The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 2.1: Shodan

As they say on some American TV shows, 'Previously' ...

Credentials: I am one of only five who have completed the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system and to be awarded (3rd dan) by JDJ. I am also the only one to have studied the JDJ jujutsu grading system indepth.

You will recall from the previous post that I considered the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system to be disjointed, overly cumbersome, and overly burdensome, and with an over emphasis on producing instructors which contributed to the aforementioned problems. I also attributed these problems to the development of the grading system.

In the previous post I provided a summary of the development process of the grading system: it was developed by JDJ who had relatively little, if any, experience with grading systems, and it was developed piecemeal to meet JDJ's personal needs at the time.

An understanding of this development process enables one to understand the cause of these problems and thereby provides the opportunity to implement improvements that can build on JDJ's original work (stand on the shoulders of giants/version 2.0). And when I say ‘build,’ I mean ‘streamlining’ his grading system, which means to make it more efficient and effective by eliminating unnecessary steps, reducing complexity, and optimising elements.

I identified four distinct stages in the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system: the kyu system, shodan, the mon system, and nidan and sandan. This previous post looked at the development of the kyu system. This post looks at the development of the shodan grading(s).

The shodan grading consists of nine parts, thus, this post will be divided into x parts due to the length of the discussion.

SHODAN
JDJ left Europe in 1946 after WWII. He returned in 1978 for a holiday with his then family and while there he 'checked out' the jujutsu scene:

Jan de Jong returned to Europe with his family for a holiday in 1978. While he was there he took the opportunity to make contact with various jujutsu instructors. The European jujutsu community were quick to embrace and court him. He was appointed the Australian representative for the World Ju Jitsu Federation (WJJF) the same year.

JDJ noted that all of the instructors in Europe were black belts, and he had none. He had black & white belt instructors who had engaged in a unique grading system that was designed to produce high quality instructors (see previous post), but no black belt instructors, so he developed the shodan grading for the sole purpose of producing black belt instructors that could accompany him to Europe where he was starting to make a name for himself.

The first teaching tour of Europe was in 1982 in which JDJ was accompanied by Peter Clarke, Debbie Clarke, Robert Hymas, Paul Connelly, John Copley, and Mike Simpson (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, Jan de Jong: the man, his school, and his ju jitsu system). Peter Clarke, Robert Hymas, and John Copley graded shodan in 1981 and, Debbie Clarke and Paul Connelly graded shodan in 1982 (source: Greg Palmer). The tour was a triumph and JDJ’s reputation was established in Europe.

Even though JDJ needed black belt instructors for the purpose of accompanying him to teach in Europe, he did not make the shodan grading easy. He didn’t compromise standards. In fact, he made it harder than ikkyu, but he had also set the precedent for instructor grades with his original ikkyu grading (see previous post).

You will recall from the previous post that ikkyu consists of seven gradings: revision, practical, ken no michi (sword basics), history and terminology, theory, teaching, and first aid certificate.

The shodan grading consists of nine gradings: revision, practical x 2, suwari waza no kata and kentai ichi no kata, shiai, theory and terminology, history, teaching, and examining. The following will look at each of these parts and will start with the description of the part contained in Jan de Jong: the man, his school, and his ju jitsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, p. 50).

It should be noted that JDJ did a remarkable job of developing gradings that were designed to produce high quality instructors, even by today’s standards. And remember, his ikkyu instructor grading (see previous post) was developed in the 1950s or 1960s, and by someone without any formal training as a teacher. It is a remarkable job by anyone’s standard, but it can only be appreciated through the reflection and study of the development of his grading system.

Part 1: Kime no Kata (Revision)
‘Candidates to demonstrate the appropriate kansetsuwaza, taoshiwaza, and nagewaza using the most suitable kuzushi.’

You will recall from the previous post that the ikkyu revision is a true revision grading in that it examines the performance of techniques selected from rokkyu to nikyu. The shodan revision grading is a very different beast. It is more a revision of principle or theory.

The shodan revision grading consists of five sections. The five sections are: kansetsu waza (joint-locking techniques), taoshi waza (takedown techniques), nage waza (throwing techniques), kansetsu waza, and taoshi waza.

The first section requires the demonstration of five different unspecified joint-locking techniques from five different specified handgrips. The emphasis on handgrips and the five different types of handgrips is taken straight from Yoseikan budo (see previous post and future post on the mon system).

The second section required the same but with takedown techniques. Here we encounter our first problem. What is a takedown technique? Here I will paraphrase Hans Selye, father of the stress concept, when he said, ‘everybody knows what stress is, but nobody really knows’: everybody knows what a takedown technique is, but nobody really knows. ... I do.

In my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques, I demonstrate that there is no real understanding of the differences between takedown techniques and throwing techniques in the martial arts literature (or practice). I then provide a definitive, biomechanically based, definition that distinguishes between takedown techniques and throwing techniques. However, when I was engaging in the shodan grading, there was no such definition and distinction and so it made it very difficult to select techniques to include in the second section of this grading.

In retrospect, how dumb were we all. JDJ had provided three takedown techniques in the fifth part of this grading. The three takedown techniques in that part of the grading were joint-locking techniques. Nobody included joint-locking techniques in the second section of this grading requiring the demonstration of takedown techniques. But this also shows that JDJ had a developing understanding of the theory behind martial arts techniques.

The third section involves demonstrating five different unspecified throwing techniques for three different types of throwing techniques. The types are: te waza (hand techniques), koshi waza (hip techniques), and ashi waza (leg techniques). That classification is taken straight from Kodokan Judo. See the previous post for an explanation why classification is a proven effective attribute of the 'core of all learning.'

The fourth section consists of three specified joint-locking techniques to be applied against five unspecified attacks. The fifth section consists of three specified takedown techniques to be applied against five unspecified attacks. The takedown techniques are joint-locking techniques.

In my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques, I explain that the definition of joint-locking techniques does not include their tactical use. One of the many uses that joint-locking techniques are employed for is as a takedown technique. JDJ was demonstrating that understanding to some degree in the fifth section of this part of the shodan grading.

Parts 2 and 3: Shinken Shobu no Kata (Practical)
‘Section A reflex examination’ and ‘Section B reflex examination.’

The reflex examination/shinken shobu no kata format of examinations was explained in the previous post.

The original practical/shinken shobu no kata grading was one grading consisting of 140 attack-defence combinations. This differed in terms of progression from the ikkyu practical grade in that the ikkyu contained 57 attack-defence combinations whereas the shodan grading contained 140 attack-defence combinations. That is an increase of 146%.



A previous post illustrated (see above) that the practical/shinken shobu no kata grades in the kyu system contained 30, 30, 30, 40, 45, and then 57 attack-defence combinations. This jumped to 140 attack-defence combinations in shodan, a 146% increase. That would appear to be an excessive increase, particularly given that the nidan and sandan practical grades contain 52 and 57 attack-defence combinations respectively.

