The Development of the Jan de Jong Jujutsu Grading System 5.0: Sandan Part 1

The final technical grading in the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system is sandan.

This fits with the narrative that the final technical grading in the Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu (THR) jujutsu grading system that JDJ was involved in with his original jujutsu instructors, the Saito brothers, was sandan.

There are only five people who have completed the technical grading system of the jujutsu taught by JDJ under JDJ, and which is apparently part of the THR tradition, are Peter Clarke, Robert Hymas, Paul Connolly, Greg Palmer, and myself. Me - their student. The only 'student' to complete the JDJ jujutsu grading system under JDJ.

Left to right: Peter Clarke, JDJ, Robert Hymas, and Paul Connolly.

Standing and not standing, Greg Palmer and me respectively.

There are some other 'students' that have been graded sandan, and higher, in the JDJ tradition through a JDJ ryuha, however, that grading system is compromised in relation to JDJ's grading system because the head of that ryuha did not grade above shodan under JDJ. Consequently, their nidan and sandan grades contain less and are different to that taught by JDJ. And even in that ryuha's shodan grading, there are mistakes.

You will recall from previous posts that Clarke, Hymas, and Connelly were the first through the nidan and sandan gradings because they were to be JDJ's legacy. Greg and I came through after the first trio. It is important to remember that fact because, among other things, it gave JDJ a chance to review the nidan and sandan gradings that he had developed and to change (improve) upon them. 

This post will be done in two parts because the sandan grading contains 12 parts, whereas shodan and nidan were long enough with nine parts.

You will recall from previous posts that the structure of the dan grades was set with JDJ's initial grading system, the kyu grades, with ikkyu being the instructor grade. 

Note: There is no shinken shobu no kata part in sandan. This is the only grading in JDJ's grading system that does not contain a reflex/shinken shobu no kata part to the grading.

The grading requirements and description of the different parts are taken from Jan de Jong: the man, his his school and his ju jitsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997 (p.52)).

Part 1 Kime no Kata

'Explain the theory and answer questions on demonstrated defences.'

You will recall from previous posts that kime no kata is generally considered to be a revision grading within the JDJ jujutsu grading system. According to the glossary in the abovementioned book, it means 'form of agreement (attack and defences are agreed upon and so form a demonstration)' (p.58).

This grading consists of 57 attack-defence combinations, none of which have been included in any other grading within the JDJ jujutsu grading system; they are all new attack-defence combinations.

When Greg and I did this grading, JDJ asked no questions. Greg was disappointed because he was prepared and wanted to discuss the theory behind the defences. He asked JDJ why he hadn't asked us any questions. JDJ said that he didn't have to because he knew that we know the theory.

I would have liked to have heard any questions that he asked of Clarke, Hymas, and Connolly, and their answers.

Part 2 Ju Jitsu no Jitsuen

'Arrange a 10 minute demonstration on a topic given by Shihan Jan de Jong using only yudansha. Twenty minutes preparation time will be allowed.'

This part follows on from the ju jitsu no jitsuen part in the nidan grading.

The way JDJ conducted this grading was, during the Friday night instructor's class, he'd simply inform the candidate (Clarke, Hymas, Connolly, Palmer, or myself) that they would be putting on a demonstration using yudansha that were attending the class that night. Literally, only 20 minutes to prepare on a subject of JDJ's choosing with the performers present that night.

It was an interesting grading for me as I was instructing my former instructors what to do. I was assessing their capabilities in terms of what they could perform adequately. That was a challenge in itself.

Part 3 Taisabaki no Kata

'Prepare a kata to show the different variations of the body movements.'

The five body-movements are the five main body-movements (taisabaki) taught by Yoseikan Budo (YB).

I did a bit of 'teach the teacher' in this grading. You will recall from a previous post:

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

Part 4 Sutemiwaza no Kata and Taoshiwaza no Kata

Sutemiwaza no Kata: 'Demonstration and full explanation of the theory of 20 different sacrifice throws and their variations.'

