Talk:Jujutsu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutrality in Question

• Original Post

While the vast majority of the "Sports" article can be used, it is in vast need of a rewrite. The writers' style is unfitting of an encyclopedic passage, and openly uses phrases and anecdotes as if they were fact. The first paragraph alone is insulting to anyone who reads it, let alone those of martial training and more personal connection to the art itself. The writer, while informed and knowledgable to a degree, needs to considered the position of others before his own when bolding stating opinions in matters that are in ongoing debate. SageKorma 06:31, 9 January 2006 (utc)

• End of Original Post

I hope these comments enlighten the issues you have raised. Dbol 23:09, 11 February 2006 (utc)

I went ahead and tagged the article for POV and need of an expert mostly on the grounds already presented here. To be specific, the article

1)::* doesn't really give a solid definition of jujutsu hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

The precise definition of ju jitsu (ju jutsu) translated from japanese into english is "the gentle art" (this is a japanese euphamism relateing to the philosophy that force should not be met with force, but instead to win in combat you must use the opponents force against him). Indeed ju jitsu is anything but gentle. Ju jitsu in pre 1900's japan was used as an umbrella term . This is because in japan each school of martial arts has its own name. Ju jitsu as a term refered to all the schools of japanese martial arts. As a term, ju jitsu is analogous to the chinese term for martial arts "gung fu" (aka kung fu), in that both terms refer to many schools of martial art, all of which share many similarities but are distinct (analogy-one language many dialects/accents). There were once in excess of 2000 different ju jitsu schools during its hey day in the 1600's. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

"Gentle" is one translation for "ju"; but perhaps "yielding", "flexible", or "adaptive" comes closer to the intended meaning of the term.

2)::* is rambling and includes a history of Japanese martial arts without connecting it to jujutsu hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

The connection of japanese martial arts such as aiki-do and ju-do and karate-do to ju jitsu is one of lineage. Ju jitsu is the ancestor to all those styles.

Note: The format known as Jujutsu has shared many names over the years viz. Wa jutsu, Taijutsu, Yawara, Kogusoku, Chikara kurabe, Hakushi, Torite, etc.

Modern martial art styles are divergences (specializations) of ju jitsu. Technically they are still ju jitsu. However, in modern times ju jitsu referes to a martial art in which all aspects of combat are taught together. In contrast, aiki-styles concentrate on techniques involving the wrist. Ju-do concentrates on trowing and not striking or wrist manipulation. Karate-do concentrates on striking. The founders of these schools developed parts of ju jitsu that suited their own preferences. Before 1900, aiki-do was termed aiki-jitsu (one particular school of ju jitsu), and similarly karate-do was karate-jitsu. "jitsu" means art, and "do" means way. Under american threat of invasion, in 1905 japan aggreed to trade with america and disband the samurai class (who bitterly oppposed western culture). Along with this settlement, many soke's (school heads) met under the auspicies of jigaro kano and their schools of ju jitsu had their sylabus changed to meet western standards of civility. Most ju jitsu schools became jui-do (now called ju-do) and practiced a form known as kodokan judo. Aiki-jitsu schools prefered to be distinct, but they also changed their sylabus to meet demands of the emperor. Thereby, aiki-jitsu became aiki-do. The same happened to empty hand (kara-te in japanese) styles which are now called karate-do. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

3)::* is clearly written from a Japanese nationalistic POV and is rambling on western imperialism (which, while condemning western imperialism, also neglects to point out Japan becoming western-style imperialists themselves in the century before WWII) hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

Believe me this site was written by a westerner. You are right about one thing, japanese are deeply proud of being japanese. Firstly, a japanese person would not have written an article on ju jitsu mentioning any western influences at all. Secondly, a japanese person would not have written the article in english. Many western martial art practitioners read books upon the history of martial arts. The history is well documented and is not disputed.

In brief, japan was forced out of isolation in the late nineteenth century. The americans and the british (who at the time were the colonial world super powers) wanted japan to trade with them. The japanese had been isolated from asia and the world for well over 1000 years. They had no modern weaponry such as artillary and machine guns. They had no modern navy, and were helpless to defend themselves against threat of invasion from the americans. Along with the treaties signed agreeing to trade, japan promised to dispand the samurai class which had the function of the police and the army combined. This led to a war between the samurai and imperial japanese soldiers commisioned by the emperor. It was a fight over the cultural direction of japan.