The ‘senior instructors’ (Peter Clarke, Robert Hymas, and Paul Connelly; see the first post in this series) performed the shodan shinken shobu no kata in a kata format; specified defences against specified defences in a specific order (see previous post). The next 'cab off the ranks’ was Debbie Clarke. As the story goes, she was the first to be required to perform the 140 defences in true shinken shobu no kata fashion; randomly at the instruction of the examiner without knowledge of the examiner's instructed attack (see previous post). After the grading taking several hours, the other male candidates cancelled their grading and went away to train it in a reflex fashion.

Having seen how unwieldly the 140 defence shinken shobu no kata grading was when performed in a true ‘reflex’ fashion (see previous post), JDJ decided to divide the grading into two relatively equal parts. He also tended not to grade it in a true reflex fashion, instead the first attack from a section was performed in a true reflex fashion but then that would be followed by the other attacks in that same section.

As they say on some American TV shows, 'To be continued.'

The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 1: The Kyu System

The following is a comment to my first post referred to in the third post of this series:

I appreciated the input of all the teachers at JdJ they each had a different perspective/approach. Where I think problems lie is the assumption that every student wants to become an instructor and so have a perfect understanding of the theory and practice. To my mind this has meant that the grading system has become very unwieldy and overly long.

That commentor makes a good point, however, their comment focuses on the backend of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system; there are also issues with the rest of the grading system which contributes to the entire grading system being 'very unwieldly and overly long.'

The way I describe it is that the grading system is disjointed, overly cumbersome, and overly burdensome, but I do agree with the above commentor that the focus on producing instructors at the backend of the grading system has contributed significantly to those problems. All of these issues and more can be understood with an understanding of the development of the grading system.

The way I see it is that the JDJ jujutsu grading system is version 1.0. A 2.0 version is needed: '2.0, adjective, used postpositively to describe a new and improved version or example of something or someone.'

Why is a 2.0 version needed? Because without it, the JDJ tradition will die. The knowledge and understanding within the grading system that JDJ developed/accumulated over his lifetime will be lost. JDJ's life’s work will be lost. The grading system contains 'faults' (for want of a better word), however, within those faults lies the opportunity for insights that can lead to a new and better understanding that extends far beyond the JDJ grading system, and those insights too will be lost.

In order understand technically why a version 2.0 is needed, and in order to develop a version 2.0, one needs to understand how version 1.0 was developed. Knowing how version 1.0 was developed provides insights that help to understand what needs to be improved and why.

Don't get me wrong, JDJ did an amazing job with 1.0, particularly given what he had to work with at the time (see below). There are unique innovations within his grading system that would benefit many other martial arts grading systems (and the Australian Army as Major Greg Mawkes MBE (retired) explains below). There are also 'faults.'

I have said to others that the grading system was a 'first attempt' (1.0) in need of study and modification. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person to have performed an indepth study of the JDJ jujutsu grading system, the results of which are being shared in this and future posts.

Looking back at past posts in this blog, I can see that they were explorations building up to this comprehensive view (see my learning process in the fourth post of this series).

A summary of the development process of the grading system is that it was developed by JDJ who had relatively little, if any, experience with grading systems, and it was developed piecemeal to meet JDJ's personal needs at the time.

There are four distinct stages in the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system: the kyu system, shodan, the mon system, and nidan and sandan. This post will look at the kyu system. The other stages will be looked at in the following posts.

THE KYU SYSTEM
JDJ emigrated to Perth, Western Australia in 1952, and the way he described it was that he initially worked as a labourer before starting to teach some of his work colleagues at lunch or after work when they found out that he knew some martial arts. His teaching proved popular and he saw a business opportunity that could become his sole source of income, but first he needed a grading system. That is how the kyu system came to be.

The current kyu system consists of six grades: rokkyu (6th kyu, yellow), gokyu (5th kyu, blue), yonkyu (4th kyu, green), sankyu (3rd kyu, orange), nikyu (2nd kyu, purple), ikkyu (1st kyu, black & white), but it wasn't always like that.

History

JDJ's original kyu system (mid-1950s) consisted of seven grades. It reflected the 'ranking system' included in Tsutsumi Masao and Higashi Katsukuma's Die Selbstverteidigung (Jiu-Jitsu): nebst einem Anhange über Kuatsu (Wissenschaft der Wiederbelebung Verunglückter): mit 72 Abbildungen nach dem Leben (Self-defense (Jiu-Jitsu): along with an appendix on Kuatsu (science of resuscitation of casualties): with 72 illustrations based on life) published in Germany in 1906:

Ranking of student
The performance of the students is divided into seven gradations, which I make recognizable by the different colors of their belts.

Red is the color for the beginners.
Yellow for the students of the sixth rank
White for the students of the fifth rank
Green for the students of the fourth rank
Orange for the students of the third rank
Crimson for the students of the second rank
Black and white for the students of the first rank

(Translation by Google)

JDJ owned a copy of Tsutsumi and Higashi's book, which he prized and kept separately in a display cabinet in his study.

JDJ told of how he was considered by the Netherlands-Dutch to be 'affected' by the sun, having been brought up in Indonesia, when he would first collect his suitcase of martial arts books before heading to a bomb shelter during WWII air raids. JDJ said that he acquired Tsutsumi and Higashi's book while living in Holland during that time. Books were to become a big part of JDJ's professional development.

Even though one of the authors of the abovementioned book is credited as being Tsutsumi, and recognition is provided in the book of training under a master of Tsutsumi, there is no explicit claim that the book is about Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu (THR). And there are no details of the content of the ranks in Tsutsumi and Higashi's book.

A difference between the Tsutsumi and Higashi's ranking system and JDJ's original kyu grading system is that red belt was not a 'beginners' grade in the latter. It was an actual grading that required successful completion before being awarded a red belt.

Warwick 'Zak' Jaggard commenced training with JDJ in 1963 and was graded ikkyu in 1974 before teaching full-time for JDJ in 1975. I had the good fortune of living with Zak and his family in the early 90s when I was living and working in London. Zak confirmed that the grading system he engaged in consisted of six grades, with red belt not being included. Thus, between the mid-1950s and 1963, JDJ appears to have excised the red belt grading from his grading system.

White belt was the third rank in the Tsutsumi and Higashi ranking system and in JDJ's original kyu grading system, and was retained as the second grade in JDJ's modified kyu grading system. In the current grading system, it is now blue belt, which is a change since Zak engaged in the grading system.

White belt is universally recognised as a beginner's rank and comes from Kodokan Judo. Jigoro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo, introduced the kyu-dan system with white and black belts being used respectively to distinguish between the two.

There has been speculation as to where the coloured belts for the kyu grades came from, which I discuss in the above linked post: 'This is an important issue as the conceived wisdom is that the coloured belt kyu grading system (in judo) did not originate until the 1930s, albeit in the UK and/or France.' Remember, the Tsutsumi and Higashi ranking system was included in a book published in 1906.

