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.

The Development of the JDJ Grading System Part 2.8: Shodan (Part 7 Ju Jitsu Rekishi (History), Part 8 Kyoji (Teaching), and Part 9 (Examining)

This post will complete the review of the Jan de Jong shodan jujutsu grading.

The final three parts to the grading are all teaching oriented.

The translation of the Part title and the Part descriptions are taken from Jan de Jong: The man, his school and his ju jitsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1995).

SHODAN PART 7: JU JITSU REKISHI

Rekishi is translated as 'history.'

'Candidates are required to submit an essay with no less than 1500 words on the history of ju jitsu and no less than 1500 words on any one aspect of ju jitsu.'

This Part carries on from ikkyu part 4 of the same name: 'Oral examination of the history of ju jitsu and a general history of Asian martial arts.'

The recommended reading for the shodan grading were:

Beginning Ju-Jitsu by James Shortt

Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts by Donn Dreager and Robert Smith

Classical Budo by Donn Dreager

Modern Budo and Modern Bujitsu by Donn Dreager

Secrets of the Samurai by Ratti and Westbrook

The Fighting Spirit of Japan by E. Harrison

Zen Combat by Jay Gluck

There have been some authoritative books published since Jan de Jong (JDJ) devised this grading and compiled the above recommended reading list. Two that should be compulsory reading are:

Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima-Shinryu and Samurai Martial Culture by Karl F. Friday (1997)

Armed Martial Arts of Japan: Swordsmanship and Archery by G. Cameron Hurst III (1998)

Friday is associate professor of Japanese history at the University of Georgia. Hurst was a historian of Japan and Korea holding academic posts at various universities in the U.S. and Japan. Unfortunately Hurst passed away before he could publish his promised accompanying Unarmed Martial Arts of Japan.

Friday had this to say in the introduction to his book and martial arts literature:

Errors ... persist in Western writings due in large measure to the insularity of both the audience and the authors. The overwhelming majority of the literature on Japanese martial art has been directed at practitioners and other afficionados, and penned by journalists, martial art teachers, and others without formal academic training in premodern Japanese culture or history. Not surprisingly then, most English-language books and articles on the topic have relied almost exclusively on other English-language martial art books and articles, supplemented by survey histories. Thus, mistakes and misinformation tend to circulate and recirculate largely because those with the wherewithal to correct them - the community of experts versed in Japanese history and thought, and trained to read primary sources - have generally viewed the bugei with little more than bemused condescension. (p.8)

The English-language literature on the traditional bugei includes how-to manuals, biographies of master swordsmen, translations and commentaries on classical texts, and broadly synthesizing historical or analytical studies. Much of this work suffers from historical naivete, flawed by errors of fact or conception, but most is useful in one way or another and some is quite excellent. Even the best, however, suffers from limitations imposed by the sheer diversity of the bugei. (p.9)

JDJ introduced the history grading into both his initial instructor gradings because, as he explained, an instructor needs to be able to explain what jujutsu is to prospective students and others.

My writing journey began around 2000 when I started writing a book on the jujutsu that JDJ taught. The first chapter was, 'What is Jujutsu?' Answering that question was JDJ's intent when he introduced the history grades into ikkyu and shodan, however, I found knowledge of the history of jujutsu did not answer that question.

Instead, I found Draeger was the most thorough in answering that question. Dreager consistently analysed and explained jujutsu in terms of the generic nature of the term, its history, its technical content, and the practical application of the philosophical concept of ju.

Understanding the generic nature of the term is a must in understanding what jujutsu is. When martial artists say that jujutsu is [ ], there are always exceptions. Friday has this to say about attempting to understand phenomena in generic terms:

Analysing and explaining the bugei in generic terms is a bit like conceptualising world history, world literature, or world religion in similar fashion. Standing back far enough to examine the phenomenon in toto permits one to describe its outlines, but seeking deeper insights about its essence forces one to grapple with a volume of diversity and detail that quickly becomes overwhelming. (p.9)

In addition to the generic issue above, I found that the history of jujutsu, if there is even such a thing, did not add much to the understanding of jujutsu. Instead, I found an evolutionary approach was far more informative. An evolutionary approach looks at the same historical period but with a clear focus on function. It has a clear focus on explaining how what is under investigation came to be what it is today.