After trade agreements came into force, the japanese government realised that they could no longer ignore the rest of the world. They bought modern weaponry to prepare themselves against possible attack. Along with this, japan decided to invade other asian countries (korea and china). Before american and british intervention, japanese society was in constant cival war fueled by disuputes between feudal over lords known as shoguns. This kept japan from uniting and invading other parts of the world. Affectively western intervention forced the japanese to unite. The japanese mearly followed british and american example and decided to improve their own outlook and national security by invading neibouring countries.

They indeed wanted to become imperialists, just like britain and america. Hope that clears it up. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

4)::* doesn't differentiate jujutsu from other tenets of feudal japanese culture (naturally jujutsu is a part of japanese culture and has elements of shintoism, bushido, etc. Within, but where do they end and where does jujutsu begin?) hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

Religion in japan influenced the lives of every japanese person (just as christianity affected europeans during our feudal period). Japan did not have one religion, but instead many relgions co-existed together. Shintoism, taoism, budism, and to a lesser extent confusionism were the main doctrins. Ergo, a samurai would have been influenced by aspects of all these religions. Ju jitsu has a philosophical aspect. The hagekura is the samurai equivalent of the bible although other books were written. Bushido (way of the warrior) affects the conduct of a samurai, but has no inluence on ju jitsu technique! In other words, samurai learnt ju jitsu as one subject, and chivalry as another. Ju jitsu begins and ends at the art of warfare. Ju jitsu can be broken down into various subjects such as weaponry, hand to hand fighting, horse riding, war strategy etc. Thus bu-jitsu means weapon arts. It is a branch of ju jitsu. All philosophical aspects were taught as chivalry under the auspicis of monks/priests. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

5)::* takes a derogatory tone in discussing jujutsu derivatives hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

This is politics and mearly reflects the modern day status of japanese martial arts taught in the west. Instead of just ju jitsu, aiki-jitsu, and karate-jitsu, there are now many more derivatives that use the name ju jitsu to identify themselves. The reason for this is that ju jitsu is not internationally regulated. Therefore, anyone can learn ju jitsu, karate, aikido, etc and start their own school. Schools that teach many martial arts in one system often use the term ju jitsu, because of convenience. Remember, in japan ju jitsu was an umbrella term under which striking arts and throwing arts and wrist manipulation and grappeling were once taught as a whole. There is a difference between ju jitsu, and schools in which several specializations are combined to make one system. Hence the political un rest. Ju jitsu practitioners do not want themselves mistaken as just grappelers. Brazilian ju jitsu is a school that has become specialized in grappeling. Strictly, it ought to be given a new name to reflect that.

There is also argument about whether ju jitsu should be considered a sport. Again, this links back to japanese pre-1900's culture. The samurai learnt ju jitsu specifically to defend themselves against attack. During this feudal period, samurai would be regularly challenged and attacked. These attacks were mostly armed attacks (ie with weapons). All this changed during the 1600's when the new shogunate declared martial law, and drew up 100's of rules and regulations to control the people. One of these regulations concerned the carrying of weapons inside property. Weapons were forbidden inside a property. This led to the proliferation of hand to hand combat. The ethos howvever did not change. If you were attacked, you would defend yourself meaning to defeat your opponent utterly. Rules during combat did not exist, only etiquette before and after a duel. Thus, those who practice this approach to ju jitsu are un happy that some schools promote sport forms and call them ju jitsu. This includes ultimate fighting, as they too have rules.

What is probably needed to solve these disagreements is to internationally clarify various martial art terms. Sport needs to be separated from traditional ju jitsu. As well as this, for a school to be associated with ju jitsu, it should have a lineage connected directly to one of the old japanese schools. Combining judo, karate, and kung fu into one art should be known by a hybrid name and not associated with ju jitsu. The problem is, ju jitsu as a term has some mystique to it. Most people have heard of it but don't know what it is. Therefore, ju jitsu as a term is an attractive commericial prospect.