Did JDJ change the belt from white to blue and reserve the white belt for beginners when he received more exposure to kyu coloured belt systems, in particular the Kodokan Judo system? It has to be remembered that he was located in the most isolated capital in the world and martial arts, even by his own admission, was not a big thing in Australia then, let alone in Perth: ‘Looking back at my own early years in Australia (1952-1963), self defence was considered a rather peculiar and odd thing to do’ (JDJ: Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, Jan de Jong: the man, his school, and his ju jitsu system, p. 3). There was no internet, no videos or DVDs; there were only books, and JDJ was an avid collector of martial arts books.

It should also be noted that in the Kodokan Judo grading system, black & white belt was reserved for female dan grades and is not included in any other grading system to the best of my knowledge. Before my first trip accompanying JDJ to Europe, Peter Clarke (see below) warned me that I would be questioned about my black & white belt. Sure enough, before I left the change room for the first time, I was asked what grade my black & white belt represented.

In all of the 'studies' that have attempted to establish the origins of the kyu coloured belt system, not one has referred to Tsutsumi and Higashi's ranking system, the first mentioned kyu coloured belt system (see above). The one where white belt is not for beginners and black & white belt is for males, and possibly females. 'What's going on here?', which is how Klein operationalises the curiosity path to insight (see third post).

The question is, are JDJ's kyu grades those of Tsutsumi and Higashi which may or may not be THR grades, or did JDJ simply appropriate the ranking structure from the Tsutsumi and Higashi book to develop a grading system? If so, what did he populate those grades with? Was it the teachings of his original instructors, the Saito brothers, or not? If not, where did they come from.

Shinken Shobu no Kata
The kyu gradings in JDJ's grading system are referred to, for the most part (see nikyu and ikkyu below), as shinken shobu no kata (kata of real fighting) or 'reflex grades.'

Shinken shobu no kata is the name of a kata in Kodokan Judo that was renamed kime no kata. JDJ gradings are not Kodokan Judo's shinken shobu no kata/kime no kata.

A kata consists of prescribed defences against prescribed attacks performed in a strict order. Is JDJ's shinken shobu no kata a kata?

JDJ's shinken shobu no kata consists of prescribed defences against prescribed attacks, however, they are performed randomly at the instruction of the examiner without the grading candidate seeing the instruction. This is the 'reflex' element in the grading because the grading candidate does not know what attack is coming and must act reflexively, which is the purpose of this training method.

Major Greg Mawkes MBE (retired) had this to say about the reflex method of training when writing about his involvement with JDJ in updating the Army's capability for unarmed combat training: 'The reflex method of training and testing is particularly appropriate to the instinctive reactions that must be developed in unarmed combat exponents' (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, Jan de Jong: The man, his school, and his ju jitsu system, p. 23).

The question was raised above: is JDJ's shinken shobu no kata a kata? The vast majority of those familiar with JDJ's shinken shobu no kata would say no, however, it's not as simple as that.

I used the kata training method to prepare students for JDJ's shinken shobu no kata gradings to great effect. This training method produced superior results in my student's grading performances, which was acknowledged by JDJ, the performances not the training method given that he was unaware of it.

JDJ's use of the shinken shobu no kata/reflex method for gradings has to be commended. It is UNIQUE to the JDJ tradition and should be promoted as such. I have found only one other method that even closely resembles it, and that is 'one-step sparring' in one of Mas Oyama's books on Kyokushin karate.

In marketing terms, being unique is a 'point of differentiation' with all other 'products' (marketing 101 - differentiate the product), however, if one is to promote the shinken shobu no kata as being a unique point of differentiation, one must understand that it is unique and why it is a superior training method. To date, with the sole exception of myself, that has not been the case in the JDJ tradition.

For those that will 'turn their noses up' at the reference to 'marketing,' the same differentiate-the-product concept applies in relation to fighting methods. Points of differentiation determines what is considered to be superior fighting methods.

Btw, the shinken shobu no kata method described above is for use in gradings, however, it is also a very versatile training tool as well. For instance, the instructor can limit the defence to one technique with different attacks signalled by the instructor, and one attack but different defences. Another innovation that is included in JDJ's teachings.

There is of course the question - where did JDJ get this unique form of training and grading from? That is a question that remains unanswered, however, in asking that question it provides insights that can lead to a new and better understanding (see third post). 

One of those insights is that JDJ did not reveal the sources of his teachings (see previous post). Understanding the sources of JDJ’s teachings can lead to new insights that can lead to a new and better understanding, as you will see, and which will help in pursuit of grading system 2.0, if in fact one wants to see further by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' (see previous post).

Classification
JDJ is also to be commended on classifying the defences in his shinken shobu no kata grades by the type of attack. Most other grading systems that I have seen simply include a list of techniques to be demonstrated.

You will recall from the third post that the 'core of all learning' is the identification of similarities and differences. One of the proven highly effective ways of identifying similarities and differences is classification. Classification is often thought of as an administrative exercise and treated with disdain within the martial arts community. Lakoff (1) warns against such a dismissive attitude. He suggests that there is nothing more basic to our thought, perception, action, and speech than classification and that without the ability to classify we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives.

(1) G. Lakoff, 1987, Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

The above is taken from a chapter in my book that is tentatively titled, The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques.

Tricks and Progression

In the Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu, Hancock and Higashi (1905) label all of the techniques included in that book as 'tricks.' This is what many jujutsu, and even many martial arts, systems are based on - a series of 'tricks.' The 'tricks' are taught separately and independently with no connection between them being recognised/understood (connection being one of the paths to insight that Klein identified (see third post)).

JDJ has been described as a 'collector of techniques.' That is fair enough, but there is more to it than that.

While JDJ did not include an analytical element to his teachings at this stage, to which he admits when discussing the introduction of the mon system in a later interview (see future post on the mon system), there was some progression in his kyu grades. This progression is seen in that each grading increasing the number of attack-defence combinations in each of the kyu grades, as has been illustrated in a series of posts.

Another, and more important example of progression contained in the kyu grades is the tomoe nage (stomach throw) defence from kubi-tsukami shime (neck seizing strangulation attack). In the first grading, uke is 'thrown away,' when performing the defence. That never happens again even though the same defence from the same attack is included in a number of other gradings.

In 4th kyu, the same attack-defence combination but this time tori rolls up and applies ashi-gatame ude-kujuki (leg-set arm-breaking; it should have been described as hiza-gatame ude-kujuki (knee-set arm-breaking to be consistent now that I am studying it). In 2nd kyu, there are four defences when uke resists the hiza-gatame ude-kujuki.

Teach a basic technique, then teach a more 'controlling' technique, and then teach 'what if" = progression. This can be seen in a number of attack-defence combination in the kyu grades. A really well thought out progression in the grading system by JDJ, but one that is not recognised or appreciated due to the attitude of teaching and doing without question (see fourth post). Teaching and learning tricks.

