Royler teaches the wildboyz BJJ!

[Tom Yum]

you poor soul.

"As to the origin and native land of Ju Jutsu, there are several opinions, but they are found to be mere assumptions based on narratives relating to the founding of certain schools, or some incidental records or illustrations found in the ancient manuscripts not only in Japan but in China, Persia, Germany, and Egypt. There is no record by which the origins of Ju Jutsu 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 figbt for 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 condition of life or tribal circumstance, but the object and mechanics of the body being common, the results could not have been so very different from each other. No doubt this is the reason for finding records relating to the practice of arts similar to Ju Jutsu in various parts of the world, and also for the lack of records of its origins."
---- Sensei G. Koizumi, Kodokan 7th Dan

i guess you need to hear it from an ancient source?

Got it. You're defining the history of jiu-jitsu by man's history of grappling, whereas I am defining it by the time-line of martial arts in east asia.

Frame of reference, I suppose.

[BoarSpear]

Common sense tells you that we hit first, then we learned to grab (sieze and control) throws probably developed after the abilty to sieze was refined. weapons were probably added very early and wrestling would be a natural by product of striking and siezing... however ground fighting would never be high on the list of things you would do when fighting a pack of club or spear bearing individuals. So its doubtful the first martial arts were ground based.

[Tap-r-Snap]

Common sense tells you that we hit first, then we learned to grab (sieze and control) throws probably developed after the abilty to sieze was refined. weapons were probably added very early and wrestling would be a natural by product of striking and siezing... however ground fighting would never be high on the list of things you would do when fighting a pack of club or spear bearing individuals. So its doubtful the first martial arts were ground based.

i understand what you are saying, but your point lacks basis.

you stated that it is unlikely that a person would resort to ground fighting when faced with a group of individuals holding spears.
I would tend to agree with you. Therin lyes the problem.
Do you think that humans had to defend themselves *BEFORE* the invention of weaponry? Of course they did, and this is the basis of Jiu jitsu.
The manipulation of the body as a whole mechanism to subdue or kill your opponent.

[danfaggella]

I think it depends on what a "martial art" is. From what I know, there were grappling arts in China prior to Buhudimara (WOW, great spelling on my part, but you know who I'm talking about, the guy that taught the early monks the benefits of physical health so that they could meditate for longer periods of time, ect...). And in many people's eyes, that temple is the genesis of all Kung Fu styles today, and also japanese Karate.

The Egyptians also had wrestling, that is for sure, though i'm not sure if that can be classified as a martial art.

All in all, people have been defending themselves everywhere for a very long time, weather these methods are classified as martial arts or still exist today is a different story. Wrestling is very old, and is seen in so many ancient societies. This is probably so for the same reasons it (and other grappling arts) art practiced today, because it is like fighting, only nobody REALLY gets hurt, plus its a way for males to compete.

Obviously schools of weapons and striking were prevolent as wel in certani areas, but no set of combative technique is quite as old as those wrestling styles of varios ancient civilizations.