Taoshiwaza no Kata: 'Demonstration and full explanation of the theory of 20 different takedown techniques and their variation.'

This part of the grading is pure YB. 

You will recall from a previous post that I obtained a copy of Minoro Mochizuki's book, Nihonden Jujutsu, from Jan-Erik Karlsson while assisting JDJ teaching for him in Sweden. I gave a copy of that book to JDJ.

The book has many hand-drawn images of techniques. JDJ photocopied 20 of those techniques for each part of this part of the grading and handed them out in the instructors class on a Friday night. This was this part of the sandan grading - taken straight from Mochizuki's book.

The abovementioned JDJ ryuha does not include the taoshiwaza no kata section in their sandan grading. I would suggest that it is because the principal of that ryuha did not learn or grade this part of the grading. On the other hand, the YB sutemiwaza had been taught and trained ad nauseum within the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS).

A joint element of this grading is the theory behind the techniques. What is the first theory question that should be asked?

Given that the two parts are sacrifice throws and takedown techniques, the first question that should be asked is: what is the difference between a throw and a takedown?

As I discuss in my as yet unpublished book, The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques, there is no definitive distinction between throwing and takedown techniques in the martial arts literature or teachings, except the one that I provide based on biomechanics. Based on that definition and classification, about 25% of the takedown techniques in the takedown techniques section of this part of the grading are in fact throws.

There is one technique in the takedown section of this part of the grading: oshi otoshi. JDJ said that it meant 'aggressive push-down.' Every time JDJ taught it in the instructors class, he taught it differently. I was confused, not the least because none of what JDJ was teaching worked. I asked Clarke and Hymas separately, 'What are we supposed to be doing here?' They both replied that they didn't know.

At that time, the priority for JDJ and Clarke, Hymas, and Connolly was to get through the grading system so that JDJ could promote them with honorary grades. One technique that did not work - what does it matter.

Mea culpa: I too adopted the same approach as Clarke, Hymas, and Connolly, and did something in the grading, not knowing what I was supposed to be doing, knowing that it was one technique, and it would not affect my overall makes in the grading. I, like them, were going to pass this grading with or without this technique.

After JDJ passed away, and when YouTube came online, I finally saw oshi otoshi being performed by a YB school in Belgium. It is an amazing YB technique, and one which nobody in the JDJSDS has ever performed correctly, even though it is in the grading system.

JDJ did not know how to perform oshi otoshi. It looked similar to other techniques, but it wasn't that technique, and in this instance, it did not work. It was ineffective. 

A similar situation can be found in JDJ's shodan shinken shobu no kata grading with te nage. When I was taught this technique, way back when, I said even then that it did not make sense. Unbalance forward and down, and then up and back to the opposite rear corner, and then forward and down again, and then around the corner - there are so many changes in direction that you get dizzy. And why? It's because it looks like hand-set arm breaking, but that is not the takedown technique. 

When I was assisting two prospective yudansha for the abovementioned ryuha to prepare for their shinken shobu no kata grading, I again encountered JDJ's te nage and its teaching by the instructors of the ryuha. And after all these years, I still thought it was ridiculous, but this time, when searching for an answer, there are so many more resources available. JDJ's te nage should be aikido's ikkyo or nikyo. It is a great technique, when performed correctly, and one that I could perform even in my physical condition.

Part 5 Kodachi no Kata

'Demonstration of kodachi (wakizashi) techniques against katana.'

The kata is taken straight from Michael Finn's Kendo-no-Kata (1986). No deviations whatsoever, and the order is the same.

Part 6 Hojo Jutsu

'Demonstrate use of rope to tie up an opponent.'

This was an interesting grading, and an impractical grading. The techniques were taken from various sources and consisted of tying up a person in intricate ways. The impractical aspect was that the grading did not involve restraining uke before the tying up commenced. They just stood there. It was like a demonstration of wrapping a gift.

Next Post

The next post will discuss the final six parts to the sandan grading.

The Development of the Jan de Jong Jujutsu Grading System Part 1.2: Historic Ikkyu Part 1: Basics and Current Nikyu Part 1: Kime no Kata

This post follows on from the post, Part 1: The Kyu System.