For instance, brazilian ju jitsu, would be better defined under a sub-term such as grapple-jitsu. Grapple-jitsu used in competition would be better defined as "grapple-do". In such a way, you could understand that grapple-do would be a sport, and grapple-jitsu would be a derivative of ju jitsu that had no rules, and thus follows pre cultural revolution principles. Unfortunatly, for commercial reasons this is such a logical nomenclature is unlikly to take hold in the west for commercial reasons. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

6)::* does not internally agree on a proper spelling for jujutsu (it's been written as "jiu-jitsu", "ju jitsu", etc.) hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

I'm affraid this anomoly is one of western making. Americans and the british learnt japanese by listening to japanese words and writing them down phonetically. Different scholors interpreted phonetic spellings to there ear, and hence the confusion. Initially the term was coined jiu jitsu. Later it was re-named ju jitsu. That spelling remained until after the first world war. Following this scholors decided on a revised international phonetic standard for japanese written in english. That meant that the term ju jitsu was re named ju jutsu. Of course by then many western schools already used jiu jitsu or ju jitsu, and were unwilling to change. Stuborn lot us ju jitsu practitioners. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

7):the jujutsu as sport section is a total mess and probably should be deleted totally or rewritten from scratch. The rest of the article needs a good hard look and someone needs at least address these points before the tags go down. hateless 08:52, 12 january 2006 (utc)

I think i have dealt with this point above. Its a mess because the ju jitsu communitiy disagree's about it. However i agree that the debate could be better structured for the reader. 129.67.4.64 23:05, 11 February 2006 (utc)

'Bold text'Bold text 129.67.4.64 23:06, 26 February 2006

This entry is wrong in so many ways

View Point 1 Someone who really knows jiu jitsu, judo, BJJ history really needs to rewrite this whole page. Its really innaccurate and way off the mark. Other comments:

1. MMA was not founded by Helio Gracie. Greek Pankration pre-dates it by about 2000+ years.
2. Agree, Combat Jujitsu is barely known in the USA.
3. I have never found any strong studies on the percentage of fights that go to the ground. However, I do have some anecdotal evidence. I randomly collected 100 street fight clips from all over the internet. About 88% of the fights did hit the ground at one point or another. However, many of the clips stopped short before the end, so the actual number could be higher. I think its safe to say, that well over 90% of fights will go to the ground when at least one of the attackers is determined to take it to the ground.

66.27.113.222 00:31, 3 January 2006

View Point 2

My comments to your comment mainly relate to issues surrounding point 3).

There is no accurate statistical evidence concerning the number of fights that end up upon the ground. Obviously not many street encounters end with the participants filling out a questionaire about their tussle. Anybody who uses statistics to justify their point in this regard therfore are making up those statistics mearly to support a viewpoint. It is common knowledge however that fist fights tend to go to the ground unless one or the other protagonists are sufficiently skilled to defeat the opponent with techniques learnt from martial arts. Modern martial arts training is often woefully inadequate to simulate the brutality of a street fight.

In pre-1900's japan, martial arts abilities were of similar fluency as our ability to use computers. The people of feudal japan led active physical lives, and fighting was much more common place than in todays society. Physical disputes were the norm. They were much more skilled at fighting, and hence were able to defeat each other with techniques that today we consider eclectic. We train far less than a samurai would have done. Thus, we can consider our martial arts as a hobby and not as a time consuming life style. Modern martial artist addopt groundfighting in preference to other systems because of the belief that all fights end up on the ground. However, if we trained properly and daily as the samurai did, likly we would have their perspective.