An important book in this regard is Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879 by Noel Perrin (1988). This book uses the evolutionary concept of speciation, albeit not explicitly, to explain the uniqueness of the Japanese warrior arts compared to that of European knights.

Another book that looks at the evolution of the Japanese warrior that is also helpful in understanding the generic nature of the Japanese warrior arts is Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan's Military, 500-1300 by William Wayne Ferris (1996). In fact, Ferris' principles of counter-response and symmetry - the tendency of one antagonist to reproduce the same kind of weapon as the enemy, which he suggests dominated much of martial thinking in the premodern era as it does today, explains the development of the modern phenomena that is 'mixed martial arts' as a martial art in itself and which destroyed the original concept of those competitions.

The technical content of jujutsu reflects the evolution of the Japanese warrior which is explained in the last four-mentioned books. Friday compares the Japanese warrior arts to the Chinese, Korean, and Okinawan boxing arts:

Japan, however, had no counterpart to Chinese boxing - at least not until modern times. The bugei practiced in Japan today descend directly from arts developed for the battlefield. Furthermore, until modern times the Japanese fighting arts were more or less the exclusive property of the samurai, the ruling class throughout the period in which the disciplines matured. Chinese, Okinawan, and Korean boxing forms, by contrast, were created by tradesmen, peasants, ascetics, entertainers, monks, rebels, bandits, and other political have-nots. (p.6)

The final element in Dreager's explanation of jujutsu is the practical application of the philosophical concept of ju. Dreager explains that the principle has been interpreted in highly individual and technically differentiated ways, all of which are subsumed under the generic concept of jujutsu. I won't go into a discussion on the subject, but I will note that it is an important part of an explanation of jujutsu and that it serves as a point of differentiation between different jujutsu methods.

You will recall from the description of this grading at the beginning of this section that the essay is to be comprised of one half on the history of jujutsu and the other half on one aspect of jujutsu. I cannot remember what my aspect was. 

One of my training partners, Gerald Woods, a very funny person, informed me that he'd submitted his essay. I asked what aspect of jujutsu did he write about? He was perplexed. He hadn't read the instructions thoroughly and wrote the entire essay on the history of jujutsu. When I point out his error, he said au contraire. The first half of his essay was on the history of jujutsu and the second half on an aspect of jujutsu was on the aspect of the history of jujutsu. I've got to give him that.

SHODAN PART 8: KYOGI

Kyogi means 'teaching.'

'Examination of the candidate's ability to teach all grades to Ikkyu. Candidates will be judged on manner of presentation, explanation, demonstration, correction, technical knowledge and attitude to and handling of students.'

This grading follows on from part 6 of ikkyu which is exactly the same except the grades are from ichimon (1st mon) to gyoku (5th kyu).

The 'sheepdog' approach was adopted to teaching prospective teachers at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS). What I mean by that is that the candidates would assist an instructor in teaching classes and would basically learn to teach by observation, with very little if any instruction. 

There were no requirements regarding minimum time assisting before being eligible to attempt the teaching grading in the JDJSDS. A JDJ ryuha has introduced a minimum time assisting requirement before being eligible to attempt the teaching grade.  

In a previous post, I explained that JDJ asked me to take over a branch of his school after 1.5 years training, graded 3rd kyu (orange belt), and after having never assisted any instructor in the school. Maggie de Jong once attempted to 'explain' to me the the high calibre of our instructors was because they all had assisting experience and were graded shodan (conveniently forgetting that instructors were ikkyu when there was no shodan grading). I reminded her that her father had asked me to take over a branch of his school when I was 3rd kyu and that I had never assisted any instructor. She backtracked and said that I was the exception. I was the exception, but why?

I didn't stop teaching from the time I started, and I only ever assisted two instructors at the JDJSDS. One was Peter Clarke, who was one of the trio that JDJ awarded rokudan (6th dan). I requested to assist him because I thought I could learn something from him. The other was JDJ who asked me to assist him in his classes. I also assisted him teaching throughout Western Europe, the Eastern States, and Java, Indonesia. I came to be the main instructor at the JDJSDS teaching more classes and private lessons than any other instructor there at the time (mid-90s).

