Download_pdf: portal7.info?q=Mastering+Jujitsu In recent years, the grappling arts have proven to be the most. online pdf format Mastering Jujitsu (Mastering Martial Arts Series), ^^pdf download Mastering Jujitsu (Mastering Martial Arts Series). Read Read Mastering Jujitsu (Mastering Martial Arts Series) | pDf books Ebook Online Unlimited Download Here: portal7.info
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|ePub File Size:||22.56 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.30 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
MASTERING JUJITSU Renzo Gracie John Danaher Human Kinetics Library of (Adobe PDF) ISBN (Adobe PDF) Copyright © by Renzo . Mastering Jujitsu is intended to break new ground in jujitsu instruction. Mastering Jujitsu - 1st Edition () - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online. The Art of Jujitsu. Not only will Mastering Jujitsu help you progress from isolated skill development The depth and breadth of topics covered in Mastering Jujitsu will aid even the.
The first is the theoretical element of jujitsu, which is concerned with the philosophical basis of the art, its overall goal, and the strategy by which it attempts to reach that goal. The second is the historical element, which is concerned with the actual history of the art and its development and changes. A clear understanding of jujitsu as a martial art requires analysis of both components. Taken at face value, the character ju means gentle, soft, or flexible. Jitsu is variously translated as technique or art. Gentle art or flexible art does not help us much.
An annual anal Embed Size px. Start on. Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. Published in: Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No. Be the first to like this. No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares. Embeds 0 No embeds. No notes for slide. Book details Author: Renzo Gracie Pages: English ISBN Description this book Featuring the underlying strategies, planning and tactical skills required to take basic movements to a higher level, this video should be useful to any jujitsu artist.
Download Here http: Taken at face value, the character ju means gentle, soft, or flexible. Jitsu is variously translated as technique or art.
Gentle art or flexible art does not help us much. In fact, there is a definite irony in the idea of jujitsu as a gentle art because many of its techniques are extremely brutal. Clearly, a deeper analysis of the term is required.
The key to the theoretical core of jujitsu is an adequate understanding of ju. To comprehend the meaning of gentleness or flexibility as it is used in jujitsu, we need to consider their opposites. Gentle stands in sharp contrast to the quality we normally associate with fighting prowessstrength.
Typically, we think of the stronger man as having a definite advantage in any combat situation. Thus, jujitsu identifies itself in contrast to raw strength. Seen in this light, the theoretical basis of jujitsu becomes clearer. The guiding principle behind ju is the idea of a weaker gentler force overcoming a stronger force through the application of technique, or jitsu, rather than strength and aggression.
Reduced to its core, jujitsu is the employment of intelligence and skill to overcome brute strength and aggression. In this context, we can make sense of a martial art that regularly makes use of a potentially life-threatening technique in violent confrontations as gentle. This should not be misunderstood as a notion of gentleness or softness. Strength is used in jujitsu.
It can definitely help to be strong, but strength is used in an intelligent, rational manner as part of a strategy guided by efficient technique.
Rather than confront strength with strength, jujitsu confronts strength with efficient technique and strategy so that the weaker fighter can attain victory.
In practice, this means applying a high percentage of your total strength to a low percentage of your opponents strength. A simple example can illustrate this principle. If a weaker fighter applies an efficient stranglehold on an opponent, he uses a large proportion of his overall strength to a small proportion of his opponents strength the neck and throat.
Thus, if a weaker fighter can attack a vulnerable part of his opponents body such as the neck or joints with greater strength than his opponent can defend it with, he is effectively stronger than his opponent, even if his overall strength is less.
This is the theoretical basis of jujitsu conveyed by ju. Technically skilled fighters can then efficiently apply what strength they have in a way that can cause sufficient damage to end the fight. A way to understand the meaning that lies behind ju comes from an analysis of the phrase ju yoku sei go, which translates as softness controls hardness. This phrase conveys the idea of a smaller force initially giving way or yielding to a stronger force to eventually overcome it.
Thus, it amounts to the use of strategy, one that resists strength with technique, and not additional strength. Most can give at least a coherent account of the origins of their art, even if it is not backed by concrete evidence. It is often thought that observance of history reveals important truths about the nature of a given combat style and thus enables the student to grasp the fundamental goals and attributes of that style.