You will recall from that post that the original Jan de Jong (JDJ) grading system consisted of only the kyu grades, which was a one-off grading system when it was developed. Start to finish, nothing else to follow or precede. That is it! Done and dusted (in the voice of Al Pacino in The Heat).

The image to the right is of a historic grading sheet regarding the requirements of the ikkyu grade which the recipient of my gifting of historical records was kind enough to forward to me based on this series of posts.

In the above linked post, I argued that the ikkyu grading was an instructor grading. That argument is supported by the heading to the above historic grading sheet: Ikkyu (Kyoshi) Instructor. 

All those that attained ikkyu are instructors in JDJ's original grading system, and it could/should be argued that they are instructors under the current system which includes the dan grades. It could/should be argued that they should be referred to as sensei rather than sempai as they are now, given that that is how the ikkyu grading was developed.

Part 1: Basics in the above ikkyu grading requirements reflects the Yoseikan Budo (YB) influence introduced into the grading system, therefore, this grading was introduced post 1969 when JDJ trained for a short time at the YB dojo in Japan (also see below). 

At some stage, the ikkyu Part 1: Basics became nikyu Part 1: Kime no Kata. 

Kime no kata is referred to as 'revision' in JDJ's jujutsu grading system. So the ikkyu Part 1: Basics became a revision grading when it was moved to nikyu, but what is it revising? It is revising the YB inspired mon grades with the ikkyu Part 2: Kime no Kata in the above image being a true revision of the kyu grades. That grading requires the grading candidate to select defences from the kyu grades in the nominated sections in that gradings. 

All of the techniques in Part 1: Basics are YB techniques, including Itsutsu no Kata, Happoken, and Sambogeri. When ikkyu Part 1: Basics becomes nikyu Part 1: Kime no Kata, Happoken and Sambogeri were replaced by Wakai no Kata.

Happoken is a YB kata designed to teach striking and blocking skills.

Sambogeri is a YB kata/exercise designed to teach kicking skills (see image right from Mochizuki's book). In future posts, I will be suggesting that Sambogeri and derivations thereof be introduced into the mon grades to improve the kicking skills of JDJ jujutsuka, which are generally substandard unless the student trained in a percussion based martial art.

Wakai no Kata is a kata that JDJ developed to teach striking, blocking, and kicking skills, along with different stances. Wakai no Kata will be the subject of a future post when exploring the mon system. In that post I will explain why it tends to be poorly performed in the JDJ tradition, even by the majority of instructors.

The abovementioned generous provider of the historic grading sheets also commented:

After doing the nikyu revision, Greg Palmer came up to me and said "you have me to thank for that grading". The Boss has tasked him with developing an assessment for those who hadn't done the mons. Further cementing the case for Greg to have been a yondan on completion of sandan.

I argued in the first post of this series that Greg Palmer was the best teacher at the school because he was a trained and qualified teacher, and I don't mean in a martial arts system which is basically amateurish. I was unaware that Greg developed this grading, however, it makes sense because it is a coherent introduction, not revision as suggested above, to the YB system that forms the basis of the mon grades.

With regards to Greg and the awarding of yondan upon completion of the 'technical' grades in the JDJ jujutsu grading system. I would go further than the above commentor and argue that Greg was entitled to be graded rokudan along with the anointed trio. 

Greg's contribution to the grading system far exceeded that of any of the trio, including introducing JDJ to a mindset of progressive gradings. It is generally acknowledged that his understanding of techniques and how to teach them exceeded that of the trio. He also selflessly taught for JDJ for nearly 40 years with no remuneration, unlike two of the trio. He was also the first and only to have established a branch outside the metropolitan area for JDJ.

You will recall in a previous post that I shared an insight that I had gained through studying the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system, and that is that the instructors teaching the mon grades may not have actually gone through the mon grades. The above comment would appear to confirm that.