I also assisted Debbie Clarke when she was teaching the women's self defence courses that she developed and taught for the JDJSDS. I was the only male to do so for any extended period and I learned a great deal assisting her. One thing I learned that being a martial arts instructor does not necessarily prepare you for teaching women's self defence.

There was no consistency in teaching standards or methods at the JDJSDS. Teaching martial arts is still an amateurish affair. It is patently obvious that teaching prospective teachers how to teach would lift the teaching standard within the school and introduce some sort of consistency in terms of teaching standards and methods that can only benefit students.

SHODAN PART 9: EXAMINING

'Candidates are required to assist with 40 hours of gradings in an assistant examiner capacity. Twenty (20) hours must be completed with Shihan Jan de Jong. An official record signed by the head examiner is to be submitted.'

There is no similar grading in ikkyu. You will recall from a previous post that ikkyu was the instructor grading in the one-off kyu system that JDJ initially developed. Why is there no examining requirement in ikkyu? 

If there was no consistency in teaching standards within the JDJSDS there was absolutely no consistency in examining standards. The standard varied so widely that no candidate for this grading could have developed an understanding for what standard is required for any grading in the JDJSDS.

There was one senior instructor who was so lenient in his marking that it was nigh on impossible to fail a grading under him (in terms of teaching standards, it was his students who tended to fail gradings). There were other senior instructors who considered JDJ too lenient and so tended to mark a lot harder than JDJ. In fact, one of the instructors went out of his way to show me what a 'high standard' he imposes on grading performances when I was 'assisting' him that he was in danger of failing the student who did not deserve to fail. In the second half of the grading, he overly compensated but passed the responsibility for those marks over to me, his supposed assistant.  

On a grading table, there is the examiner with either one or two 'assistants' sitting there with them. For the most parts, the assistants are 'bookends.' The do nothing, are taught nothing by the examiner, and learn nothing. I'm not a 'bookend' type of person.

The senior instructors who openly considered JDJ to be too lenient in his marking of gradings, I figured JDJ couldn't be that bad because he graded them, and they are not too shabby. So I decided to teach myself to grade to JDJ's standard.

I would assess the grading performance in my head and compare my marks to that of JDJ. If there were major differences, I would ask JDJ about them when the grading and awarding had been completed. In time, I got so good at this that I would regular get within one or two marks of JDJ's assessment. I can confidently say that I can grade to the same standard as JDJ. That is how I know that the other instructors were inconsistent with their marking, when it came to the standard being set by the head of the school, JDJ.

The current approach to this grading is generally a waste of time. There are better ways to develop examiners. For instance, formalise my approach. Have the assistants mark a grading sheet and then compare them with the examiner. Alternatively, technology can assist. Get examiner candidates to watch videos of gradings, grade them, and compare them to the standard set by the principal of the school. In this way, differences can be identified and clarified in real time (remember, this cannot be done during gradings as it would interrupt gradings).  

Jan de Jong Jujutsu Grading System Analysis Series #1: Insights and Understanding

I am going to post a series of articles on this blog based on an analysis of the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system. Why? Because it will produce insights that lead to a new and better understanding which can change the way the reader understands, thinks, feels, acts, and desires.

The above answer to the above question is based on Klein's (2013) work in Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. 

Klein explains that insights lead to a new and better understanding. It is a new understanding because it did not exist before and it is better because it is a better understanding than the one that existed before. It is more accurate, more comprehensive, and more useful than the understanding that existed before.

Klein suggests that insights transform us in several ways and that in some ways they make us different people. They

change our understanding by shifting the central beliefs … in the story we use to make sense of events. … our new understanding can give us new ideas about the kinds of actions we can take; it can redirect our attention, changing what we see; it can alter the emotions we feel; and it can affect what we desire. (Klein 2013, 148; emphasis in original)

One of the paths to gaining insight that Klein identifies is curiosity, which he describes in terms of a 'What's going on here?' reaction. He explains that the reaction itself does not produce the insight but it can start the person down the road to gaining insight. It can start the person down the road to gaining insight when they go in pursuit of an answer to their initial 'What's going on here?' question.

