Bottom line here is not what style, but what instructor and martial arts school. There are good and bad instructors and schools in every style of martial arts. Better to study with a really knowledgeable instructor than to study a style because of location or who recommends it. Styles are tools. They are only as good as the person using them. find a good instructor and you will do well. Study at one of the many Mcdojo that hand out black belts to children and sell contracts and you will learn very little, yet pay a lot for it. good instructors will never tell you that you can be a certain belt rank in a certain amount of time. As a long time instructor I know that there are a lot of students that will never have what it takes to be a legitimate black belt, no matter how long they train. Good martial arts is about learning to defend yourself, not about what belt you are wearing. If belt ranks is the focus of the students all the time then something is very wrong there.
...
If you can figure which of those has the best instructor, that is where to go. Or if they seem about the same, the one that interests you. All are great arts.
About the comment about "compliance". It is sort of correct. If you do not 'comply' with an akidoka, you get bones broken, and joints ripped apart. Police and military teach aikido technique to their members, because it works, Make no mistake, aikido is not used in sport because of the danger. Aikido technique is not allowed when playing as silly game like MMA, to protect the players.
KW gets his little fantasy mixed up with reality all the time. MMA is not a martial art kiddies, nor is it "best" for anything other than MMA, and feeding the egos of those who pretend to be what they are not, and have not the stuff to be.
Watch some classes, talk to the teachers, and make your own informed decision. It is you who will have to live with that decision.
they are all great arts, japanese jujutsu has over 300 styles.
and because kw took it in collage course for less then 6 months which is well know to be one of the worst it all must be bad. the millions of instructors must all be the same. wow what a childish remark from kw.
aikido doe not require compliance in less you use jims example where you either go with it or have your joint broken or wrecked
There's some good answers already. Though in theory, they have similar elements in common. All are kinda internal focusing on usage of physics to overcome a stronger adversary. Though some has elements of external mechanics in them.
If you prefer something that gets exhausted moderately....it depends on the school as general answer. Though some aikido schools in training method gives you moderate exercise. It's not to say some judo or jujutsu schools maybe less strenuous and more on technical development.
Muscular and buff really depends on the training method. Some judo people are kind of bulk not because judo itself but really more because of competitive drills to strengthen upper body. e.g. rope climbing is a common training that is less common in jujutsu and aikido schools.
Difference between them is also kind of greyish because of teachings of different school. Some jujutsu people around says that some judo schools are more jujutsu than some jujutsu schools and some say aikido is more like judo or the other. It's like a triangle where any difference is largely minor and very bordeline.
Judo is somewhat based on sport training, to develop good balance, timing and leverage on ground to subdue and pin. The last point somehow makes its nature more towards fighting than escaping. Judo is kind of more linear. Balance and timing is vital to breaking someone enough to the point where you could load them and dump them. There are joint manipulations in judo but primarily in the context of sport in that it leaves area for someone locked to exploit or it puts someone on the ground too long. Judo's point of balance somehow gives a higher emphasis on larger opponents. (e.g. in jujutsu you could throw by uppercutting someone's chin, eye jabbing then throw someone, off balancing and attacking, then throwing but if the guy's head is so high and you can barely reach, then just off balance and throw. It's not really a correct statement though there's something in it.) Aside from a sport. It was kind of a way of introducing a codified and standard version of jujutsu into the west. For jujutsu has too many styles and a full version would do more harm than good in basic training. It would be information overload. Judo was called jujitsu in its early age.
Aikido is designed for self defense to first let you do compliant drills. You've got to get the position of locks and anatomy exactly right so it's vital you do compliant drills to reach the correct technical level or otherwise it won't work if a lock e.g. elbow is slightly off the socket. Aikido unlike its predecessor is much more circular than linear, thus you neutralize more of attacks that coming in wild with full commitment. Which also works much better for judo and jujutsu. Aikido locks are somewhat designed more towards pain compliance and control in that the locks gives some control and leaves your hands open to prevent the locked guy from attacking. That is not to say you can't break someone using Aikido. Aikido takedowns are throws too but throws someone out rather than down like judo and geidan jujutsu styles. Thus it's the reason why aikido breakfalls tend to make you roll away while judo breakfall prepares you for hard impacts. Aikido has somewhat more information than judo in that it includes more body shifting and stepping offline. The biggest technical difference between judo and aikido is range. Aikido is done to prevent a clinch, while judo is a way to stay alive in it if the opponent's too big and strikes alone are not sufficient. Aikido at its basics teachs outside of clinch, then to nage closer to a clinch. Judo starts with clinch then move slower towards outside of the clinch.