In that case, the nikyu revision, as the above provider described it, was not a revision grading for those that did not go through the mon system. It is an introduction to the mon system. It features the YB division of a defence into phases: taisabaki, kuzushi, waza (body-movement, unbalancing, technique). It features the five basic YB taisabaki, their basic kuzushi from hand grips, and their nine basic kansetsu waza (joint-locking techniques) as waza. 

Did the instructors who did not go through the mon system understand that these were phases in a defence? Did JDJ? This might explain some/many of the issues that I have and will be raising in connection with the mon grades and the teaching thereof.

The Development of the Jan de Jong Jujutsu Grading System Part 3.6: 9th Kyu (First Adult Grading in Mon System)

The beginning of the mon system for adults is 9th kyu, brown and white belt. This post will look at the 9th kyu grading.

You will recall from a previous post that the grading is made up of various sections. The following will consider each section. The initial reference point will be the gradings published in Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his ju jitsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1995).

Breakfalls (Ukemi)

Six types of ukemi are demonstrated: (1) forwards, backwards, and sideways rolls, and (2) forwards, backwards, and sideways flats.

1. All of the ukemi, except for sideways roll, are taught in judo (see point 5 below). Most jujutsu schools take their ukemi from judo.

2. Sideways roll is unique to the jujutsu taught by Jan de Jong (JDJ), and it should be taught as such. This is a clear point of differentiation between the jujutsu taught by JDJ and that of all other jujutsu, aikido, and judo teachings. (Marketing 101 - differentiate the product).

I found a 'sideways roll' included in the door-stopper of a book by Marc Tedeschi, Hapkido: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique (2000; 1136 pages, over 9000 photographs). The sideways roll included in Tedschi's book is a barrel roll: starting on all fours, roll sideways and back up to on all fours.

3. Sideways roll as taught by JDJ is best described in terms of the old-school parachute landing involving sequential impact with the landing surface of body parts from the ankle to the shoulder thus reducing the force to be absorbed by the body per unit area and per unit time (see my book on the science behind all fighting techniques).

I did find a similar roll in Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996), Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement. Apparently this type of sideways roll is taught in volleyball.

4. Sideways roll is generally taught and demonstrated very poorly in the JDJ tradition. Starting off the roll on a flat foot generally results in a sideways flat that transitions into a backwards roll. Jumping into the roll often ends up with the same result. I teach to start off on the edge of the foot with the body arced in a 'C' position with the hip leading and shoulders leaning away from the direction of the fall. This forces the person to have sequential body parts impact (ankle, calf, thigh, hip, shoulder) before transitioning into a backwards roll. An important factor is, as with so many techniques, the direction the practitioner looks when executing the technique. Look at the ground and the body turns forward towards the ground. Look straight ahead or slightly to the other side, and the body stays side-on, thus executing a true sideways roll.

5. Kaiten ukemi (rolling breakfalls) are taught within the JDJ tradition such that the technique ends with the individual facing their opponent. This is a jujutsu approach compared to a judo approach, according to Pat Harrington in Principles of Jujutsu (1997) and Eddie Ferrie in Ju-Jitsu: Classical and Modern (1990):

The major difference between the forward breakfall in judo and jujutsu is the way jujutsu exponents come to their feet facing in the direction from which they have just fallen. It is standard practice to roll and come to your feet, simultaneously turning to face your opponent in a defensive guard. Judoka, on the other hand, roll, stand up and usually carry on walking. (Ferrie 1990, 33)

Judo teaches to walk away (not face the attacker) with kaiten ukemi. It has been suggested that this reflects the lack of combative focus in judo teachings. Do rather than jutsu. The same suggestion has been raised with respect to aikido when kaiten ukemi is taught in the same fashion.

JDJ included the 'judo' approach to kaiten ukemi in the instructors class. Why not include the judo approach in the mon grades? If nothing else, it increases the tactical options for students when regaining one's feet from a kaiten ukemi.