Also it is important to consider weapons in modern day culture. Streetfights often end in stabbings or shootings. Punishment beatings are also fights, but generally disregarded in the statistics. In many large cities, gang warfare utilizes weapons. In those conditions, groundfighting has little application. You might as well go shooting, learn to use a knife, or swing a machette. Dbol 23:31, 11 February 2006

View Point 3

Almost all of the above is irrelevant in the argument of the neutrality or accuracy of the page, let alone jujutsu itself. 65.5.148.130 21:17, 20 February 2006

View Point 4

On view point 3: I would have thought that it is better to have more accurate source material pertaining to the various Schools of Ju Jutsu, even though MMA competitions are strictly not traditional Ju Jutsu. Also, arguments or discussions pertaining to street fights, and the validity claims that X % of fights end up on the ground is not a discussion specific to Ju Jutsu. However, it is a debate that the wider martial arts community shares. It seems to me that the viewpoints listed directly above view point 3 are not irrelevant as asserted by the author of VP 3. Such sweeping black and white statements seem to betray the commentators will to prove her/himself right, as opposed to debating the points in question. It is my view that the accuracy of the Ju Jutsu page will always be in question. Unfortunatly, history is painted by those who's speech survives. I reasoned person will take from the article what he/she finds usefull. When two sides directly disagree, one should not seek to neutralize both arguments and replace them with bland non commital statements. In my view, it is better to leave the disagreement in full view, and allow the reader to make her/his mind up for themselves. Ju Jutsu has not the historical paper trail that you find in the Scientific world for instance. It is not as easy to quote objective articles on the history of a system (for instance). Let a person write inaccurate accounts. Somebody else will then counter that account, hence teaching the person who is mistaken. 129.67.4.64 23:06, 26 February 2006

View Point 5

Regarding the percentage of fights that go to the ground.. that depends on what you mean by "fight" in this instance. In my experience, most people who have ever been in a no-quarter situation (self defence with the outcome being restricted to (a) neutralizing the threat, or (b) sustaining severe injury or dying) will do anything to avoid staying on the ground. Also, considering that a simple head-butt, breaking the jaw, or tearing out the eyes, all generally kosher in many less "domesticated" forms of ju jutsu, will tend to send only one person to the ground, I reiterate that it depends heavily on the definition of "fight". I've seen plenty of kids jump onto each other, one lacking the skill or intent to attack with a finishing blow, the other lacking the skill or motivation to handle the "attacker", both frequently having no awareness of their balance.

Really, the term "ju jutsu" as applied by English-speakers, covers a very wide spectrum of physical activities. Some styles are form-training only, others competition, and yet others intended for no-quarter, with a large number simply being whatever the last Soke who bothered to change it left it as. Some, generally ones such as BJJ, emphasize grapping, submission and ground work. Others deal with armored combat. Some train with full contact at all times; others prohibit any physical contact. In general, ju jutsu appears to not be considered as including weapon arts in the west. This is mostly due to that part of the curriculum not being taught in the west, for much the same reasons as many dojo forego the traditional hakama: adaptation to the modern consumer. Hontai Yoshin ryu is a ju jutsu lineage featuring e.g. six-foot staff; Kukishin ryu is another ju jutsu lineage, featuring e.g. sword, armored grappling, spear, halberd.

In short, as clobbered as this term has gotten (never mind its various spellings, and the resultant variations in pronounciation, of which one of the more common ones comes across as something vulgar related to genitaliae, as I recall), it is unlikely we will ever see this page stabilize in any form that is both useful and NPOV at the same time, unless a consensus can be reached on what the page should cover. Personally, I'd prefer having the page specifically cover ryu-ha that are listed as ju jutsu schools in the Japanese martial art geneologies registry, and have it link to a page covering derivative and mixed arts.

As one person suggested, how about letting ju jutsu be the article about the japanese combat arts who name themselves so, such as Daito, Kukishin, Hontai Yoshin, Tenshin and Asayama Ichiden, and letting the other spellings direct people to articles about the other arts, preferrably cross-linking the articles with a comment about the confusion? 212.169.96.218 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

misc

• 66.27.113.222 00:31, 3 January 2006

Made a small edit, primarily replacing "since most fights end up on the ground anyway" with "arguing that most fights end up on the ground" for npovness. I'm a strong believer in ground-fighting, but I think that the typical "90% of fights end up on the ground" claim is an overstatement. Even my BJJ friends don't think this way.