Nikyu (2nd kyu) Purple Belt
The current nikyu consists of two gradings: revision (kime no kata) and practical (shinken shobu no kata). Yeah, I know, I see the issue with the two Japanese names as well (see above), moving on. Zak (see above) confirmed that there was only the practical grading in his time, which means the revision grading had to have been introduced post-1974.

Here is where a timeline helps:

1969. JDJ travelled to Japan to train under Minoru Mochizuki, founder of Yoseikan budo, for a brief period.

1974. JDJ asked Mochizuki to send an instructor to Perth, which he did in the person of Yoshiaki Unno. Hans de Jong explains in an interview for Blitz magazine that he and his father trained with Unno for two hours, six days a week, for two years. After that, Unno left to establish his own school.

1978. The mon grades were introduced into JDJ's jujutsu grading system. Those gradings are primarily based on Yoseikan teachings, as will be explained in a future post.

The revision grading in nikyu is comprised of ukemi, kuzushi, kansetsu-waza, itsitsu no kata, and wakai no kata sections. The first three elements are based on the mon grades which are primarily based on Yoseikan teachings. Itsitsu no kata is a Yoseikan kata. It is designed to teach the five basic taisabaki ((evasive) body-movements) taught by Yoseikan. JDJ never shared the source of this kata (see previous post). Wakai no kata is a kata that JDJ developed to improve his student's punching and kicking skills, possibly after Unno found them wanting. It is included in the now red belt which is part of the mon system even though it is referred to as 7th kyu (see future post regarding the mon system).

The question is, is this revision grading revising the kyu grades? This leads to another question, what do the kyu grades have in common with the mon grades, if anything?

Ikkyu (1st kyu) Black & White Belt
The original ikkyu grading, according to Zak (see above), was comprised of reflex, teaching, theory, terminology, philosophy, and history gradings. This is pre-1974.

The current ikkyu grading includes the above gradings, although the philosophy section is subsumed into the history section, and three more gradings: ken no michi (sword basics), kime no kata (revision), and first aid.

The ken no michi grading was developed by Greg Palmer to teach the basics of sword work before attempting the sword gradings in the dan grades. As I explained in the first and third posts of this series, Greg was a professional teacher and he understood teaching principles, including progression. It makes sense to teach and examine the basics before teaching and examining the basics in action. Greg successfully lobbied for it to be included in the grading system so as to prepare the students for the sword gradings in the dan grades. It was a rare instance where someone other than JDJ contributed to JDJ's grading system.  

The ikkyu kime no kata does revise the kyu grades, unlike the nikyu revision grading (see above). The grading requires the grading candidate to demonstrate techniques from rokkyu to nikyu (see above) in a kata format.

Why the two types of revision gradings? Why did JDJ decide to include a revision grading in these two gradings post-1974? When did JDJ introduce the revision gradings into these two gradings? Is the answer to those questions got to do with ikkyu being principally an instructor grading and the timing of the introduction of the mon system which is based on Yoseikan teachings? Did JDJ come to consider nikyu as an assistant instructor (sempai) grading of sorts? When JDJ developed and introduced the shodan grading (see next post), ikkyu came to seen as producing sempai and therefore the ikkyu gradings sempai gradings.

The first aid element involves obtaining a first aid certificate from an accredited organisation such as St John Ambulance Association. This is an extremely responsible requirement for instructors that JDJ introduced post-1974.

Ikkyu is an Instructor Grading

One of JDJ's senior instructors used to say that ikkyu was a 'fighter's grading' whereas shodan was an instructors grading. That instructor (a) had a focus on 'warrior' culture, and (b) could not have been more wrong. Any reading of the ikkyu syllabus would see that it is primarily designed to produce instructors. It has to be remembered that at this time there were no dan grades and no dan grading system, and all of the instructors were graded ikkyu.

The inclusion of the instructor elements in the grading is yet another innovation of JDJ. It is a very rare attribute in a martial arts grading system, however, what needs to be understood is that this kyu grading system that JDJ developed was designed to be a one-off grading system. A complete system. It was not part of a greater system. There were no plans for a dan grading system at that time. There was no looking ahead.

Robert Hymas, Peter Clarke, and John Copley were the first to be graded shodan by JDJ (1981. source: Greg Palmer). Why didn't JDJ grade anyone shodan before that? That is a question that was sometimes asked by senior members and instructors of the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS). A common answer to that question was because JDJ did not want instructors to be going out teaching on their own in competition with him. I never subscribed to that view, even way back when. I said that that view was overly cynical and gave JDJ too much credit in terms of business strategy.

The point is, JDJ didn't need yudansha (black belt holders). This was in the halcyon days of the JDJSDS when people were lined up down the street to enrol in the school, and where there were 800-1000 students, all with ikkyu instructors. He didn't need shodans, he didn't have a shodan grading, and there was no reason to develop one.

Next
In the next post, the shodan grading will be explored as the second part of the development of the JDJ grading system story.

Ken Tai Ichi no Kata Example

Ken tai ichi no kata is a kata included in part four of Jan de Jong’s jujutsu shodan grading. It involves the ‘[d]emonstration of katana techniques and the unarmed application’ (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, Jan de Jong: the man, his school, and his ju jitsu system, author). The kata is designed to demonstrate the similarities between katana (sword) and unarmed techniques (Why? That is a question that can and should be raised. Some other time perhaps).

The final sword technique in the kata involves both uke and tori assuming aigedan kamae (grading sheet), or gedan-no-kamae (lower-level posture). Kamae refers to combat-engagement posture. Gedan means lower-level, which in this case means that the sword is pointing in the direction of uke but towards the ground. This combat-engagement posture is inviting an attack (a tactical lesson that should be learned from this kata but which is not understood or taught by most).

JDJ instructed that uke attacks with a downward strike while tori does not use an evasive body-movement (referred to as taisabaki) to avoid injurious contact with the body or to reposition themselves to attack, and tori raises their sword no higher than uke’s throat. JDJ was explicit and consistent with those instructions. 

The only problem is, if uke and tori perform the attack and defence as instructed, they both die. It ends in a mutual slaying. What’s going on here? That question is how Klein operationalises his curiosity path to insight that can lead to a new and better understanding (see post #3 in this series).

I raised this question with my instructors, and when I say instructors, I mean all of the main instructors in the JDJSDS as I trained extensively under all of them (see post #3 in this series). I don’t deal well with inconsistencies (inconsistencies are one of the five paths to gaining insight according to Klein (see post #3)). I received no answer to my question from any of the aforementioned instructors.

I raised this issue when training with another of JDJ’s instructors. He defended JDJ’s instructions, adopting the common ‘teach as you are taught without question’ approach (see previous post). Out of frustration, I suggested a physical demonstration.