One of the exercises I use when teaching kaiten ukemi involves a person pushing another who executes the kaiten ukemi while the 'pusher' walks towards that person. This demonstrates that one needs to rise to their feet rapidly when used in a defensive situation. Often the person was very close when the person rose to their feet, because of the execution of the kaiten ukemi. One option is to adopt the judo approach in order to create distance between the 'attacker' and defender before turning to face them. The other is the slow rise to the feet is often a product of where the person is looking when they are exiting the roll. Throw your head back to immediately seek out the attacker and the body follows.

Greg Palmer and Peter Templeman (two JDJ yudansha instructors) told of how they did not sustain injuries when coming off a motorcycle at speed because of their kaiten ukemi training. The told of mae kaiten ukemi, ushiro kaiten ukemi, ushiro kaiten ukemi, yoko kaiten ukemi, etc. Only one mae kaiten ukemi - why? Because if the only way you've been taught kaiten ukemi is the 'jujutsu way', it rules out mae kaiten ukemi after any initial use as the person will always be facing the direction from which the fall commenced.

The secret for teaching the jujutsu and judo kaiten ukemi ways? Either a figure-4 or parallel leg arrangement. It's as simple as that. And don't forget where the performer looks.

Basic Blocks and Attacks (Uke and Atemi)

The four blocks are karate style blocks demonstrated solo (high, middle x 2, low: see a previous post).

The two attacks are front snap kick and punch with step. 

I recently saw a video prepared for student instruction where the JDJ ryuha yudansha was demonstrating a front snap kick/front kick. Their attempt to kick high resulted in their toes not being pulled back so as to kick with the ball of the foot. This is what the kick should look like (btw, it is not a 'snap' kick):

Kicking techniques do not tend to be taught too well in the JDJ tradition. For those in the JDJ tradition demonstrating for students or  publishing instruction manuals and/or videos, remember, students will study those images ad nauseum in an attempt to replicate them. If the images are of poor technique, they will work hard to produce poor technique.

Body Movements (Taisabaki)

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

The issue of 'any block' was discussed in the previous two posts.

Unbalancing (Kuzushi)

Normal single wrist grip - Normal unbalancing

Same side single wrist grip - Same side unbalancing 

Reverse single wrist grip - Reverse unbalancing

Rear both wrists grip - Rear unbalancing

Front both wrists grip - same side unbalancing

The first four attacks and unbalancings are pure Yoseikan Budo (YB).

The fourth attack and unbalancing is an extension of the basic unbalancings from wrist grips. Why is an extension being added into this section in the first grading an adult will be attempting? Shouldn't the first grading at least just be examining basic techniques. Variations can be introduced in later gradings.

Unbalancing (Kuzushi) - Blocking (Uke)

This section of the grading was discussed in the previous post where the issue of JDJ's classification of blocking techniques as being unbalancing techniques was explored.

Note that the above demonstrated blocks, karate style blocks, are not included in the unbalancing use of blocks in this section of the grading.

It is also worth noting that the required brushing block against a downwards hit in no way, ever, unbalances an opponent. Ever! (see previous post)

Locking Techniques (Kansetsu Waza)

'Two attackers, defender's choice of attack'

This is the first grading for an adult, and they are being expected to defend using a specified kansetsu waza against two attackers. It is their first grading. The inappropriateness of this stress element in this and in all of the mon grades was discussed in a previous post. 

Reflex (Shinken Shobu no Kata)

Shinken shobu no kata is explained and discussed in this post. This grading and training method is another unique aspect of JDJ's teaching and should be appreciated and shared as such (Marketing 101: differentiate the product).

This is an adult's first grading; is there any need for this (or any other) stress element? Maybe it's to acclimatise the student to shinken shobu no kata gradings given that this is the principal form of grading from the kyu grades onwards. Fair enough, but does this mean they are given a lot of leeway in this grading due to the stress element (ditto for the above stress element) and the fact that it is their very first grading?

#1 Normal single grip on the sleeve (low) - Body set arm breaking.

In the above unbalancing section, normal single wrist grip is demonstrated with normal unbalancing. In this defence sequence, body set arm breaking is facilitated by 'same side unbalancing' from a normal single grip on the sleeve (low). Why? Why complicate things in the first grading? Surely it should be to apply the whole taisabaki, kuzushi, waza phases of a technique that the grading seems to be based upon to bring the phases together in a defence?! A systems thinking approach.