On a seperate note, does anyone have references for the sport competition section? Blowfish 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What's this part about "Combat Jujitsu" and how it "has recently become very popular in the USA and Russia, where it has begun to displace the older 'Mixed Martial Arts' system"...? What does that even mean? I've never even heard much about this form of jujutsu competition and suddenly it's replacing MMA in the US? Rickygo4th 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Combat ju jitsu is a term someone started to use for their school of ju jitsu. No idea when, and i haven't been able to find out either despite internet searches. Perhaps someone decided not only was their style legitimatly 'ju jitsu', it was useful in combat too. Thats the sales pitch. If you search on the web, you will now find hundreds of schools that are completely unrelated to each other that bear the name combat ju jitsu. Many of these schools tend to concentrate heavily on ground work. It is ironic that ju jitsu was used in pre 1900's japan for nothing else but real combat and not sport lol. Dbol 23:42, 11 February 2006

MMA was founded my Helio Gracie. There is no older version of MMA.--Rickygo4th 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jujutsu practitioners

Are jujutsu practitioners called jujutsuka? Shawnc 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK someone from Japan has informed me that they are. Shawnc 14:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I study Jiu-Jitsu and we call the students 'Jitsuka' 82.3.50.1 11:18, 11 February 2006

The japanese suffix 'ka' translated means 'practitioner' in english. If you call your students 'jitsu-ka', that translated means gobbledigook. Remember that 'jiu jitsu' is one term. Spliting it up into two destroys the meaning. Thus the correct term for martial arts practitioner in japanese is 'ju jitsu ka'. One who studies at the hontai roshin ryu (ryu means school)are hontai roshin ka. Those that study at the kodokan ryu are known as jiu-do ka. Of course in modern times we use the term 'ka' liberally. We say karate-ka or aikido-ka. There are however many branches of aiki jitsu and karate, For instance aiki-do and shotokan respectively. Dbol 23:52, 11 February 2006

I understand that you can split the word as Jitsu/Jutsu means art (or similar) - that is why there are many martial arts that use the word Jutsu, Bo Jutsu, Ken Jutsu. If you look on google there are thousands of pages for the word jitsuka so if it is wrong it is a very common mistake

im a practioner of ju jitsu, the style i train in is shorinji kan. we often refer to it as 'jitsu' though, which on its own means 'the art' so as somebody above said 'jitsuka' is a perfectly acceptable term because it means 'practioner of the art' its not "gobbledigook" but somebody hearing 'jitsuka' may not necessarily know What art you were a practioner of.

Well, as the proper name for the martial art is Ju Jutsu, and not Ju Jitsu, practioners are known as "Jutsuka". Although this may just be a personal bias towards my own ryu. 144.173.6.66 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jujutsu... Jiu-Jitsu?

Perhaps it should be mentioned, that in Germany "jujutsu" and "jiu-jitsu" are different things. There is a contradiction between the english and the german version of this article.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm from Australia, and consider "Jujutsu" to be the family of traditional Japanese arts (e.g. Daito-Ryu Jujutsu, which Aikido's Taijutsu (body techniques) were based on), whereas I would consider "Jiu Jitsu"/"Ju Jitsu" to pertain to BJJ and similar more modern arts. I consider there to be a great difference between the two with Jujutsu focussing largly, I believe, on throws and locks applied to the opponent's arms and wrist, normally from a standing position, contrasting with jiujitsu's focus on ground-fighting and competition. As such, I think there should be two articles - One on traditional Japanese Jujutsu, and one on BJJ, ground-fighting, and perhaps even other forms of wrestling. As there is already an article on BJJ (and another on MMA), I think this article's focus should remain on the traditional Japanese Jujutsu, but "Jiu Jitsu" and "Ju Jitsu" should redirect to the BJJ article, not this one. Or perhaps a disambiguation page is needed... BTW, my experience is in Aikido (1st Kyu), so I don't actually know very much about BJJ. - Dave3141592 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the poster of the original message but anyway: in Germany the term "Jiu Jitsu" refers to traditional forms as well as non-German modern forms of Jujutsu. The term "Ju-Jutsu", on the other hand, in Germany is normally taken to refer to a specific German martial art that was originally based on Judo, Karate, and Aikido, and subsequently also incorporated elements of (somewhat) traditional Jujutsu, Muay Thai, BJJ, Boxing etc. So, basically, the situation is similar to BJJ: it is not exactly a variant of traditional Jujutsu but nevertheless is related to it and shares a lot in common with it. 84.177.108.125 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I was led to believe that when bring in words from foreign languages (not with the same alphabet) there is no correct English spelling. For example you can spell the Russian word Czar or Tsar and neither is incorrect because it is a phonetic translation. The same goes with Jiu Jitsu - our style practices all aspects of jujutsu and does not focus on BJJ but we spell it Jiu Jitsu. What I am trying to say is that in my experience the spelling wasn't necessary to the certain style of jiu jitsu, it was just a spelling preference. 82.3.50.1 11:23, 11 February 20