In assessing the social, political, and practical elements that lie behind the history of an art, much can be learned about its core commitments and goals. Every martial art arises and develops as a response to a given problem or set of problems.
By looking at the history of an art, we can see clearly how it arose and changed in the face of these problems.
An effective test of any historical explanation is its ability to furnish adequate answers to these questions. The first question involves fighting styles. If one were to take a broad survey of the martial systems of the world, one notices a number of striking features.
First, there are many similarities in the techniques used by the different styles, even when they are separated by vast geographical distances and time periods. For example, almost every striking style has a variation of the basic kick, front kick, side kick, and roundhouse kick. Almost every grappling art has a variation of the double-leg takedown or the hip throw.
This first problem, then, is explaining the many similarities that exist between fighting styles.
In other words, how did the many different martial arts evolve in similar directions? Second, and in opposition to the first question, one cannot help but be equally struck by the obvious differences that have evolved among the different fighting styles. One sees dramatic differences between the arts of one nation or region and those of another.
For example, there are many shared techniques between Japanese karate and Korean taekwondo, yet the way those same techniques are used give rise to two different fighting styles. The result, despite much overlapping technique, is two different martial arts. The third problem is that of explaining the changes that occur over time within a given martial art and across the martial arts in general.
In the past century, one martial art would rise to prominence for a period, only to be eventually outshone by another, which would then be replaced by some newcomer. Even within a given martial art, massive changes can occur. Our attempts to offer a theory of martial arts history, then, must be able to account for these three problems.
Centralized Origins Theory In answering questions about the historical origins of a martial art, three major approaches are commonly used.
The first may be termed centralized origins theory.
Often one hears reference to semilegendary figures such as the sixth-century Bodhidharma, who traveled from India to China and taught his combat exercises to the monks of the Shaolin Temple. From this centralized origin, the various arts allegedly emerged and spread out over time. Undoubtedly, this theory of martial arts history has been widely used by many martial arts to explain their origins. This is somewhat surprising because there is little hard evidence or inherent credibility for the claim that one person or one group laid an original and unprecedented foundation for the fighting arts.
Such a theory has several serious problems. Too often, the date given for the central origin of an art conflicts with hard historical evidence that shows the prior existence of related fighting styles. For example, the purported influence of the Shaolin temple on Japanese fighting styles comes late in the sixth century. Yet, we have a well-known reference to an empty-hand duel in 23 B. After an exchange of grappling, the match ended with one of the contestants being kicked to death.
Clearly, this predates any possible influence from the alleged singular source of the martial arts. In fact, the ancient Greeks in the West had a highly developed martial art called pankration that bears a striking resemblance to modern grappling forms of jujitsu hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Clearly then, the development of a complete martial art long before the most commonly cited central origin is not without precedent.
In the case of jujitsu, another character often identified as the central origin is Chin Genpin, a man who excelled in such diverse arts as literature, poetry, architecture, and combat. Often, he is cited as the originator of jujitsu.
Although he certainly did exist and did travel from his native China to Japan some time in the 17th century circa , it seems unlikely that he could have done any more than exert an influence on jujitsu technique in those localized areas where he traversed.
A former student of the Shaolin temple, Chin Genpin met Fukuno Masakatsu, a man much interested in combat arts. It appears Genpin taught his kenpo to a small but interested audience. That jujitsu has Genpin as its source, however, is implausible. Many documents show the existence of established ryu jujitsu schools long before , when Fukuno met Genpin. Fukuno was obviously a student of the martial arts himself before ever meeting Genpin, which shows the prior existence of martial arts schools in Japan.
Once again, the idea of a solitary source of a martial art is fraught with problems. Another problem for the centralized origins theory is its clash with common sense. It would seem quite extraordinary that one person or one small group should gain a unique insight into combat technique that had eluded the rest of the world. In addition, the conditions that create a need for martial skillswar and civil strifeare not unique to one region or time. The reality of conflict would naturally inspire people of every region to create a fighting system, and the development of such a system is not so difficult that it requires unique genius to construct it.
A third weakness of the centralized origins theory is that it cannot account for the obvious differences between the martial arts of different regions and times. If the true foundations of the martial arts genuinely came from one birthplace and were so much superior to anything else, why do we see such variation among them?
To say that people subsequently modified them at a later date is inadequate. If we can presume that autonomous development of fighting arts is that common and simple, then we can probably doubt that it took one central originator to develop them all in the first place.