He attacked. I defended exactly as JDJ instructed. Fortunately, he did not follow through with his attack otherwise I would have been cleaved in half, head to groin. He, on the other hand, was left a little confused when blood started to trickle down his front from the wound he sustained on his neck when he advanced onto the tip of my sword.

When I studied my instructors performing this defence, I found that they performed the defence by doing one of three things: (1) rely on uke not to follow through with their attack (compliant attacker), (2) use an evasive body-movement to avoid injurious contact with their body, and/or (3) raise their sword higher than the throat in order to deflect uke’s blade. But they didn’t explicitly teach either or all of those defensive moves as it would have gone against JDJ’s explicit and consistent instructions.

It is easy to criticise (or so they say), but what did I do in my grading? In all honesty, I cannot remember. I had to have done something because I’m still here. What did I teach? I taught the ‘workarounds’, however, I also shared with my students the problems in the propagated instructions of the defence.

Why didn’t I go to JDJ with my concerns? That is a good question, and one that I am only now asking myself. It was because I was a junior instructor and I had raised the issue with all of my instructors, the senior instructors in the school. I adopted the same attitude as I’ve recently observed in a JDJ ryuha (‘branch of the current’): it’s in the grading so do it as taught, faults and all.

I now have the answer to the problem of this suicidal defence as taught, which has provided insights that led to a new and better understanding.

The Answer: Part 1
We were teaching for Jan-Erik Karlsson (JEK) in Sweden in the mid-90s when we had a day off. JDJ spent the time with JEK, however, I had noticed that JEK had an extensive library which included an extensive collection of martial arts books. I asked JEK if I could spend time perusing his library, to which he generously gave permission.

I came across a lever-arch file with a photocopied book. One of the front pages featured a photo of Minoru Mochizuki. I recognised that photo because the first copy of Fighting Arts International that I purchased had a photo of Mochizuki on the front cover and the featured article was about him. At that time, we knew that JDJ had trained with Mochizuki but that was about all.

Reading the photocopied book, or at least looking at the illustrations given that the book was in Japanese, I ... was ... gobsmacked.

When I shared my ‘gobsmackedness’ with JDJ and JEK, the latter kindly gifted me the photocopied book (Giho Nihonden Jujutsu (Traditional Japanese Jujutsu)).

You cannot understand how world-changing reading this photocopied book was at that time. Remember, this was pre-YouTube. In that book was a lot of what we were teaching. There were the taisabaki and the way we teach them. There were the unbalancing (kuzushi) techniques from hand grips that we teach. Both of these elements form a part of all of the mon grades at the front end of the grading system and are part of the dan grades at the back end. There was happoken no kata from 8th kyu and itsitsu no kata from 2nd kyu. There was also ken tai ichi no kata from shodan.

JDJ, as I came to understand, never revealed the source of his teachings. He did not reveal that he was teaching the taisabaki, kuzushi from hand grips, happoken no kata, itsitsu no kata, ken tai ichi no kata from Mochizuki’s Yoseikan budo. This challenged the notion, which is still strongly held and promoted by most JDJ ryuha, that we were learning/teaching Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu.

Many of the illustrations in Mochizuki’s Giho Nihonden Jujutsu were single hand-drawn images (see image above), so I still did not have an answer to my problem. That would come later with the purchase of two Mochizuki DVDs.

The Answer: Part 2
It was after JDJ passed away that I found a website selling martial arts DVDs that offered Mochizuki's Yoseikan Sogo Budo volumes 1 and 2. Upon purchase and viewing those DVDs, I was watching all of the above and more, and here was the answer to my question of more than 20 years.

JDJ had ‘misremembered’ the attack. The attack was a straight thrust with the sword. JDJ’s explicit and consistent instructions were effective against a straight thrust with the sword (and it better matched the unarmed attack). The defence worked and tori did not die. It’s just that JDJ misremembered the attack.

It was that simple, however, why didn’t anyone else raise this inconsistency (see above)? Why wasn’t anyone else curious (another of the five paths to insight that Klein identified; see post #3). Where was their insight and understanding?

This was the beginning of, or part of, my journey of discovery about JDJ’s teachings that has led to a new and better understanding.

Epilogue
After JDJ passed away in 2003, I went on to share my insights and Giho Nihonden Jujutsu with a couple of JDJ’s senior instructors. They had never heard of the book nor understood how much of JDJ’s teachings came from Yoseikan budo.

Among other things, this reinforced the idea that JDJ got his teachings from a variety of sources and that he did not disclose those sources when teaching. It reinforced the idea that JDJ was considered the ‘fount of all knowledge,’ and nobody studied anything outside of his teachings (e.g., see suwari waza no kata in a future post). It also showed that JDJ occasionally ‘got things wrong’ and that a bit of curiosity and scepticism did not go astray.

Post Series, 'Faults', Insights that Lead to a New and Better Understanding, Teaching Unquestioningly What One is Taught

As they say at the beginning of some American TV shows: ‘Previously’ ...

This series of posts were initially intended to focus on the ‘faults’ (for want of a better word) in Jan de Jong’s (JDJ) teachings in order to ‘see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.’

The first post got sidetracked when it tended to focus on Greg Palmer as being the best teacher at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS) because he was a professionally trained teacher. I still stand by that argument, however, that’s not what this series of posts are intended to explore.

I use the word ‘explore’ intentionally. As it turns out, and frustratingly so, my learning process tends to involve exploring ideas by writing about them. If I was writing a book, as I am on another subject, I wouldn’t necessarily share my learning process. I’d use it in drafting the book but then I’d only share the final product. That’s not the process, or hasn’t been, with writing this blog. Instead, I’ve been taking the reader along with me on my often-convoluted journey to gaining insights that lead to a new and better understanding. Sorry for that.

The reference to ‘insights’ that can lead to a ‘new and better understanding’ is explained in the previous post.

It seems that I feel this constant need to have to explain myself. Why? I suppose it comes down to: who am I to find fault in the teachings of JDJ and his senior instructors? I may, or may not, provide further support (see CV extract in previous post) for the fact that I am qualified to find fault in their teachings in a future post, however, I will press on without that full explanation.

I want it to be clear though; finding fault is not about ‘tearing down,’ it is about ‘building up.’ It is about seeing further by standing on the shoulders of giants. If one teaches unquestioningly what one is taught, one is standing in the shadow of giants, if giants they were.

The question of teaching unquestioningly what one is taught ... I was introduced to ChatGPT while involved in another project. I’m becoming a fan :): ‘What are the problems with teaching unquestioningly what one is taught?’:

Teaching what one is taught unquestioningly, also known as rote learning or uncritical acceptance, can have several drawbacks. While there are situations where memorization and acceptance of information are necessary, encouraging critical thinking and independent inquiry is generally considered more beneficial for individuals and society. Here are some issues associated with teaching without encouraging questioning:

Lack of Understanding: Rote learning often involves memorizing information without truly understanding the underlying concepts. This can result in a shallow understanding that may not be retained or applied effectively.