#3 High punch - Atemi - body set arm breaking.

The use of atemi to unbalance an opponent, in the kuzushi phase of a defence, has not been introduced to the student in the grading as yet. Why include this new element in this stress section of the grading when other unbalancing methods have been demonstrated in the grading?

#5 Front snap kick - Brushing block - punch.

I would teach a grading candidate to use an 'empty block', no block at all, when executing this defence as a 'teach-the-teacher' exercise (see above re brushing blocks). Would the JDJ ryuha instructors mark the grading candidate down if they did not use a brushing block but simply an evasive body-movement and a decisive punch?

Comment

It may seem like I'm being overly critical of JDJ's efforts, however, it's more about learning from his efforts. First, how would you go about developing a grading system when you have no real experience with a grading system? How you go about introducing a systems based element into a 'collection of defences' grading system when you have no real understanding of systems based thinking? JDJ did a remarkable job given the circumstances, however, it behoves those that follow him to study what he did in order to improve on what he did; to see further by standing on the shoulders of a giant. It behoves them to gain insights and understanding rather than simply to imitate.

The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 3.5: The Mon System and JDJ's Blocking Techniques Classification

This post follows on from the previous post concerning blocking techniques in the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu mon grading system. Specifically, this post looks at JDJ's classification of blocking techniques that he introduced into the mon grades.

Classification

You will recall from a previous post that the core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. One of the proven highly effective means of identifying similarities and differences is classification. Many in the martial arts think of classification as simply being an administrative exercise. They could not be more wrong, as I explain in my book on the science behind all fighting techniques:

Lackoff (1987) 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 would not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives.'

JDJ's Classification of Blocking Techniques

JDJ's classification of blocking techniques involves six categories: hard, soft, pushing, pulling, grabbing, and empty. Exploring those categories and the classification system itself is revealing.

Yoseikan Budo Kuzushi and JDJ's Classification of Blocking Techniques

You will recall from a previous post that JDJ included unbalancing (kuzushi) sections in his mon grades. These sections involved unbalancing techniques from hand grabs: e.g., normal single wrist grip - normal unbalancing. These attacks and techniques are taken straight from Yoseikan Budo (YB).

The JDJ classification of blocking techniques was introduced into the mon system to complement the unbalancing from hand grips, but for moving attacks. This is seen in their use in the various sections in the mon grades, however, it is explicitly seen in the Unbalancing (Kuzushi) - Blocking (Uke) sections in 5th mon and 9th kyu (both part of the mon system; see previous post).

You will recall from the previous post that one of Nakayama's blocking possibilities is unbalancing the opponent with a block. Do the blocks in JDJ's classification unbalance an opponent with the blocking technique?

JDJ's Classification of Blocking Techniques, Unbalancing, and Pencak Silat

JDJ did not originally develop his classification of blocking techniques to compliment the tehodoki kuzushi. He developed it to classify the response to an attack in the pencak silat he taught. This classification was then introduced into his pencak silat grading system. In this way, JDJ was conceptualising 'blocking techniques' as being uke waza.

Uke Waza

Uke waza is often translated in karate as being blocking techniques, however, it actually translates as receiving techniques; techniques used to receive an attack.

In this way, uke waza includes evasive body-movements (EBM), aka taisabaki, and so-called blocking techniques.

There are three ways of dealing with a moving attack in order to avoid injurious contact with the body: (1) 'block' the attack (see below), (2) move the attacking limb or object off the line of attack (deflection), or (3) move off the line of attack (EBM). There are three ways of repositioning oneself to execute a counterattack from a moving attack: (1) 'block' the attack, (2) move the attacking limb off the line of attack (deflection), or (3) move off the line of attack.

The last sentence was in response to a comment received on my Facebook post sharing the previous blog post. I share their conception of taisabaki in that it repositions tori to execute a technique, however, they are only half right. The avoiding injurious contact with the body from an attack aspect of taisabaki can never be forgotten or minimised.

