructors.

The abovementioned JDJ ryuha refers to this stance as a 'cross stance' (kosa dachi). That is a reference to a Japanese karate stance which is 'similar' to the pencak silat depok and sempok except that karate does not realise or understand the potential of this stance.

I attended a seminar co-jointly hosted by Wally Jay and George Dillman while I was living in London. Dillman was on the pressure point bandwagon at that stage, but he also presented his 'study' of karate kata which included a Shotokan kata where this stance is performed. He explained that this stance is entirely useless but that it was a 'secret' of the kata because it was part of a turning move when executing what the JDJ tradition knows as hachi mawashi (hair-chin turning). When Dillman asked what is the point of this stance before his 'explanation', I wanted to put my hand up and say that it was a major feature of a very effective martial art taught to one of the most populous nations on the earth, but I didn't.

Throwing Techniques (Nage Waza)

This is the first time in the mon system that throwing techniques have been introduced. There are four throwing techniques from specified attacks: single lapel grip (low) - hip throw; single lapel grip (high) - shoulder throw; low punch - minor inner reaping; and low punch - minor outer reaping.

Body Movements (Taisabaki)

'Defender's choice of attack, using any block.' 

The issue of 'blocks' and the demonstration of these body-movements as defences has been discussed in previous posts.

All five of YB's basic body-movements are included in this section, along with dodging (kawashi).

The dodging body-movement was included in this grading due to Greg Palmer's lobbying. I argued that dodging was simply a variation of either flowing or sliding body-movements, which I went on to demonstrate in my taisabaki no kata grading in sandan. It was a 'teach the teacher' moment, however, even though they agreed with me, it is still retained in this grading.

To challenge the reader's understanding of this body-movement that they are either training and grading or teaching, is the dodging body-movement as taught a variation of flowing or sliding? Even though JDJ used a dodging body-movement often in his demonstrations, why and how is it different to the one included in this grading? Also, identify the defences in the kyu and dan grades where this dodging body-movement is used in a defence.

Unbalancing (Kuzushi)

Normal single wrist grip - Normal and same side unbalancing

Reverse single wrist grip - Reverse and same side unbalancing

Same side single wrist grip - Normal and same side unbalancing

The unbalancing from single wrist grips is taken straight from YB, however, JDJ is building on YB's teachings. What is JDJ trying to teach/impart with the two forms of unbalancing from the same single wrist grip? Did the instructors (a) understand this lesson, and (b) teach this lesson along with the techniques?

In his later years, JDJ was teaching this lesson and referred to kuzushi and hazushi for the two types of unbalancing. Hazushi means disengagement or release according to the glossary in Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his jujutsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997). 

The basic idea is that with normal and reverse unbalancing, the captured hand is disengaged whereas with same side unbalancing it is not. This then facilitates one of the nine basic joint-locking techniques taught by the JDJ tradition and which is demonstrated in the mon grades. Same side unbalancing does not necessarily disengage the hand grip, turns the elbow up, thus facilitating straight arm lock, side wrist lock, and wrist crust. Normal and reverse unbalancing disengages the hand grip and keeps the elbow down thus facilitating the other six joint-locking techniques. 

This is a valuable and sophisticated lesson in versatile tactics, a unique one developed by JDJ, that is often not understood within the JDJ tradition. This leads to the question, should it be included in the relatively lowly grades of the mon system?

Locking Techniques (Kansetsu Waza)

'Two attackers defender's choice of attack.' 

The issue of the appropriateness of this stress element in these early gradings has been discussed in numerous pervious posts in this series.

The three kansetsu waza in this grading are arm entanglement (ude garami), side wrist lock (yoko tekubi hishigi), and wrist hand throw (tekubi te nage). The latter two are known by different names in aikido. This completes the nine basic kansetsu waza taught within the JDJ tradition.

Basic Blocks and Attacks (Uke and Atemi)

Three punches and one kick - four basic karate-style blocks. 

There is no unbalancing - blocking section as included in 9th kyu. 

These blocks are often taught in conjunction with an EBM. As has continually been questioned in numerous posts, e.g., The Mon System and Blocking Techniques, what is the purpose of the block when used in conjunction with an EBM. It's not to avoid injurious contact with the body because the EBM takes care of that problem. This is a question that should be asked and answered as it would demonstrate insight and understanding.

The defences in this section include a karate-style block followed by a punch. This should be taught as an alternative to the singular use of EBMs, or just avoiding an attack. It would be a useful tactic to employ in the free fighting gradings of ikkyu and the dan grades.

Reflex (Shinken Shobu no Kata)

Fifteen defences from holding, strangulation, punching, kicking, stick, and knife attacks. There are two 'restraining techniques' included in the 15 defences, which is to say a pre-emptive application of a joint-locking technique.

All of the defences have been demonstrated in this or previous gradings, as they should be.

There is a 'stick-overhead attack.' 

Last year, I observed a number of classes of a JDJ ryuha where this same attack was used in the lessons. It would appear that uke did not know how to hit a person with a stick. If they made contact with tori, it would be with the butt of the stick held in the hand of uke. This obviously affects the distancing of the defence. With a lot of practice, the student would become proficient at defending themselves against an attack that was trying to hit them in the head with the butt of the stick, however, if someone was actually trying to hit them with a stick, they would literally fall short. 