As it turns out, I am all too familiar with this path to gaining insight. It describes how my first book on the science behind all fighting techniques came about, as it does with the second book, Fear and Fight: A New and Better Understanding of Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. It also explains how I gained unique insights into the JDJ jujutsu grading system that produced a new and better understanding which is more accurate, more comprehensive, and more useful than the one that existed before.

I was recently mentoring a couple of students training for their shodan in the JDJ jujutsu tradition. It's been a while since I graded and taught shodan so my memory was a bit hazy on some of the attack-defence combinations in the practical grading. The practical grading in the JDJ jujutsu grading system is referred to as Shinken Shobu no Kata. SSnK is the foundation of the JDJ jujutsu grading system and will be the main focus of these posts. 

When the abovementioned students demonstrated some of the shodan attack-defence combinations they had been taught, they produced a 'What's going on here?' reaction which led me back to JDJ's original grading(s). A lot of the answers to my questions were found there, however, a lot of other 'What's going on here?' reactions in relation to JDJ's original shodan grading were also generated.

That is how this series of posts came about.

But as Robert Hymas used to frequently say, 'having said that,' curiosity and asking 'What's going on here?' in relation to an instructor's teachings is generally not encouraged in the martial arts, in fact, it is often actively discouraged. There are many possible reasons for that, one of which is that the instructor simply does not have any insight nor understanding. They may be able to perform what they have been taught but that is as far as their knowledge and understanding extends. Another reason may be that having their teachings being questioned and the instructor being unable to answer those questions challenges their authority and self-image. 

Isaac Newton famously said that if he has seen further, it is only because he has stood on the shoulder's of giants. First, it is amazing how most martial artists are reluctant to say that they have seen further than their instructors. One reason is that they probably have not. Second, you can see further than your giant-instructor by gaining insight and a new and better understanding by questioning the giant-instructor's teachings when appropriate.

Case Studies

While many will/have seen any analysis of JDJ's teachings that is not unquestioningly supportive as being an attack on him and his teachings, such analysis not only shines a light on his teachings, it also shines a light on all other martial arts, combat, sports, self-defence, close combat, law enforcement, security, etc. teachings. It does so by being a case study in the area of preparing a person to engage in a violent encounter.

A case study is an in-depth, detailed examination of a particular case (or cases) within a real-world context.[1][2] For example, case studies in medicine may focus on an individual patient or ailment; case studies in business might cover a particular firm's strategy or a broader market; similarly, case studies in politics can range from a narrow happening over time (e.g., a specific political campaign) to an enormous undertaking (e.g., a world war).

Karl Friday (1997) in Legacies of the Sword uses the Kashima-Shinryu as a case study to understand the bugei (military arts or martial arts). By studying one and gaining insights and understanding of the one, this provides the ability to have insights and understanding of the many similar but different phenomena, in this case martial arts grading systems. This is what an analysis of the JDJ jujutsu grading system provides in terms of an opportunity.

Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu ... or Not?

Rob Hymas was one of the senior jujutsu instructors for Jan de Jong from the late 1970s until JDJ's passing in 2003.  He was one of three that JDJ promoted to sixth dan shortly before he passed away. After JDJ passed, RH formed his own school, Indian Ocean Dojo. The 'welcome' page of the IOD website states: 'This school teaches the strategies, tactics, and techniques of Tsutsumi Hozan-ryu jujutsu.' Does it?

Before JDJ passed away, the Jan de Jong Self Defence School promoted that it taught Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu. Did it?

Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness is an offshoot (ryuha - see below) of the JDJSDS when JDJ passed. The principal of JDJMAF is JDJ's daughter, Maggie Connelly (nee de Jong) (1st dan) with the head instructor being Paul Connelly (6th dan) who was a contemporary of RH. Their senior instructor is Daryl Cook who the JDJMAF website states: 'Holds dan grades in Jan de Jong Ju Jutsu.' Does he? And how does JDJ jujutsu fit in with THR jujutsu?