Hope this helps you,

It is perhaps because in germany two different styles or schools of ju jitsu decided to distiguish themselves by taking different spellings. However, ju and jiu are the same word as are jutsu and jitsu. Internationally accepted phonetic translations of japanese have changed twice since 1905. Ju jutsu is now the official international term for the japanese phrase 'martial arts'. In japan, different schools (or ryu) of ju jitsu took their own names to distinguish themselves. Ju jitsu was the word used generically to mean martial arts. It is a lack of knowledge of the japanese language that has led to many western schools mis-using the word ju jitsu.

The bjj association can call itself jiu jitsu or ju jutsu, which ever it likes, they are both romanized phonetic spellings of the same Japanese phrase. They both simply mean martial arts (or more literally 'the flexible (pliant) art'). Taijutsu is another term the japanese use for Japanese martial arts, much like we use the terms boat and ship interchangably. The japanese had many terms for martial art, of which ju jutsu became the most prevalent. Today we say you study kempo or sambo or ju jitsu. But kempo and sambo are ju jutsu. They are foreign systems of ju jutsu. Wing chun, and praying mantis are also ju jutsu, but only if you speak in japanese. In chinese, the general term for martial arts is gung fu (kung fu)and is used in a similar fashion as Ju Jutsu was used in Japan. It is confusing to distinguish all the japanese terms for martial art from the japanese terms given to distinguish different schools and different styles. All japaneses styles are Ju Jutsu. It is our modern use that is wrong, and creates this confusion. Dbol 00:08, 12 February 2006

I have resolved the issue. The German-language page de:Jiu Jitsu corresponds to the English page Jujutsu, and the German-language page de:Ju-Jutsu now corresponds to a newly created English page, German Ju-Jutsu, which describes the martial art called "Ju-Jutsu" in Germany. Gdm 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Dbol. I live in Japan, and the pronuciation of Jūjutsu is considered correct, though many Japanese people (particularly martial artists I talk to) prefer to say Jūjitsu. The latter pronunciation is not wrong in Japanese or English; it's simply nonstandard and unofficial but part of real langauge. (~~Ejoty~~ 18:40, September 18, 2006)

Ground fighting

I trained with the LAPD training officer who developed their defensive tactics training program. He hired, amongst others, the gracies, and Benny "the jet" to help develop the program. They used medical doctors to help limit liability. This was in response to officer injuries and lawsuits from injured suspects. Dbol 00:11, 12 February 2006

Their study said that 60% of officer incidents of use of force go to the ground. But of course - most of the time officers are trying to get suspects to the ground to facilitate handcuffing. This study, and this statistic have been misused for over a decade to sell groundfighting systems. The number is no where near 80% or the 90% quoted by groundfighting schools.

I have personally trained law enforcement, military, and protective services personell. I have personally witnessed and been involved in breaking up over a dozen "street fights". I have never witnessed one where both participants wound up wrestling on the ground. Frequently one combatent is knocked to the ground where multiple opponents kick him, or the other party walks away.

The only encounters I have seen both parties go to the ground have been law enforcement making an arrest or in the ring in a UFC fight.

Everything below the historical information needs to be edited. It is untruthful at best, written with an agenda, and written in a way that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Marketingcomet 21:56, 9 January 2006

I like this description. Incidently, did benny "the jet" take his nick name from the elton john song or was benny around in the 70's? Dbol 00:11, 12 February 2006

That does sound interesting. Do you have any quotable sources? HaakonKL 14:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)