Taisabaki is taught within the JDJ teachings in terms of an EBM to avoid injurious contact with the body. In doing so, it does not necessarily reposition tori in an optimum position to execute a decisive technique. When I began instructing my students that taisabaki is used to avoid injurious contact with the body and to reposition in order to attack, the positioning, distancing, and timing problems they experienced previously tended to sort themselves out. It also changed their mindset from being prey trying to avoid being eaten to being a counterattacker, a fighter.

PS: Uke means to receive. Ukemi is often translated as breakfalls, however, it actually means to receive through or with the body. In this case, ukemi is a biomechanically accurate description of breakfalling techniques. The force applied to the body when landing from a fall is based on Newton's third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's 'action' and 'reaction' means mechanical force. In the case of ukemi, the falling body applies force to the landing surface upon impact, and the landing surface applies a reaction force to the falling/landing body, which ukemi is designed to absorb in a way that reduces the risk of injury (see my book on the science behind all fighting techniques).

Unbalancing (Kuzushi) - Blocking (Uke) 

You will recall from the previous post that an Unbalancing (Kuzushi) - Blocking (Uke) section was included in the 5th mon and 9th kyu gradings. Included in these sections were the demonstration of pushing, pulling, and grabbing block against a low punch and a brushing block against a downwards hit.

A pushing block involves an EBM (irimi) and a pushing force being applied to the opponent's attacking arm to unbalance the opponent (see first image above). A pulling block is the same except the EBM is either nagashi or irimi senkai and a pulling force is applied to the opponent's attacking arm for the same purpose (see image to the right). 

As explained in my book on the science behind all fighting techniques, mechanical force is defined as a push or a pull (see my post published in 2013 that explained the use of the mechanical concept of force to understand all techniques). Whenever an 'object' starts, stops, speeds up, slows down, or changes direction, a force caused that change in motion. As I explain in the aforementioned book, Jigoro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo, was the quintessential martial arts biomechanist when he described kuzushi as being a push or a pull in his Kodokan Judo.

A grabbing block involves an EBM and 'grabbing' the opponent's attacking arm (see image to right). Unbalancing occurs when the EBM positions tori a small distance away for uke's attacking arm and the grabbing motion pulls said arm to tori's body thereby unbalancing uke. In force-related terms, this involves a pulling force being applied to uke's attacking arm at right angles.

I cannot remember any defence included in the JDJ jujutsu grading system that uses this type of 'block', not in its purest form at least. An example of its practical use might be in a grabbing-pulling motion when unbalancing uke in a circular motion which is a common tactic in YB and aikido, and JDJ's jujutsu and aikido. If so, why not demonstrate that in the grading rather than a technique that is never used?

 

Brushing block is as described. It brushes the opponent's attacking arm, like brushing dirt of their sleeve. It does not deflect the attacking arm. It doesn't have to because the EBM has taken care of the problem of avoiding injurious contact with the body (see previous post) The attacking arm stays on course without interruption. See below for an illustration of a brushing block (ignoring the strike to the throat).

There is no 'grabbing'. There is no pulling. There is no pushing. How does a brushing block unbalance an opponent? After all, it is included in the section of the grading in which the grading candidate demonstrates unbalancing an opponent using a block? When I asked two of the senior instructors this question, it was suggested that the unbalancing comes from the 'brush' slightly adding to uke's forward motion thereby slightly unbalancing them in that direction. Being polite, that is the very definition of a shoehorned answer/explanation.

If that was a shoehorned answer/explanation, then the answer to the same question in relation to empty blocks is a shoehorned answer/explanation par excellence.

PS: I challenge all students who are engaged in training with JDJ ryuha were these gradings are still employed to ask their instructor how a brushing block unbalances an opponent, which it is supposed to do given that it is included in a section of the grading that examines unbalancing techniques.

Empty Block

JDJ's empty block is no block at all. It is an EBM used to avoid injurious contact with the body. Empty block is part of JDJ's blocking techniques classification but is never mentioned in JDJ's jujutsu grading system. Why not?