DC is shodan. I have fond memories of doing part of my shodan with DC. One particularly memorable part was the Kentai Ichi no Kata, a Yoseikan kata, conducted in JDJ's backyard. Before we could commence the grading, the poo of JDJ's great dane, Sasha, had to be removed from the grading area. I suspect that not many martial arts gradings commence with the removal of dog poo. And dear God that dog could poo! I was uchi deashi with JDJ and it was my job to clean up Sasha's dog poo most mornings. A price you pay to be uchi deashi within the JDJ tradition it would appear.

The ude hiji nage defence that DC demonstrated on me, the uke, had me thrown into the pot plants at the front of the sliding doors into the JDJ residence. A challenge was not to be distracted when recovering from the throw, in a formal matter, with dirt and leaves falling off me. 

Hasso gamae ... resulted in me stabbing a lemon above me hanging from the lemon tree that I was standing under at this end of the grading arena. I had to surreptitiously try to remove the tip of my sword from the hanging lemon before attacking DC. And then trying to concentrate when a fly was crawling up my nose was a challenge that I suspect few have had to contend with when performing this kata, ... although, is it something Japanese swordsman had to contend with back in the day?

DC was #15 on the list of shodans awarded by JDJ, one after me, and without taking into account the shodan JDJ awarded in Holland during WWII. DC and I were awarded shodan in ... Tsutsumi jujutsu. JDJ never, to the best of my knowledge, awarded a grading of any rank in Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu. 'What's going on here?' as Gary Klein would say in respect to gaining insight.

Tsutsumi Hozan ryu and Tsutsumi ryu are two different traditions according to James Shortt and Serge Mol, the latter being the more authoritative book. 'What's going on here?'

JDJMAF appears to be walking the association with THR back when they state, 'The style of Ju Jutsu taught at Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness is based on Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Ju Jutsu whose origins can be traced back to 14th century Japan' (emphasis added). What does 'based' mean? What style of jujutsu are JDJMAF teaching? With that they are not explicit, although their reference to DC's qualifications would suggest JDJ jujutsu.

Where did 'JDJ jujutsu' come from? It started with Greg Palmer, another contemporary of RH and PC and who was awarded 4th dan by JDJ shortly before he passed away. GP always explained that JDJ referred to his teachings as THR jujutsu out of respect for his instructors, the Saitos, even though he'd considerably changed what he had been taught. 

I have argued throughout this blog that JDJ developed the entire jujutsu grading system and it would be a difficult exercise to identify what is uniquely THR within that grading system. I was discussing a change of name for what he was teaching with JDJ shortly before he passed away given the considerably changes that he had made to what he was taught. JDJ obviously took that approach when awarding RH, PC, and Peter Clarke 6th dan and GP 4th dan in JDJ jujutsu shortly before he passed away. It would appear that only JDJMAF have adopted that ryu name when grading jujutsu students, although I cannot be sure.

The assertion that the JDJ tradition is teaching THR jujutsu has been 'questioned' in the past, most visibly now in various internet forums. Fraud! they say. That's fair enough. So how do we respond to that accusation. Here I refer to Karl Friday in Legacies of the Sword:

Martial arts ryuha ... have historically tended to practice total transmission, in which all students certified as having mastered the school's kabala are given 'possession' of it. ... such students normally left their masters to open their own schools, teaching on their own authority; masters retained no residual control over former students or students of students. Each new graduate was free to modify their master's teachings as he saw fit, adding personal insights and/or techniques and ideas gleaned from other teachers. It was common practice for such graduates to change even the names of their styles, in effect, founding new ryuha and independent branches of ryuha in each generation. (1997, 18)

Dr. Friday defines the term ryuha as "branch of the current," representing the onward flow of a stream of thought; the branches betoken the splitting off that occurs as insights are passed from master to students, generation after generation.

To be sure, since time immemorial people have attempted to gained credibility by associating themselves with authoritative sources. There are many in the martial arts who attempt to gain credibility for what they are teaching by associating themselves with JDJ even though they only did a few lessons with him. I could do the same with the well-known and world-wide respected Wally Jay because I attended a seminar of his while I was living in London (but I don't).

