Clarifying My Critique of the JDJ Grading System

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:

1. 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.
2. Modernisation: Following Peter Clarke’s example by simplifying the system and focusing on real-world applications.
3. Reconnection with Roots: Revisiting the original Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu to refine the system’s core principles.
4. 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.

Jan de Jong Jujutsu Grading System - A Dog's Breakfast

In reviewing the development of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system, my overall conclusion is that it resembles a 'dog’s breakfast'—a messily organised system that lacks cohesion and clear structure. While I have previously praised the merits of JDJ’s system, especially given the resources and goals he had at the time, the system ultimately suffers from a fragmented design.

That said, there is much to admire in JDJ’s achievement. His grading system was uniquely focused on creating instructors as well as practitioners, a rare emphasis that broadened its educational scope. Yet, the haphazard structure within this system opens ample opportunity for improvement. The grading system is like a raw, unformed lump of clay: it holds potential to be shaped into something more coherent and efficient, producing skilled yudansha (black belts) with greater speed and precision. Alternatively, one can preserve JDJ’s original work, but this approach risks stagnation—clinging to legacy as the ship sinks.

Peter Clarke, one of the few awarded rokudan (sixth dan) by JDJ before his passing, offers an insightful critique that highlights this problem. On his website, Clarke explains his departure from traditional jujutsu schools that amass extensive techniques without a corresponding emphasis on the strategic, real-world application of self-defense in modern society. His critique rings true: in the JDJ grading system, a vast collection of techniques is compiled, but this 'library' of knowledge may not translate to effective self-defense for every practitioner.

Clarke is perhaps the only individual to forge something distinct from JDJ’s system, using it as a springboard for his unique insights and principles. His approach is focused and strategic, the mark of a well-planned system rooted in practical, actionable defense rather than a mere collection of techniques. In contrast, I find myself hindered by analysis paralysis, unable to extract a unified structure from the JDJ grading system due to its disjointed mix of original kyu gradings and Yoseikan influences. Clarke’s ability to develop a cohesive new grading system out of JDJ’s work is commendable.

In sum, the JDJ grading system, while valuable as a repository of techniques and concepts, lacks a focused design. Its greatest value may lie in its potential for re-imagination, allowing dedicated practitioners to shape and refine it into a more organised and purposeful framework for modern martial arts training.

In the upcoming posts, we’ll explore some of the key issues within the JDJ jujutsu grading system. By addressing these challenges, I hope to inspire those who are building upon JDJ’s teachings to consider significant adjustments that will refine and improve upon his foundational work. This examination aims to provide both insight and encouragement for licensed practitioners to reshape the grading system into a more cohesive and effective model.

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.

Answers to Questions on Nidan Grading Facebook Sharing Post

The following is a series of questions received on my Facebook post sharing the previous blog post on the nidan grading. I found the questions interesting and insightful, and the answers would be a useful contribution to the discussion concerning the development of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system.

I am genuinely curious. Were any jujutsu candidates ever required to open Happoken no kata by, after the rei, shifting into an open stance, as often seen in formal demonstrations of other karate kata?

From Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his ju jitsu system (1997): 'Happoken no Kata (Kate of Eight Fists) ... Open by stepping into  kiba-dachi with the left then right leg then punch both fists down in front stopping at hip level' (p. 53).

The opening to JDJ's 'version' of happoken no kata is not as elaborate as that in Yoseikan, which reflects JDJ's focus on the practical.  

And were any jujutsu candidates required to open and close their demonstrations of Kentai ichi no kata with formal, kneeling rei to pass their grading?

The linked post is to the kata being performed by two of Hans de Jong's (HDJ) yudansha. It shows the formal opening and closing of the kata in seiza.

And, not to be too contrarian, but in the spirit of adding information. I was told by JDJ that he would not teach a particular Yoseikan kata of changing techniques because "it set bad habits:" The kata consists of a lengthy series of "changes" in an unrealistic chain. He said that you might need to adjust your intentions once, but that expecting further chances was unrealistic. (Or, maybe more accurately, that's how I interpreted what he said.)

Not sure how the author of the above comment is being contrarian as their comment is in line with mine in the previous post where I stated that JDJ included a 'changing techniques' section in his nidan grading even though he was opposed to the teaching of changing techniques because it initially trained ineffective technique.

The particular Yoseikan kata to which the author refers is Hyori no Kata (form of front and back). See this link for video of the kata. 

The first time I saw this kata was in a copy of Minoru Mochizuki's book that I obtained from Jan-Erik Karlsson and shared with JDJ (see linked post). The next time was in a two-disk DVD, Yoseikan Sogo Budo by Mochizuki.