This was also a common fault in the JDJSDS.

The lesson to be learned here is to teach the students how to attack properly first, and then teach the defence.

This was something lacking in the JDJSDS as well.

The Development of the Jan de Jong Jujutsu Grading System: Curriculum vs Examination (Grading) Question

The following is a comment that was posted on one of my Facebook posts sharing one of the posts about the development of the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system:

Earlier I made an implied minor criticism of one aspect of the approach taken in these analyses. I said something along the lines of the need to clearly differentiate between an examination set or system and a curriculum. I added a vague comment stating that designing teaching outlines / lesson plans around test questions is a really bad idea.

I could not locate the earlier implied criticism regarding examinations and curriculum, although I vaguely remember it. 

The criticism was vague and lacked a practical explanation, however, it did sow a seed that I initially resisted but then succumbed to my natural curiosity (curiosity being one of Klein's five paths to insight that can lead to a new and better understanding).

I consulted a 40-year veteran educator who has also been involved in curriculum development for the Department of Education WA. This is an extract from his response:

Thanks for the email. An interesting question. Lots of detailed arguments can be made but essentially exams and tests are about eliciting information from the candidate that reflects their understanding of the curriculum that has been taught. ...

The tests and assessments (at least the major summative ones) cannot hope to cover the whole curriculum (i.e. everything that is taught) and so tend to be testing only the “core” or important parts of the course. They also test both skills (e.g mapping) and content understanding and application. Questions and the required format of answers (e.g. – multi choice, short answer, math problems, essay arguments etc.) relate to the level of answer required from simple recall/understanding through to application and then evaluation.

I then asked my education expert to apply the theory to martial arts practice:

Essentially, if I was to link the idea to martial arts, the curriculum would be the skills and knowledge taught during a block of learning, and the “grading” would be the test to see if the student could demonstrate that he/she/they knows the curriculum. In the Martial Arts case, I assume the curriculum is about the throws, blocks etc, that you learn and practise. These are then tested appropriately with demonstrations. I don’t know if you can test everything in the curriculum in a grading or whether, like in education, you just do the core of the curriculum. The nature of your curriculum (if its just practical skills) means that the gradings are just physical tests looking for technical demonstration of the curriculum. If there are other aspects to the course/curriculum, you may be able to add other ways to test the students.

In terms of teaching to pass examinations (gradings), my education expert had this to say:

In education, “teaching to the test”, means just focusing on how to pass the test or exam, through the explicit teaching of exam techniques and a focus on core areas and just past papers. The goal here (and we have become this unfortunately) is to prepare the kids to pass the exam at a high level. That is now an industry across Australia – revision seminars, practice books on NAPLAN etc. But the tests are not the curriculum – that is much bigger and wider. 

I am all about using theory to inform practice in a practical way. This idea was first enunciated for me in my first lecture during my MBA (Master of Business Administration) at the University of Western Australia's Graduate School of Management - using theory to inform practice in a practical way. This has been the basis for the first book that I wrote on the science behind all fighting techniques. It is the basis for the second book on a new and better understanding of our natural and learned responses to a threat. It was the basis for the articles that have been published in various national and international magazines based on the work within those two books. It is the basis of this blog and that of the Kojutsukan blog.

What, if anything, can we extract from the above discussion in terms of theory informing practice in a practical way?

The first thing that comes to my mind is: is the grading system the curriculum for the jujutsu taught by JDJ and the JDJ tradition?

Here I invite the readers to express an opinion either way. If you believe that there is a curriculum separate from the grading system, please provide details.

 

Both the abovementioned critic and the education expert adviser express the view that 'teaching to the test' is not a good thing. Towards the end of my teaching tenure at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School, I taught to the test, and I was very good at it. In fact, JDJ said that I was the best instructor in the school based on my student's performances in their gradings. They consistently excelled in their gradings to the point that at times JDJ would stop marking so as not to miss any of the performance.

When thinking about it, the traditional approach to advancement was for the instructor to determine one day that the student was ready for advancement without any formal testing. Is there a distinction between curriculum and examination in that tradition?

The abovementioned critic referred to teaching plans and lesson outlines. If the refer to anything other than copies of the grading sheets, then they were absent in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School. 

Remember, that while we are focused on one martial arts school here, the detailed examination enables us to learn something about all martial arts schools, as Friday argues in Legacies of the Sword: 'One can, therefore, learn something of broad value about the physiology of traditional Japanese martial art by carefully dissecting one school, in much the same way one can draw broad insights about the physiology of all species of all mammals by dissecting any one' (p. 10). Also see Shodan Requirement: History of Jujutsu post.

Of course the core of all learning, the identification of similarities and differences, are at the heart of this process. 

And here I would like to invite readers of other martial arts schools to share their distinction between curriculum and examinations/gradings, if there is one. In this way we can learn by comparing, one of the proven highly effective ways of identifying similarities and differences, and on of Klein's paths to insight that can lead to a new and better understanding.