The point is that you don't take a ryu/ryuha name at face value. You don't disparage the use of it on the same basis. JDJ's instructors may have very well studied THR jujutsu. They may very well have taught what they were taught to JDJ. On the other hand, they may have modified their master's teachings. JDJ most definitely did modify his masters' teachings. I seriously doubt that they would recognise what JDJ came to teach ... but does that make it more or less THR jujutsu? RH decided not to adopt the change in name of style that JDJ graded him 6th dan in. Peter Clark changed the name to Tsutsumi Jugo ryu jujutsu to reflect the origins of his style and the unique contribution that he has made. PC, in association with MC (nee de Jong), may or may not refer to their teachings as JDJ jujutsu. The point is that you look behind the name, as Friday's explanation clearly illustrates. In doing that, you maygain insights, having asked 'What's going on here?' and attempting to find answers to that question.

Shodan Requirement: The History of Jujutsu

One of the gradings for shodan in the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system involves an essay on the history of jujutsu. The idea behind this grading is that an instructor should be able to explain what jujutsu is to others. Does this grading achieve that objective? No.

When I started writing my now shelved book on the jujutsu taught by JDJ, the first chapter was devoted to explaining jujutsu. After many failed attempts, I finally adopted the late and great Donn F. Dreager's approach to explaining jujutsu. He always explained jujutsu in terms of the generic nature of the term, its technical content and history, and the practical application of the philosophical concept of ju. This provides a complete explanation and understanding of jujutsu.

To paraphrase the advertising phrase of the now defunct international accounting firm, Andersons, 'not all jujutsu is the same.' In Legacies of the Sword, Friday explains the importance of understanding the generic nature of a term:

Analysing and explaining the bugei in generic terms is a bit like conceptualising world history, world literature, or world religion in similar fashion. Standing back far enough to examine the phenomenon in toto permits one to describe its outlines, but seeking deeper insights about its essence forces one to grapple with a volume of diversity and detail that quickly becomes overwhelming.

To provide a deeper understanding of jujutsu it is useful to use the 'core of all learning.' The core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. There are four proven highly effective ways of identifying similarities and differences: comparison, classification, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. More can be learned about jujutsu by comparing it to different jujutsu systems (see above re the generic nature of the term) and to different martial arts.

The technical content of jujutsu exceeds that of the striking based marital arts. The technical content of striking based martial arts is primarily comprised of percussion techniques, however, jujutsu emphasises those techniques along with throwing, takedown, joint-locking, strangulation, nerve-point, unbalancing, and breakfalling techniques. Friday provides an explanation for this difference in terms of the core of all learning:

To be sure, all such 'martial arts' as forms of single combat, share some commonality of function - but then, so do Chinese t'ai chi ch'uan and U.S. Air Force fighter tactics. They also, as arts developed in neighbouring countries through which individuals - and armies - regularly traveled back and forth, show some degree of cross influence and even some common vocabulary. But the historical purposes they served, and the statuses they assumed in their respective cultures diverged in fundamental ways.

Chinese, Korean, and Okinawan boxing arts represent an independent tradition from the battlefield disciplines developed by Chinese and Korean armies. The latter were warrior arts in the strict sense of the term, but the former had multiple, overlapping personalities: part self-defence, part competitive sport, part performance art, and part regimen for promoting physiological health and longevity. The traditional warrior arts became extinct when modern weapons rendered swords, spears, and halberds obsolete, but the boxing forms survive and prosper. Japan, however, had no counterpart to Chinese boxing - at least not until modern times. The bugei practiced in Japan today descend directly from arts developed for the battlefield. Furthermore, until modern times the Japanese fighting arts were more or less the exclusive property of the samurai, the ruling class throughout the period in which the disciplines matured. Chinese, Okinawan, and Korean boxing forms, by contrast, were created by tradesmen, peasants, ascetics, entertainers, monks, rebels, bandits, and other political have-nots. And, as we shall see later in this study, the special character and status of the Japanese bugei emerged precisely because of their ancestry and parentage.