Jujutsu as someone said has 300 styles in Japan. If you count the number of modern jujutsu, there's at least a million, some of them are made up right on the spot from mixtures of karate, judo, aikido or Japanese martial arts. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Traditional jujutsu can contain a mixture of judo and aikido. In addition to them, it contains a heavier emphasis on close quarter striking, not the type of kickboxing punch and kick that works at long range. All 3 are pretty close in distance. Jujutsu has somewhat of a lethality in that the locks are made to immediately break someone as quick as striking if done right. Furthermore, jujutsu throws unlike judo land adversaries on their head which is more lethal and harder to prepare (not saying a good judo guy can't modify his throws to dot the same) Jujutsu is different to Jiu jitsu, jiu jitsu is a Brazilian derivative of judo that focus more on the last option. Subdue and control on the ground.
Though jujutsu and aikido have more principles considering armed attackers than judo, some of its weapon works like any other arts are under increasing criticism for its undynamic nature. From complete Fairbain Training manual. The instructor of elite OSS WWII secret service wrote this:
"Note: I have studied this issue for more than twenty-five years and have experienced the attentions of the finest instructors in the world. Please be assured that no martial arts school or technique can offer a predictable method of defense against a knife, and most of the techniques and methods one sees are suicidal against a knife fighter."
Though I may not be completely in agreement, his statement is absolutely correct to a high extent.
That's only technical differences. Training differences varies too.
Jujutsu is originally a method that has too many training methods. Some teacher prefer to make you take falls and start fights with students then after feeling out the senior's techniques he starts to refine your movements and teach you technical development. Some rather teach you technical developments first then start controlled fights to apply. Some would go as far as make you throw someone in full armor.
Aikido has various drills that you repeat to develop structure. Something they highly regard. Then there's randori to allow you to develop some movements against attacks although whether they actually work against multiple opponent is questionable. Compliant drills make you do it absolutely right since a tiny error could make it not work. So techniques are pretty important.
Judo mainly do it in a sport way. They teach you throws, when they feel you're ready. You go in rules governed fights and test your balance and timing to add to the refined movement you have. Feel out the principles of maximum efficiency.
Those are really gross and incorrect generalizations as schools ultimately make the difference. They both suffer plagues of their own.
Judo schools are more oriented towards sporting contest to the point where some schools believe the context of sport training and survival doing as the same thing.
Aikido are sometimes too geared towards techniques that they are losing principles, some schools are becoming fantasy dance lands of rituals.
Jujutsu schools are impossible to find in the west. Even legitimate schools cost a lot. Plus you need to decipher a lot of codification to allow the martial art to resurface against traditions. Modern jujustu sometimes lack the technical refinement aikido and judo schools have though they may be more mindset geared to self protection.
Though some of the 3 arts may be more defensive based e.g. you don't want to deliberately take grip on someone in protection scenario like judo. So use it if you can't increase distance or grabbed and gripped. Or don't control someone unless you have to stay there, like Aikido. They can all be offensive or defensive depending on practitioner. Though some believe judo lost some offensive capabilities e.g. pre-emptive strikes as primary strategy.
All in all just find a good school free of the plagues and you've got a good art despite limitations.
Judo. It's founder had great philosophy of not hurting others in sports.
im gonna be joining one of them but I'm not sure which one suits me best. I'm a girl, 16 years old, flexible(used to do figure skating). Im not really fond of intense workouts like having to run 10km in like 5mins. i prefer something that gets you exhausted but not to the point where i feel like i am on the verge of death. oh and preferably one that doesn't make me get all muscle-y and buff. And can you list the differences between them(like which one is more on the offensive side or defensive. stuff like that). I've researched online but i don't know which one is reliable because the websites all say different stuff. thanks! oh and if none of them suit me, please recommend another type of martial art, preferably east asian like maybe taekwondo? thanks a bunch!