JDJ's classification of blocking techniques was used in the JDJ jujutsu grading system to classify unbalancing techniques used against moving attacks. How does an empty block, no block at all and only an EBM, unbalance an opponent? When I asked this question of the senior instructors, it was suggested that by not being where the opponent expected, the opponent would topple forward having not met the expected resistance to the force applied by their attack. That may well happen, however, are you going to base your tactics in a physical confrontation on that assumption?

Hard and Soft Blocks

The hard-soft blocking techniques dichotomy is an oft discussed dichotomy in the martial arts and martials arts literature. It is usually discussed in terms of explaining the superiority of soft blocks over karate hard blocks. Often this argument is supported scientifically with the aid of the concept of forces, an argument that is flawed and shows the lack of understanding in terms of theory that many in the martial arts have.

Examples of the hard karate blocks are the basic high, middle, and low blocks of karate. The example given of soft blocks is deflections. It is suggested that more force is required to be applied with the hard karate blocks than with the soft deflections.

What the arguers do not understand is that these hard karate blocks are in fact deflections (for the most part; see below).

The argument is often that the hard karate blocks apply force against force whereas deflections do not, thus the latter being more efficient. The hard karate blocks do not apply force against force. The apply force at an angle to the attacking limb, thus deflecting the trajectory of the attacking limb. More force is applied to deflect the attacking limb in this case, therefore the only question is, why is more force applied in the case of hard blocks than soft blocks? Is the answer found in Nakayama's blocking possiblity #1 which is the block being used as an attack to discourage further attacks (see previous post)?

What is a 'block'?

Let's go back to the beginning ask the basic question: what is a block? The general definition is to make the movement or flow difficult or impossible. It's to put something in the way of something. 

The martial arts has a tendency of using terms without reference to their general meaning. There is no better example than that of throws and takedowns in the martial arts. A definitive distinction between these two classes of techniques is abscent in martial arts theory, and those proposed are either incomprehensible or plain wrong, until the one that I proposed in my book on the science behing all fighting techniques. My definition is supported by the general definition of throw and takedown, which the martial arts seem to have ignored.

The abovementioned argument in support of the superiority of soft deflections over hard karate blocks is that the latter apply force against force. The above presented a counter-argument, however, there are exceptions.

Are there true blocks in the martial arts, ones that apply force against force, ones that are put in front of an attack? A shin block is one. 

Gracie and Danaher distinguish between evasion and blocking in their Mastering Jujitsu (2003):

Evasive skills allow you to avoid strikes without contact. There are easy on your body and require proficient motion skills. Blocking allows you to safely absorb impact (rather than avoid it), and it requires sound conditioning and stance skills. (p. 77)

Their blocks include covering block, palm block, double-forearm block, and shin block. The shin block is referred to above as a true block. The double-forearm block (see right image) will be the only other Gracie and Danaher block considered here:

From your fighting stance, turn toward the incoming blow as you simultaneoulsy step away from it slightly. Bring your forearms together and tuck your chin, crunching your upper body inward, like a turtle retreating into a shell. (p. 78)

Aside from never having seen this block used or taught, other than in boxing where huge gloves provide the protection, why is the double-forearm block being used when the step away, the EBM, has taken the defender out of range of the attacker? Even if there is a valid answer, that question should always be asked when a block is used in conjunction with an EBM.

Returning to karate hard blocks. In addition to being deflections, they can also be true blocks depending on the direction of the attack and the body position of the defender. For instance, age uke (rising block, aka high block) is a deflection against a punch but is a true block against a downard hit with no EBM employed. A low block is a true block employed against a low roundhouse kick.

The Dog's Breakfast

You can see that the concept of blocking techniques as applied in the JDJ jujutsu mon grading system is a bit of a dog's breakfast, as it is in the martial arts in general (as I demonstrated in the chapter on blocking techniques in my book on the science behind all fighting techniques). But what to do about it? That is the question that is being raised throughout this examination of the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system. What would you do?