This conveniently leads into Dreager's third element when explaining jujutsu - history. History looks at the past. What is important in the past that needs to be included when explaining the history of jujutsu? That is a question that I continually came across when attempting to write the abovementioned chapter in the abovementioned book. Eventually I adopted an 'evolutionary' approach. An evolutionary approach looks at the same period as a historical approach but with a clear focus on functionality. The focus is clearly on using the past to explain the present. Why is jujutsu what it is today? What shaped jujutsu? Why is it different to other martial arts? Why is the jujutsu taught by JDJ different to Brazilian Ju Jitsu? These questions are answered directly by adopting an evolutionary approach to explain phenomena of today, in this case jujutsu.

The last of Dreager's elements in explaining jujutsu is the practical application of the principle of ju. All other Japanese martial arts are named after the weapon employed, e.g., kenjutsu (sword art). Jujutsu is named after a philisophical principle. You could argue a tactical principle. The point is to include this element in the explanation of jujutsu for a complete understanding of the subject.

Here I warn against the tendency to 'shoehorn.' Forcing something fit. That was a common feature at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School when using theory to explain practice and when explaining the history or origins of what we teach. Do not shoehorn! Adopt Klein's approach to gaining insight which produces a new and better understanding that transforms the way we understand, think, feel, behave, and want. Ask, 'What's going on here?' when theory and practice do not fit, and then go in search of an answer. No a shoehorn answer but a real answer.

JDJ's grading sheets included recommended texts for his history examination. This is in serious need of updating. Included would be any and all works by Dreager on the Japanese martial arts. Friday (see above) of course. Cameron Hurst III's The Armed Martial Arts of Japan. I am eagerly awaiting his promised follow up text, The Unarmed Martial Arts of Japan. Serge Mol's Classical Fighting Arts of Japan: A Complete Guide to Koryu Jujutsu. In that book, Mol refers to Tsutsumi Ryu and Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu as separate schools and how there are no extant schools of those systems. This is a subject that an instructor following the JDJ tradition should be able to address in an informed and authoritative manner (no shoehorning).

The Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan book series edited by Diane Skoss are also a must read. Nothing by Stephen Turnbull. His samurai history is not samurai history as so much the use of the war tales written hundreds of years after the events they purport to describe.

There is also Giving Up the Gun by Noel Perrin, however, read it with an understanding of the concept of speciation in evolutionary theory. This small book, along with the aforementioned knowledge, supports Friday's explanation of the uniqueness of the Japanese warrior/martial arts.

Finally, William W. Farris's Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan's Military, 500-1300 and in particular his explanation of the principle of counter response and symmetry. There is an evolutionary ring to that principle that helps explain the continued evolution of all fighting arts. Much of Friday's work on the bugei fits into this discussion.

As I've written in previous posts, JDJ did an amazing job in developing his grading system which is far more comprehensive then any that I have seen, however, it was also only a first attempt. We can build on his work by studying his work and improving on it. We can see further than JDJ by standing on the shoulder's of the giant that he was/is.

Jan de Jong Pt 1 - The School of Jan de Jong

I've received numerous requests to write about Jan de Jong to which I am now acquiescing. I will basically serialise the chapter I drafted for my originally conceived book on the tactics and techniques of Jan de Jong jujutsu with certain modifications.

What is the ‘school of Jan de Jong’?

'School,' when used in this sense, refers to a school of thought or a continuing tradition, like the 'school of Rembrandt' for instance. When used in this context, The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines 'school' as, 'a body of scholars, artists, writers, etc. who have been taught by the same master, or who are united by a similarity of method, style [and/or] principle.' Hence, the 'school of Jan de Jong' refers to the school of thought concerning martial arts which can be attributed to Jan de Jong and those who follow his teachings.