Inflexibility: Individuals taught to accept information uncritically may struggle to adapt to new situations or perspectives. Critical thinking skills are essential for problem-solving and adapting to an ever-changing world.

Stifled Creativity: Rote learning tends to focus on reproducing information rather than encouraging creative thinking. Creativity and innovation thrive when individuals are encouraged to question, explore, and think beyond the established norms.

Limited Analytical Skills: The ability to analyze and evaluate information critically is crucial in various aspects of life, including decision-making and problem-solving. Rote learning does not foster these analytical skills.

Difficulty in Applying Knowledge: Students who are taught to memorize without understanding may struggle to apply their knowledge in real-world situations. Understanding the context and principles behind the information is essential for practical application.

Dependence on Authority: Rote learning can foster a dependence on authority figures and established information sources. This dependence may hinder individuals from seeking alternative perspectives or questioning the status quo.

Reduced Motivation: Students who are not encouraged to question or think critically may lose motivation and interest in their education. The joy of learning comes from understanding, exploring, and engaging with the material, not just memorizing it.

Inability to Navigate Information Overload: In today's information-rich world, the ability to critically evaluate and filter information is crucial. Rote learning does not equip individuals with the skills needed to navigate the vast amount of information available and make informed decisions.

Lack of Resilience: The ability to overcome challenges and setbacks often requires resilience and problem-solving skills. Rote learning does not contribute significantly to the development of these attributes.

It's important to strike a balance in education by promoting a mix of rote learning and critical thinking. Encouraging students to question, analyze, and understand the material enhances their cognitive abilities and equips them to navigate the complexities of the world effectively. Educational systems that promote a balance between memorization and critical thinking are generally considered more effective in preparing individuals for success in various aspects of life.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I mean that literally, although I wouldn’t have said it using so-called ‘American English.’

Teaching unquestioningly is part of the JDJ tradition, as it is in most martial arts. This series of posts are intended to change that and ‘encourage students to question, analyse, and understand the material to enhance their cognitive abilities and equip them to navigate the complexities of the world effectively.’ :)

The next post is designed to quickly get us back on track. It is a ‘story’ that demonstrates the faults-insights leading to a new and better understanding relationship within the JDJ tradition. The next post will be released at the same time as this post in order to quickly ‘continue the flow.’ This will be quickly followed by a series of posts about the development of JDJ’s jujutsu grading system which will provide insights that lead to a new and better understanding of JDJ’s teachings that possibly extend beyond that single application realm.

Who Was The Best Teacher at the JDJSDS Revisited

The first post in this series has garnered a lot of interest. There have been some defensive comments, which is only to be expected, but there have also been some supportive comments, for which I am grateful and encouraged.

I do appreciate receiving comments as they make me think about what I'm sharing. As this post shows, I'm not above going back and clarifying issues, nor am I above changing my views if evidence is presented that indicates an error in those views. In fact, writing and receiving comments is a big part of my learning experience.

Some of the comments that I received in response to my first post caused me to revisit that post. To make it clear, the intention of this series of posts is to identify and explore certain 'faults' in the teachings of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) tradition in order to learn from them and improve on the impressive body of work that JDJ put together over his lifetime.

Kaizen

Why do I focus on 'faults'? That was a question that I came to ask myself when engaged in the project described in the first post and which precipitated this series of posts. Upon reflection, it is because I have a kaizen mindset.

Kaizen is a Japanese word that literally means 'change for the better.' It is the philosophy behind the continuous improvement ideology.

The 'dark side' of a kaizen mindset is a focus on things that can be changed for the better in order to continuously improve, aka faults. This focus is sometimes not appreciated, even when it is intended to improve things for the better, as I have found.

When I have discussed the kaizen concept with certain members of the JDJ tradition, they endorsed the concept. Kaizen is good. Changing for the better is good. Continuously improving is good. However, when faults are pointed out in what they are doing, the response is often not so good.

One of the reasons why they respond negatively can be found in the work of Wilfed Bion. I came across his work when engaged in a group project during my MBA. Long story short, Bion is a WWI tank commander who went on to become one of the most influential figures in psychoanalysis. In his work on group dynamics, he suggested that there are two groups: the 'work group' and the 'basic assumption group' (the 'as if' group).

The work group is the group that works to accomplish the task that the group was formed to accomplish. The basic assumption group act 'as if' they are working to accomplish the task that the group was formed to accomplish, and they believe they are doing so, but their priority is something else, e.g., maintaining the status quo. There are examples of this that I have encountered in the JDJ tradition.

I have a kaizen mindset and am most definitely part of the work group (at least in certain areas of my life).

  

Insight and Understanding

The learning from 'faults' in the teachings of the JDJ tradition is also about gaining insights that lead to a new and better understanding. This is consistent with cognitive psychologist Gary Klein's views on the subject in Seeing What Others Don't: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights.

The five triggers for gaining insights that Klein identifies are: connections, coincidences, curiosity, contradictions, and creative desperation. Klein also identifies obstacles to gaining insights: stupidity, forgetfulness, lack of alertness, delusion, flawed beliefs, inexperience, passivity, over-confidence, and rigid reasoning styles. Many of those triggers and obstacles will be seen in action in this series of posts that in essence is about gaining insights that lead to a new and better understanding of the techniques in the JDJ jujutsu grading system and the grading system itself.

What I can say at this stage is, first, teaching and doing what is taught unquestioningly is an obstacle to gaining insight and understanding (and it is not kaizen). Second, insights that can lead to a new and better understanding can only be gained if one goes looking for answers to questions. An example of that will be clearly demonstrated in a future post that focuses on Ken Tai Ichi no Kata which is part of the shodan gradings.

Instructors

As I said above, the intention of this series of posts is to identify and explore certain faults in the teachings of the JDJ tradition for the purposes of kaizen, insight, and understanding. I seem to have been sidetracked in the first post by my discussion regarding Greg Palmer being the best teacher in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS). An assertion that I stand by, but which is not intended to diminish the teaching efforts of the other instructors in the school. 

My focus on Greg for that post came about through the project that I was engaged in where I was identifying faults in certain teachings. In order to support my assertions, I referred to the fact that I had trained extensively under JDJ's 'senior instructors' and JDJ himself.

I identified the 'senior instructors' in the first post as Peter Clarke, Robert Hymas, and Paul Connolly because they are the only ones to be awarded rokudan by JDJ. I was focused on them because they are instrumental to the story about the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system which I was working on because it explained some of the faults that I was discussing (see next post).

The instructor I was working with responded to my training experience with the fact that they too had trained under the 'senior instructors' and JDJ. Fair point.

It was around this time that I was questioning who was I to find fault in the teachings of my instructors and JDJ? In order to explore and answer that question, I developed a martial arts-related curriculum vitae (CV) for myself. 

