Robert Drysdale recently broke down a point that surprises many practitioners, that what we call jiu jitsu and what we call judo were for most of the 20th century essentially the same thing.
Robert Drysdale traces the confusion back to how Japanese immigrants used the word jiu jitsu when arriving in the West in the early 20th century.
“The word jiu-jitsu today means something more specific thanks to 93 events, right? Royce Gracie and later IBJJF in ’94. It’s a clearer definition of the word. Early in the 20th century, it meant you might as well just say martial art. It would have been the same thing.”
He explained in a podcast appearance that newer waves of Japanese immigrants began using a more modern term.
“New waves of Japanese immigrants begin to use the word, a term more, the more modern term which is judo. So the younger generations of Japanese coming over to the west, they’re using judo. Some of the old generations continue to use the term jiu-jitsu.”
The result was terminology that appeared to describe different things but actually pointed to the same practice.
“The terms the younger generations are using new terms. Older generations are sticking to the jiu-jitsu term. They use it the same way. We get confused. I mean we don’t get confused because we understand this.”
On what pre war judo actually looked like in practice Robert Drysdale said it was far more balanced between standing and ground work than modern judo.
“It was closer to a 50/50 approach to combat. And this was true in Brazil as well within the Gracie family itself. It was closer to a 50/50 approach to combat.”
The Gracie family he argued was not unique during this period.
“The Gracie family becomes, they were not unique during that period. They sound unique now because of the story that followed, but at the time this was quite common. There were a lot of schools that were actually teaching the same thing.”
The schools that did not get absorbed by the Kodokan continued under the jiu jitsu banner.
“When I’m talking about pre-war judo, I’m referring to these schools. They stick to the model that is pre-Olympic.”
Robert Drysdale argued this remained the case well into the middle of the century.
“I’d still argue they were teaching what all these other jiu-jitsu schools around the world were teaching, which is essentially the judo/jujitsu, pre-war judo they had learned. It was essentially self-defense with like a more or less 50/50 approach to combat, right? 50% standup, 50% ground.”
For Robert Drysdale the defining moment that separated what we now call Brazilian jiu jitsu from everything that came before it was not in the 1920s or 1930s but in August 1975.
“August 1975 was when they created the rule set that defines jiu-jitsu as a sport of practice today, the ground orientation for which BJJ is known today. At the time it was two points for takedown, two points for pass, three points for knee on belly, four for mount, four for back, what I call the progression paradigm. It is a very ground orientated art. This begins in 1975.”
He was direct about what that means for the timeline.
“I would argue 1975, hence 50 years of a martial arts revolution, because that’s when the ground orientation begins to distinguish the Brazilian version of jiu-jitsu or judo from official Kodokan judo, because up to then, it’s not so different.”
The central argument of his book rests on that idea.
“The argument, the central argument is what the world is practicing today is something much younger. It has a genealogy. We’re not denying the genealogy. Just like we acknowledge that Brazilian jiu-jitsu descends from judo, just like we acknowledge that judo descends from jujutsu. So there’s no birth. There’s only transformation.”