With regards to the Japanese martial arts schools, I will defer to the work of Karl Friday. Friday is associate professor of Japanese history at the University of Georgia and he holds the menkyo kaiden license and is a certified shihan in Kashima-Shinryu. His book Legacies of the Sword is one of the most authoritative English-language books on the Japanese martial arts ever written. This book should be required reading for anyone attempting to understand the Japanese martial arts. He has this to say with regards to martial art ryuha (school):

Martial art ryuha ... have historically tended to practice total transmission, in which students certified as having mastered the school's kabala are given 'possession' of it. ... such former students normally left their masters to open their own schools, teaching on their own authority; masters retained no residual control over former students or students of students. Each new graduate was free to modify his master's teachings as he saw fit, adding personal insights and/or techniques and ideas gleaned from other teachers. It was common practice for such graduates to change even the names of their styles, in effect founding new ryuha and independent branches of ryuha in each generation.

Friday presents a case study by analysing the history, philosophy, and pedagogical dynamics of Kashima Shinryu to lay the foundation for a broader understanding of what the classical bugei (martial arts) are, what they were, and what they mean to those who practice them. His explanation of the historical pattern of the development of martial arts schools definitely explains the evolution of the school of Jan de Jong following his death in 2003.

According to De Jong, he started teaching in Perth, Western Australia in 1952, the year he emigrated to Australia from Indonesia. In 1955 he named his school Ju Jutsu Kan which was changed to Jan de Jong's Self Defence School (JDJSDS) in 1973.

The style of jujutsu which De Jong taught is often referred to as Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. However the JDJSDS grading certificates only refer to Tsutsumi Ryu and discussions with previous generations of instructors only refer to Tsutsumi Ryu. It appears to be quite late in the piece that De Jong started to refer to Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu.

The Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system includes technical grades up to and including third dan. Higher grades are honorary and awarded at the discretion of De Jong. There are only five people who have completed all the technical grades under De Jong. Peter Clarke was the first in 1998 and was immediately awarded fourth dan. The grading certificate referred to Jan de Jong Jujutsu for the first time. It would appear that De Jong was acquiescing to the lobby to change the name of the style of jujutsu he taught to reflect his contributions. However, he only did so on certain higher grade certificates.

Clarke was followed by Rob Hymus, Paul Connolly, Greg Palmer, and myself. These four instructors were my instructors and I am the only 'student' who has completed the technical grades under De Jong.

Greg Palmer is pictured above receiving his third dan grading certificate. Just prior to De Jong's death he was awarded fourth dan. He went on to establish his own school which he named Keikai, apparently the Japanese equivalent of his name. He also changed the name of the jujutsu he taught to Keikai jujutsu. Unfortunately Greg passed away in 2008.

Debbie Clarke, wife of Peter, established Southern Cross Bujutsu a few years before De Jong's death. Peter joined his wife after De Jong's death and became the technical director of the school. He refers to his jujutsu as Tsutsumi Jugo Ryu jujutsu. Peter, along with Hymus and Connolly, was awarded sixth dan by De Jong just prior to his death. Peter is a very proficient and thoughtful practitioner and I am led to believe, based on discussions with him, that he has made some significant changes to the jujutsu he is now teaching.

De Jong's school was taken over by his daughter, Maggie de Jong (first dan), following his death. Connolly, her partner, assumed technical control. They changed the name of the school to Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness and they advertise they teach Tsustumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. Hymus established Indian Ocean Dojo which he advertises as teaching Tsutusmi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. Hans de Jong, De Jong's son, established Hans de Jong Self Defence School and likewise teaches jujutsu he refers to as Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. All of these schools are based in Perth, Western Australia.

One of De Jong's students/instructors, Jamie Francis, established South West Self Defence School teaching Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu in the south west of Western Australia. He has built up quite a respectable following with over 80 students. He graded up to second dan with De Jong and half way through third dan with Palmer. I've agreed to continue his journey and teach and grade him the remainder of third dan. When completed, he will be only the sixth person to have completed the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system.

I have succumed to the requests to teach and am teaching a small number of higher graded students/instructors. Given my obsessive nature, I do not want to commence teaching until my book(s) have been completed. I've also received requests to teach in Europe and the United States. Again, these requests have been put on hold until I complete my book(s). I consistently refer to the jujutsu I learnt and teach as Jan de Jong jujutsu reflecting what I believe to be the school of Jan de Jong.