The difference between 'trained extensively under' and 'trained under' came to be a point of differentiation (see below). I also came to realise another point of differentiation was that I trained also extensively under Greg Palmer, in fact, he was probably the biggest influence on my knowledge and understanding.

Greg was a professionally trained teacher and thus his approach to teaching came from a professionally trained teacher's perspective. That enhanced the learning experience not only for his students but also for himself. His technical understanding was so well regarded that when he and I went to do the theory gradings in nidan and sandan, JDJ would say that there was no need to examine our theory knowledge and understanding because he knew that it was there.

An email from a respected source reminded me that all of the instructors had an input into my knowledge and understanding. And when I say 'all', I do mean all as I trained under all of them. It was remiss of me not to acknowledge them in the first post and my only defence is that I was locked into tunnel vision as explained above.

In addition to the 'senior instructors' and Greg, I trained extensively under Ian 'Lloydo' Lloyd and Robert 'Rob' Kirby, and to a lesser extent under Debbie 'Deb' Clarke, Hans de Jong, and John Copley.

The abovementioned respected source accurately described Lloydo as 'a very practical bloke who [was] not as dynamic as others, had a good understanding of the mechanics of [techniques].' That is a fair assessment. The not being dynamic means that he was very compact in his movements. His unique method of punching caused me to question how it was so effective and I have included the findings of that question in my book on the science behind all fighting techniques.

Apparently 'lol' is outdated these days, but I did smile when I demonstrated this form of punching on a couple of highly graded students this year, 40 years after being taught it by Lloydo, and they were surprised at the force applied from such a compact movement. :)

The 'core of all learning' is the identification of similarities and differences. The four proven highly effective means of identifying similarities and differences are classification, comparison, creating analogies, and creating metaphors. Greg obviously used these strategies to teach, however, so did Lloydo. He was a master at using the creating metaphors strategy to teach techniques. Forty years on and I'm still using his 'bear claw' metaphor to teach yoko tekubi hishigi.

Rob was unique to the JDJ instructor pool in having trained and graded highly in another martial art (taekwondo). He also had police training under his belt which is regimented and informed by teaching theory. JDJ would later go on to explain that this approach, informed by his involvement with the SAS, produced superior results and was the impetus for his introduction of the mon grades into his grading system (see later posts). Rob was also unique within the JDJ instructor pool in knowing how to train students rather than just teach them. This is one of the things that I took from him to produce some of the best performances by students in gradings according to JDJ.

Herein lies a valuable lesson - the difference between teaching and training. For the most part, training was left up to the individual student at the JDJSDS, with the exception of Rob's classes, and then later mine.

Deb's greatest influence on me was probably when I was assisting her teaching the women's self defence (WSD) course that she developed. The course is ingeniously put together and is not just another WSD course taught by a martial artist. This involvement caused me to study and research WSD for a chapter in my second book on a new and better understanding of our natural and learned responses to a threat. 

CV Extract

I explained above that when I was questioning whether I was qualified to find fault in the teachings of the JDJ 'senior instructors' and JDJ himself, I wrote a martial arts-related CV for myself. I also referred to a differentiating factor being the difference between 'extensively trained under' and 'trained under.' When I started writing that CV, I started with my training, and I was quite surprised by the results even though I lived those results.

Most people start training by attending one or two classes a week and maybe doing a bit of extra training. I started training (April 1983) by attending at least two classes a day, six days a week, and doing a lot of extra training. Just taking the classes into account, that means that my one week's training was the equivalent of most other's 6-12 weeks; my one year's training the equivalent of most other's 6-12 years; and my five year's training the equivalent of most other's 30-60 years training. And that was basically my commitment for 20+ years. 

As explained above, my training involved training under all of the instructors at the JDJSDS, to varying degrees, and so I was exposed to all of their experiences.

From the commencement of my training at the JDJSDS, I graded every grading weekend (every three months) and I excelled in each of those gradings. That should come as no surprise given the abovementioned training regime.

After 1.5 years training, graded 3rd kyu (orange belt), and having never assisted an instructor teaching at the JDJSDS, I was asked by JDJ to take over the Melville branch from Paul Connelly. Ironically, being graded 3rd kyu made me ineligible for inclusion in the 'instructors' class. Within five years I was invited into the 'instructors' class, even though I had been instructing for a number of years prior to that invitation and by then it included instructing at the JDJ hombu. 

I taught for JDJ from the time that he first invited me to do so and was a full-time instructor for five years in the mid-to-late 90s where I taught more classes and private lessons than any other instructor and I was the chief examiner on more gradings than any other instructor.

In 1985, my training was supplemented when I was invited to join Greg's demonstration team for his nidan grading (Ju Jitsu no Jitsuen). This involved intensive training under Greg's supervision twice a week for six months (in addition to the abovementioned training regime). JDJ acknowledged that Greg's demo was the best demo that was presented for the nidan grading. That demonstration and team then went on to represent JDJ and the JDJSDS in a State Open competition organised by Brian Mackie.

There are also personal attributes. A kaizen mindset. An analysist by nature, nurture, and now pathology. A systems thinker (seeing connections; see Klein above) that enables me to see the forest and the trees. High attention to detail. Obsessive.   

There is a lot more to my CV than the above (which may or may not be presented in a future post). The point is that I am more than qualified to find fault in the teachings of the JDJ instructors and tradition. And I only do so in the pursuit of kaizen and insight that can lead to a new and better understanding.

Next Post

The JDJ jujutsu grading system was long considered to be 'best practice' by those in the JDJ tradition. As it turns out, not so much, in fact, it is a possible 'extinction event' for the JDJ tradition if adopted unquestioningly. 

The following is a comment that I received in relation to the first post: 

I appreciated the input of all the teachers at JdJ they each had a different perspective/approach. Where I think problems lie is the assumption that every student wants to become an instructor and so have a perfect understanding of the theory and practice. To my mind this has meant that the grading system has become very unwieldy and overly long.

That is a very astute observation and analysis. One that I have long shared. The words that I use to describe the JDJ jujutsu grading system are disjointed, overly cumbersome, and overly burdensome. I also describe it as a first attempt that is in need of modification. 

The next post will look at the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system. I will explain how it came to be and describe some of the conceptual problems in the grading system that are a product of its development. This analysis can provide the opportunity for insights to be gained that can lead to a new and better understanding that might pave the way for the continued existence of JDJ's teachings.

 

Series Warning (Red Pill) and Qualification

Following the reactions to my previous/first post in this series, it would appear that I should have included a warning and qualification in that post.

This series of posts is intended to explore the 'faults' in some of the teachings of the instructors in the JDJ tradition. In this way, it is taking the 'red pill':

The red pill and blue pill represent a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in the contented experience of ordinary reality with the blue pill. The terms originate from the 1999 film The Matrix.

If the reader wants to maintain the status quo, take the blue pill and read no further.