Fundamental weaknesses such as these severely undermine the credibility of the centralized origins theory and force us to look elsewhere for a satisfactory account of the history of the martial arts. Shared Conditions Theory Another theory of the history of the martial arts that has gained widespread acceptance is shared conditions theory.
The idea behind this theory is that the central problems and conditions that create a need for a martial artwarfare, interpersonal conflict, crimeare present in virtually every culture and time.
In addition, the raw material around which a martial art is designedthe human bodyis roughly the same at all times and places. Accordingly, different people in different regions at different times have been faced with the same problems. Given the physical similarities between the peoples in these different times and places, it is unsurprising that similar answers were provided to those original problems.
An excellent statement of shared conditions theory was made by Koizumi Sensei, seventh dan, kodokan judo. As to the origin and native land of jujitsu, there are several opinions, but these are found to be mere assumptions based on narratives relating to the founding of certain schools or some incidental records or illustrations found in ancient manuscripts, not only in Japan, but also in China, Persia, Germany and Egypt.
There is no record by which the origins of jujitsu can be definitely established. It would however, be rational to assume that ever since the creation, with the instinct of self-preservation, man has had to fight for his existence and was inspired to develop an art or skill to implement the body mechanism for this purpose.
In such efforts, the development may have taken various courses according to the conditions of life or tribal circumstance, but the objects of the body being common, the results could not have been so different from each other. No doubt this is the reason for finding records relating to the practice of arts similar to jujitsu in various parts of the world. Sterling Publishing The historical evidence in support of this theory is strong.
Several clear instructional manuals, illustrations, and art works that depict combat styles similar to jujitsu are from areas and times that cannot possibly be related to the development of jujitsu in Japan, or anywhere else in the Far East. The implication is clear: Combat styles evolved and developed in disparate regions out of necessity.
The same conditions and problems were encountered in all places and times, and the human body is relatively the same in all times and places. It can only be locked, punched, kicked, thrown, off-balanced, tripped, and swept in so many ways.
Therefore, and unsurprisingly, each group arrived at similar answers to the shared problems.
The main problem with the shared conditions theory, however, is its difficulty in accounting for important differences between fighting styles and also for the changes and revolutions that periodically occur both within a specific martial art and across the martial arts in general.
Although there are clear similarities between the arts of different times and places, it is equally clear some important differences exist as well. Some arts emphasize long-range kicking attacks Korean taekwondo ; some favor gymnastics and rhythmic skills AfroBrazilian capoiera ; others favor linear striking karate ; others specialize in clinching and in-fighting Thai and Burmese boxing.
The list of styles is long, and each brings its own particular emphasis to the table. Shared condition theory has little to say about these deviations, other than the obvious point that local conditions may have influenced the unique direction of a particular martial arts growth. In addition, there is the problem of change and evolution within the arts. How and why did styles change over time? Why do some come into favor and then get replaced?
To adequately answer these questions, we must turn to another theory of martial arts history. Great Person Theory The great person theory of martial arts history posits the following idea: The history of the arts is essentially the history of great individuals who rose to prominence in their place and time through a combination of skill, innovation, personal charisma, teaching ability, and achievement.
These individuals gained attention through some extraordinary demonstration of skill, often through the use of challenge matches or combat. If they had the capacity to teach these skills to others and if they had the ability to recruit and retain enough students, they could then build a new tradition, school, or style of combat. Quite often, these people themselves began under an established style.
As they gained knowledge and experience, their innovative insights began to emerge. They could go on to develop or emphasize some new element and thus change the way that people view martial arts training and theory. The great person theory is a commendable approach to the history of the martial arts.
A survey of the arts in general, and jujitsu in particular, reveals a cast of truly fascinating characters who have created radical new directions and movements in combat training. The chief advantage of the great person theory is the ease with which it can help explain the many changes in direction that have occurred within jujitsu.
Talented leaders create some new body of technique or way of training and drilling technique into students that enables them to excel in combat or combative events. This success creates a following that results in the development of a new school or style.
In recent times, the Gracie family from Brazil is a good example of a talented group of people who gained a large following through success in combative events. These jujitsu exponents embraced a controversial and initially unpopular thesisthat grappling in particular, ground grappling was absolutely essential to success in real fights.