I initially found the hyori no kata very interesting, however, I quickly came to the same point of view as JDJ. Why train poor technique? 

Why not train changing techniques, like everyone else does. The rationale, as explained above, is that you initially train poor technique, however, the rationale is also a samurai/warrior approach to combat. Your defensive technique is fully committed, and if that doesn't work, your next defensive technique is fully committed. 100% all the time, every time.

I remember my first introduction to changing techniques and how they were in fashion. It was at a seminar in southern Germany in the late 1980s. I was part of a group of instructors that accompanied JDJ as he was teaching at that seminar. I was ikkyu at that stage. JDJ had not included any changing techniques in his grading system at that stage. Even then I didn't appreciate the methodology. I successfully applied the initial technique to which the other person could not defend against. He said, 'You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to let me get out of it' (or words to that effect). Yeah, that's not the approach to combat that I had been taught.

And, if asked 'Why is the final sword technique in ken tai ichi no kata that was taught to you, which you graded, and which you now teach, result in a mutual slaying?' my answer would have to be 'It doesn't.' (1. the tenth technique certainly does not result in a mutual slaying. 2. Neither does the fifth technique "as I was taught it." For other readers and for some clarity, I agree with what John has previously said about the fifth technique performed the way he describes it. I did learn the kata, for the first time as a whole set rather than simple sword exercises, from JdJ as he was teaching John and Garth. The 'requirement' to enter directly when performing the fifth technique was not mentioned until several years later.

Don't quite understand what is being said there, however, the fifth sword technique in ken tai ichi no kata as JDJ taught (see above linked post), it was a downwards strike defended with specific instructions. The specific instructions were no evasive body-movement and tori's sword to never be raised higher than uke's neck. This results in a mutual slaying. This should be obvious even without observing the attack and defence.

JDJ was specific in his instructions, and he was right, at least in that regard. It's just that he misremembered the attack. The attack is a straight thrust, as I learned when acquiring the abovementioned Mochizuki videos. 

Watch the abovementioned HDJ yudansha ken tai ichi no kata with the technique in question on slow motion. How does tori avoid being slayed? Through the use of an evasive body-movement. This is how most of the instructors at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School performed the defence, even though JDJ was specific in his instructions - no evasive body-movement. The instructors did not teach the defence as including an evasive body-movement, even though they would employ an evasive body-movement when performing the defence or kata.

All just FWIW.

I am not familiar with this initialism.

The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 3.7: 8th Kyu

Okay, back on track.

The previous post (before the last post) looked at the first grading in the mon system for adults - 9th kyu. This post looks at the second grading in that system - 8th kyu, red and white belt.

Btw, if you're looking for quality belts and gi for your students at reasonable prices, see Ray Hana's Martial Arts Superstore.

Breakfalls (Ukemi)

Forwards roll, backwards roll, sideways roll, bridgefall, backwards roll over an obstacle, forwards roll over an obstacle, backwards flat over an obstacle, and sideways flat over an obstacle.

The new introduction is bridgefall, also referred to by Jan de Jong (JDJ) as o mae ukemi (major front breakfall). This technique was the subject of a 2010 post in which a video of the technique is posted.

Just as with sideways roll, this technique would appear to be relatively unique to JDJ's teachings, following a Google search and personal experience. 

In a 2010 post, I tell of an experience while teaching with JDJ in Sweden. JDJ demonstrated a 'hip turn' technique which I 'broke my fall' with o mae ukemi. During the break (no pun intended), I was approached by the seminar organiser, an instructor of a jujutsu school, and asked to teach him, not the hip-turn technique but the o mae ukemi to land safely from the execution of the technique. He had never heard of it or seen it before.

A point of differentiation that might be emphasised in the teachings of the jujutsu taught by JDJ, if it is understood by those teaching the jujutsu taught by JDJ.

The introduction of an obstacle for some of the breakfalls demonstrated in the previous grading is an increase in degree of difficulty over the previous grading.

Basic Blocks and Attacks (Uke and Atemi)

Front roundhouse kick, back side drive kick, and front side drive kick. Solo demonstrations. No blocks are included in this section.

A useful inclusion/replacement in this section could be Yoseikan Budo's (YB) sambo geri or yonbo (?) geri. These are exercise or kata that are used to teach three and four kicks respectively. I have found it a very useful exercise to teach, particularly in that it necessitates lifting the knee to stay balanced. Kicking skills are not great in most of those who trained exclusively within the JDJ jujutsu tradition. These kicking skills could be enhanced, based on experience, by training to lift the knee when initiating a kick, which the correct teaching of this kata teaches.