If the reader takes the red pill and reads future posts, they will be exposed to potentially unsettling and/or life-changing truths in relation to the teachings of the JDJ tradition and its instructors, however, there is a huge upside in doing so ... not the least of which is that they might be able to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

I am generally not a 'believer' of any sorts but rather follow in the tradition of Bertrand Russell:

In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available; but philosophy in the minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science. The kind of philosophy that I value and have endeavoured to pursue is scientific, in the sense that there is some definite knowledge to be obtained and that new discoveries can make the admission of former error inevitable to any candid mind. For what I have said, whether early or late, I do not claim the kind of truth which theologians claim for their creeds. I claim only, at best, that the opinion expressed was a sensible one to hold at the time when it was expressed.

Theology = belief = 'an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.' 

One cannot argue against a believer because proof is irrelevant to the believer. While loyalty is an admirable trait, blind loyalty, not so much. One cannot argue against the blindly loyal because they are by definition blind. One cannot argue against a member of the 'as if' group whose primary motivation is the preservation of the status quo when their stated motivation is in effective and efficient technique (this will be discussed in the next post).

I don't believe, I know. I am, as Russell said, prepared to change what I know when facts are presented proving otherwise. I knew that JDJ and his instructors were right about everything, until facts were presented otherwise. Those facts often originated in questions about some of their teachings which paradoxically came about because they were good teachers. In this way, I came to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. 

It turns out that this series of posts may be interactive of sorts. This is where I continue to learn, by thinking about the comments that are received. I never dismiss comments, even abusive ones, and I always give them due consideration. I suppose this is part of my message - question what is being taught. Don't accept what I say without question if it doesn't jibe with your understanding, but understand your understanding.

I received the following comment from a former instructor who I respect highly. They are knowledgeable and thoughtful, as in thinking about what they say; they are loyal, but not blindly so:

Irrespective of who the best instructor was or is, it should be about self-improvement and understanding- take what is good, learn from what isn’t.

There is no equivocation here in saying 'they are not wrong,' rather, I will say unequivocally that they are right. The problem here is that one cannot learn 'from what isn't' unless one knows 'what isn't.' One cannot learn if they accept what is taught unquestioningly. One obviously has to do so when starting out, however, with experience, understanding should develop which may lead to questioning the original teaching.

My advice for what it’s worth is that - techniques are for analysis, Instructors/trainers will always be unique and are therefore to LEARN from - good and bad.

Their advice is worth a great deal. The reference to 'techniques are for "analysis"' is a whole subject in itself, as future posts will demonstrate. The idea that instructors/trainers will always be unique and are to learn from - good or bad, is again spot on the money, however, that cannot happen if their teachings are received unquestioningly. 

The qualification is, as alluded to above, the reference to faults in teachings is not a reference to faults in all of the teachings. A great deal of the teachings are without fault, however, I am drawn to the faults, as I will explain in the next post, but only in the spirit of kaizen, to change for the better. And in those faults, insight that can lead to a new and better understanding resides, as the abovementioned respected former instructor suggests.

A qualification to the qualification is that the jujutsu grading system that JDJ developed is a major problem. One which has the potential of seeing the demise of the JDJ tradition. This will be discussed in further detail in future posts.

Who Was the Best Teacher at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School?

I was recently engaged in a project where I had to analyse the teachings of a Jan de Jong (JDJ) ryuha instructor. I was drawn to the faults in their teachings, which, given that they were basically teaching what they were taught, means that I was finding fault in not only their teachings, but also those of their instructor, JDJ's senior instructors, and JDJ himself. 

I know, I know, finding fault in JDJ's senior instructors and JDJ's teachings is sacrilege within the JDJ tradition, however, it is also where unique insights may be gained which can lead to a new and better understanding of what we teach and practice. After all, as the popular saying goes, more is learned by failure than success.

For clarification, when I refer to JDJ's 'senior instructors', I mean Peter Clarke, Robert Hymas, and Paul Connelly. They are the 'anointed' ones. JDJ developed, as will be seen in a future post, the nidan and sandan gradings for the sole purpose of the trio completing them so that JDJ could award them higher honorary grades as they were to be his legacy. JDJ awarded the trio rokudan (6th dan) shortly before he passed away in April 2003.

The intention here is to roll out a series of posts associated with the originally mentioned process, including why I am drawn to faults and why I am qualified to find faults in the teachings of the aforementioned instructors. This post starts the ball rolling.

In attempting to assist the first mentioned instructor, I identified faults in their teachings, explained them, and offered solutions. In doing so, I attempted to explain why I am qualified to do so and why I possess unique insights that has led to a new and better understanding about what we do. As part of that explanation, I explained that I had trained extensively under JDJ and all of his senior instructors (see above). The aforementioned instructor countered with the fact that he too had trained under JDJ and the senior instructors, although not so much under Connelly, and even myself.

Fair enough, and then I thought about it, as is my want. Which instructor was instrumental in the development of my abilities to seek and gain insights that led to a new and better understanding? Which instructor was instrumental in my abilities to identify faults in what their instructors teach them and to learn from that? 

As it turns out, it was the best instructor in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS). One missing from the 'senior instructors' list but one who also completed the grading system by being graded nidan and sandan by JDJ: Greg Palmer. 

Greg was awarded yondan by JDJ along with the abovementioned trio's rokudan, however, remember that in the JDJ tradition, honorary grades are awarded based on contribution and not on expertise or knowledge. In the latter regard, I would argue that Greg was the legacy trio's superior.

Why was Greg Palmer the best teacher at the JDJSDS? As it turns out, the answer is very simple. Greg was a trained and qualified teacher. A 'real' teacher.

Qualified teachers are generally not well respected in Australia. Even if they are afforded some level of respect, it is generally limited to teaching in their classrooms at their schools. But qualified teachers are starting to be appreciated as superior teachers/coaches as the recent experience in the Australian Football League (AFL) attests. The two head coaches of this year's AFL grand finalists are former teachers. They both served apprenticeships under Alastair Clarkson who is considered to be one of the greatest modern-day AFL coaches, and he is a former teacher. 

It is his 300th game as coach of the Hawks as well as surpassing John Kennedy snr to become the club's longest-serving coach. But Clarkson remains so in awe of the legendary Kennedy – his first coach at the Kangaroos – that he begged off speaking to the AFL Record to mark the occasion out of deference to him. ... They share some similarities. Both were trained as teachers.

Hawthorn prefer players who can kick and coaches who can teach. Whereas many rivals have filled their coaching ranks with distinguished ex-players, the Hawks have more ex-teachers in their coaching panel and football department than ex-AFL players.

I am sorry that I, and many others, did not truly appreciate you more when you were alive Greg-san 🙏.

Having said that, I am fortunate to have trained extensively under, and with, Greg. We graded nidan and sandan together - the unintended consequences of the development of the nidan and sandan gradings :). Greg was a major influence on my JDJ experience. He was my instructor, training partner, mentor, and friend.

If I see further, it is in large part due to standing on the shoulders of this giant - Greg Palmer.