Introduction
Recently, I published a post critiquing aspects of the jujutsu grading system developed by Jan de Jong (JDJ). This critique has drawn some criticism, with some interpreting it as an attack on JDJ’s legacy or his teachings. However, my intention was never to undermine JDJ or his work but rather to spark a conversation about how his system can be adapted and improved for the benefit of current and future students.
This post clarifies my rationale for the critique, addresses the concerns raised, and elaborates on the importance of critical analysis in martial arts traditions.
Responding to Criticism
The critique in my earlier post focused on the grading system itself, not JDJ’s broader legacy or accomplishments. I acknowledged in that post—and continue to believe—that there is much to admire in JDJ’s achievements. However, I also believe that to honour his principles, we must remain open to rethinking elements of his system when they no longer serve their purpose effectively.
Those who criticised my post may have missed this nuance. Instead, they seemed to conflate a critique of the grading system with a broader rejection of JDJ’s teachings. This reaction reflects a tendency, common in many traditions, to defend what exists rather than question it critically. My aim was to challenge this mindset, not out of disrespect, but out of a desire to see JDJ’s work evolve in ways that benefit students.
Correcting the Record
For many years, I actively supported JDJ’s grading system. In fact, in 1997, I authored Jan de Jong: The Man, His School, and His Ju Jitsu System, which described the grading system as a superior model. I repeated this view in posts on this blog. However, after years of study and reflection, I now see significant issues with the system that I failed to recognise at the time.
My earlier endorsements may have contributed to an uncritical acceptance of the grading system. Given that these endorsements are referenced in promotional materials and discussions about JDJ’s teachings, I feel a responsibility to set the record straight.
The Importance of Critical Analysis
Critical analysis—questioning assumptions and rigorously examining evidence—has been largely absent in discussions about the JDJ grading system. This is understandable to an extent; JDJ’s teachings were extensive, and he maintained secrecy about the origins of his techniques and gradings. However, 21 years after his passing, it is time to ask the hard questions.
Peter Clarke stands out as a rare example of someone who has conducted such an analysis and made meaningful changes to the grading system. This demonstrates that thoughtful critique can lead to positive outcomes.
Reflections on the Grading System
My previous post highlighted some specific shortcomings of the JDJ grading system. While it serves as a valuable repository of techniques, it lacks a clear focus or goal. For example, as Peter Clarke has noted, the system emphasises amassing techniques without sufficient attention to their strategic, real-world application. This creates a 'library' of knowledge that is impressive but not always practical.
Another issue lies in the significant influence of Yoseikan teachings on the grading system. Many instructors outside the Jan de Jong Self Defence School who claim to follow JDJ’s gradings are, often unknowingly, adhering to a Yoseikan-based system that JDJ had incorporated. This raises important questions about the authenticity of what is being preserved under the guise of JDJ’s original approach.
In response, the leader of one JDJ ryuha has attempted to address this issue by removing Yoseikan elements entirely, aiming to 'return' to the original Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu. While well-intentioned, this approach introduces its own set of challenges and limitations, as it assumes a fixed historical authenticity that may not align with modern needs or the evolution of the system under JDJ. Nor may it actually reflect Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu teachings.
My Perspective and Limitations
While I have identified issues with JDJ’s grading system and its development, I am not in a position to propose a definitive replacement. I find myself paralysed by the complexity of creating a new system that balances tradition with practicality. However, I hope that my analysis inspires others to take up this challenge.
The grading system’s greatest potential lies in its adaptability. JDJ himself recognised the value of change when he said:
"If the results are better one way than the other, why carry on in a way that gives poorer results?"
This mindset, focused on outcomes rather than dogma, should guide any future revisions.
Opportunities for Growth
Critics of my earlier post might ask: What is the way forward? There are several paths to consider:
- Preservation: Maintaining the current system as-is, though this risks stagnation, especially given the small number of practitioners who have completed the full grading system.
- Modernisation: Following Peter Clarke’s example by simplifying the system and focusing on real-world applications.
- Reconnection with Roots: Revisiting the original Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu to refine the system’s core principles.
- Informed Innovation: Using JDJ’s teachings as a foundation to create a modern framework that better serves today’s students.
Closing Thoughts
My critique of the JDJ grading system was never intended to disparage JDJ’s legacy. Instead, it was a call to action for practitioners to critically evaluate what we teach and how we teach it. By embracing critical analysis and thoughtful innovation, we can honour JDJ’s legacy while ensuring his teachings remain relevant and effective.
I hope this clarification helps to refocus the conversation on what truly matters: the development of a system that serves students to the best of its ability, in the spirit of JDJ’s own commitment to improvement.