Last year I was assisting ikkyu graded jujutsuka in the JDJ tradition and introduced sambo geri to them. They could not perform the kata/kicks. This is representative of the kicking skills in the JDJ jujutsu, and aikido, tradition. Train your kicks people, and you might have to look outside your school to learn and train how to kick, as I did.

You will recall from the previous post, sambo geri was included in the ikkyu 'Basics' grading which then became the nikyu kime no kata/revision grading. Sambo geri was replaced by JDJ's wakai no kata which is included in the next grading, 7th kyu (part of the mon system), red belt.

Happoken no Kata

As has been stated before in numerous posts, this is a straight-up YB kata. JDJ changed the stances used in the kata which led to questions about the first block. Why is the middle block used when the taisbaki, evasive body-movement, has taken care of the injurious contact with body problem (see post 3.4)?

Last year, I saw a JDJ ryuha yudansha teaching this kata. They clearly had no understanding of the kata. The kata has four different strikes and four different blocks. The aforementioned yudansha was using basically the same striking technique for three of the four strikes.

Said yudansha also had no concept of the timing of the kata. It should be, 1,2 stop. 1,2 stop. 1,2,3,4 stop. Not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 stop. This was a common problem with the kata and kambangan (pencak silat kata) in JDJ's school. It was a race from the beginning to the end. This compromised techniques and what the exercise was supposed to be teaching. Taking the lead from the Setia Hati pencak silat that I introduced JDJ to and which he began to teach his pencak silat instructors and through them his students, the kata and kambangan were broken down into their constituent parts and trained separately before being put back together again for the complete kata/kambangan. In this way the timing was corrected and the techniques improved.

Another issue is that happoken no kata is only taught and trained as a grading requirement. Once completed, it is hardly, if ever, trained again. Should happoken no kata be examined at the end of the kyu system, ikkyu, to see if the candidate has improved their technique and understanding?

Body Movements (Taisabaki)

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

The issue of 'blocks' has been covered in a number of previous emails.

Flowing with front snap kick, entering, entering rotation, major entering rotation, sliding. The first three taisabaki were demonstrated in the previous grading. A progression with the flowing technique is the inclusion of a front snap kick. The final two taisabaki are new inclusions and complete the YB basic taisabaki.

Unbalancing (Kuzushi)

Normal single grip on sleeve (low) - Normal unbalancing - atemi

Normal single grip on sleeve (high) - Reverse unbalancing - atemi

Front both wrists grip - Same side unbalancing - atemi

Rear single wrist grip and strangle - Rear unbalancing - atemi

Normal, same side, reverse, and rear unbalancing are the basic unbalancing techniques from hand grips taught by YB.

Why is atemi included with each unbalancing? What is being examined in this unbalancing section? This is a classic example of a lack of understanding re the YB division of a defence into phases. The stance and positioning when executing the atemi means that this unbalancing demonstration is not necessarily helping when these unbalancing techniques are used within the grading system, other than when finishing with an atemi.

Locking Techniques (Kansetsu Waza)

'Two attackers, defender's choice of attack'

The inappropriateness of this stress grading to demonstrate the learned kansetsu waza has been discussed in a previous post.

The previous grading included wrist twist, arm turning, and body set arm breaking techniques. This grading includes wrist crush, variant arm entanglement, forearm twist. These techniques cover six of the nine basic kansetsu waza taught by JDJ jujutsu (and YB). 

Basic Blocks and Attacks (Uke and Atemi)

Different moving attack with flowing-brushing block-punch, entering-brushing block-punch, entering-double block-punch, flowing-brushing block-punch.

This is not the Unbalancing (Kuzushi) - Blocking (Uke) section introduced in the previous grading, even though brushing block was included in that section in the previous grading. As it is, this is a demonstration of a defence and not a part of the division of defences into phases.

Reflex (Shinken Shobu no Kata)

There are 10 attack-defence combinations included in this section of the grading. Nine of the 10 defences require a joint-locking technique to be demonstrated. The joint-locks include the three demonstrated in the previous grading and the three demonstrated in the above section in this grading, albeit against two attackers and so not assessed for their technical proficiency on their own.

The final defence is agains a stick - overhead attack. Last year I observed a JDJ ryuha class on multiple occasions where a stick - overhead attack was included in the training. The attacker had no idea what they were doing. They were attacking with the butt end of the stick, thus changing the distancing which in term affects the defence. 

The attack should be taught first and then teach the defence. If the attack is flawed, so will be the defence. The defender will become really proficient in defending against a flawed attack, which will probably mean that it will be ineffective against a real attack that is intended to do harm.

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.