wat is better. judo or jiu jitsu?

Question

personaly i think that judo is better because the founder of it took all the effective jiu jitsu tech. from many different styles and combined it into one martial art. also, i think judo tends to be a more dynamic sport than jiu jitsu.

personaly i think that judo is better because the founder of it took all the effective jiu jitsu tech. from many different styles and combined it into one martial art. also, i think judo tends to be a more dynamic sport than jiu jitsu. if your not familier with judo then check out some of these photos http://www.judophotos.com/

Answer 1

First off. BJJ is not JuJitsu. It was taken from Judo. In the 1951 Jigoro Kano the creator of Judo sent his best students to Brazil to compete againts Brazils top fighters which included Helio Gracie Royces Father. One of them fought Helio Gracie and Broke his arm with an arm lock. The mans name was Masahiko Kimura... Which is why Helio named that arm lock the Kimura. After the man that broke his arm... So the fact that it was called BJJ rather than Brazillion or Gracie Judo is suprising to most people at the time.
To those people who say Judo is only takedowns and throws etc... They know nothing about either style... BJJ takes all of it's submissions from Judo, not JuJitsu and Judo does not in anyway take anything from BJJ.
Judo is more well rounded and offers the same and more techniques than BJJ. All you need to do is take one look at Karo Parisyan in the UFC and see how effective Judo is in that styloe of fighting.
Judo is defenatly more dynamic rounded and better suited for physical fitness and self defence. JuJitsu is not intended as a sport it was created as a means of restraining or subduing an attacker once you were able to grab them or they grabbed you. Don't mistake JuJitsu and BJJ they are totally different. BJJ iwas created specifically for sport that is why it limits the amount of take downs it teaches and only focusses on a core group of techniques. Judo was created to replace JuJitsu in Japan as the main self defence style for police military and other groups, which it did... As for a Black belt in BJJ or JuJitsu beating black belt Judoka... LMAO. There are half the belts in BJJ to get to Black. Less years are required and you learn fewer techniques than you will in Judo. The Judoka would throw the BJJ fighter on his head faster than he can even think of what he's gonna do next. Then hold him down and make him tap with a Ude garame... Or as BJJ calls it Kimura, which again is named after the Judoka who broke Helio's arm....

Answer 2

For self-defense, using the modern definitions of each style, I would choose Judo.

In most cases Judo will allow you to remain on your feet. This is valuable because you can get away from the conflict before it escalates and someone gets seriously injured or killed.

There is absolutely nothing to gain from a street fight, but you can lose plenty, even if you "win". The best choice would be not to participate at all. But, if you are attacked, I believe it is best to strike, get the guy off you, so that you can get away. You cannot run or even walk away while laying on your back in the guard. Maybe you can break a guy's arm, but he might have 5 friends already arming themselves to attack you while you are locked up on the ground.

Judo will allow you to hold you balance, deflect an attack, and get out of there before the worst situation ever happens. This is the wisest move in my opinion and experience.

Answer 3

For the purposes of the discussion, it seems relevant to point out that Jiu Jitsu (Japanese Jiu Jitsu) is NOT the same as the Brazilian variety.

Originally there was Jiu Jitsu (fighting). Judo's breakthrough was not to 'take what works best', but to 'take what we can practice at close to full speed safely'.

What this meant was that Judo practicioners had all had REAL experience in the small subset of Japanese Jiu Jitsu moves that they DID practice, and hence were much much better at performing them against resisting opponents.

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu comes from Judo, not JJJ, and takes all the same moves from Judo, except the emphasis is primarily groundwork.

Judo is good, because you compete, BJJ is good, because you compete (and you CAN compete because it's been sportified, sportification of an art is a GOOD thing if realism can be kept). JJJ can be good if trained properly, but 90% of the time it isn't AS good, simply because you can't get as good at that many more moves, and more JJJ practitioners don't compete.

Judo excels at throws from standing, BJJ excels at submission from the ground. Both are very useful, although I tend to believe the BJJ black belts have a slight advantage over Judo black belts simply due to the belt ranking systems (ie: a black belt in either doesn't necessarily indicate equivalent skill) BUT, both are head and shoulders above traditional Japanese Jiu Jitsu.

Answer 4

Judo has great ways of getting the fight to the ground but from there Jiu-Jitsu is much better. The weird thing is alot of BJJ schools teach Judo throws and Judo schools teach BJJ submissions. I don't think either of the styles are better than eachother as a whole. It all really comes down to what you want to do with your opponent. If you want to force them on flight plans than Judo is better but if you want to Rice Crispie their joints then Jiu-Jitsu is better.

Answer 5

for taking an opponent down judo is superior to jui jitsu but once that transition is made jui jitsu is far superior since its primary focus is submissions. now if you really want to get technical brazillian jui jitsu is the greatest of them all. What Helio and his family did was take traditional Jui Jitsu which relies heavily on the strength of the practioner in order to be effective and adapted it so that a person who is less athletic then his adversary can still submit his opponent through technique as opposed to strength. A-lot of people pose these same type of questions but i think that any martial art style can be used effectively and that there isnt really a clear cut answer as to which single style is the best.

Answer 6

Jujutsu is a wider system that was originally a strichly samurai art. A founder of Judo - Jigaro Kano, took whats best and made more available for the public, plus his style was based on "strengthening the character to defend the nation" which is very typical of the post Meiji Era, a return to the samurai stalwart values.

Answer 7

I don't think any art is ultimately better than another.
Judo is mostly takedowns, with strikes and submissions in some styles.
Jujutsu is similar, but now we have many styles that are almost completely based on ground striking and submissions (Like our good friend BJJ).
My opinion is that Judo can sometimes be better in certain situations because you can initiate an attack rather waiting for your prey, but jujtusu with striking and takedowns is also good since you have those backbones to get to the ground where you can have your fun.
Judo/Jujutsu with striking and takedown elements=Good
Jujutsu without striking/Judo without extensive groundwork (Not that I know of any that exist)=Also good
Both can help in certain situations.

Answer 8

They are two halves of one whole.

Judo concentrates mainly on the standing techniques of the old Japanese Jiujitsu while modern Jiujitsu focuses on the mat work.

Judo and Jiujitsu complement each other perfectly, since Judo newaza is basically Jiujitsu and when two Jiujitsu players are standing up, they can use Judo principles to take the fight to the ground and have good position.

Answer 9

Oddly, it was my peacenik wife who put it best:

"It's not the style that the fighter has mastered, it's the fighters mastery OF that style."

I think this is particularly true of the Judo/Jui-juitsu debate.

Answer 10

The founder of Judo took what he thought was best from Jujitsu... The founder of Aikido took what he thought was best from Aikijujitsu (a specific school of Jujitsu) .... I guess that makes them all, in one way, Jujitsu still.